Saturday, 09 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

Ok, here's what we've been waiting for!!!!!!!

Those wonderful folks at have blessed us with another "topless" picture of Carrie Prejean.  This should prove forever that she's a sinner slut who shamelessly cavorts around with her breasts exposed!!!!!!!

Just so you remember, here is the first picture this site put up of Ms. Prejean.  Better hide the children!!!!




Hmmmmm.  What's that you say?  She isn't exposing her breasts at all, she has her arm over the one breast that could have been visible, but isn't?  Well, that's in the eyes of the beholder, bub. says she's topless, and you have to admit she isn't wearing anything up there --- that we can see, anyway, since her arm is covering the breast area.  So she's topless just like she was standing in front of you with nothing covering either breast.  Got it?


But wait!!  What about this second picture!!!!!!   Maybe you had a problem with the first one, but this'll blow the lid off of everything.  Here it is!!!!!!!!.



Hmmmmmmmmmm, what's that you say?  This picture doesn't show anything more than the first one, maybe even a bit less? 

What's wrong with you anyway? She's a terrible person, isn't she?  She had the unmitigated gall to say that, as a Christian, she believed marriage is one man and one woman, didn't she?  Then, dammit, that picture is TOPLESS!!!   NUDE!!!  For all we know she is standing sideways so that we can't see that she's having sex with two short people, one man and one woman!!!!!

Ok, now a little reality.

Unless this dishonest, obnoxious web site has something a lot more revealing than what you just saw (and if they do, why haven't they shown it yet?), its big, breathless exclusive is comprised of two pictures that not only are not topless (her breasts are covered), but actually show less skin than the bathing suit competition of the Miss USA contest she was in.

FYI - the site didn't stop at posting these two pictures with the ridiculous claim that they are topless.  It also posted extremely embarrassing material from her parents' divorce - material that she had nothing to do with and was only there to hurt her.

And was far from the only one.  The whiney, petulant little jerk perez hilton (mario lavandeira) went on MSNBC and happily told us that he called her "the b word" but was thinking "the c word" - to no response from the interviewer, Norah O'Donnell.  And NBC's Today show did a story on Ms. Prejean which censored that first picture above because, the correspondent intoned with a gravely serious voice, it was "too racy" for the network to air.  Two days later, Today did show the picture, without any explanation about what made it more acceptable after 48 hours.  

What clowns they are.  What whores they are.

Let's be be honest enough to say that the brutal, vicious assault on Carrie Prejean is taking place because she is a devout Christian who had the courage to state her personal view of marriage - a view, it should be noted, that is shared by a substantial majority of the country? 

What this proves is that if you are in the entertainment business, and you are loud and obnoxious enough, you can beat anyone who disagrees with you into submission. 

It seems pretty clear that Ms. Prejean lost the Miss USA contest because she answered a direct question honestly - and, again, gave an answer most people agree with (even the Miss USA audience, judging by the applause her answer got).

But the and hilton perez/mario lavandeira crowd, and their supporters in mainstream media, have no tolerance for her Christian faith or her views on marriage, and are going all out to destroy her any way they can.

Is there any doubt that the next person in an entertainment venue who agrees with Carrie Prejean is likely to be intimidated out of saying so because of what Ms. Prejean has been put through?  Is that good?  Or does it sound like the USSR, circa 1958?

What happened to the country I thought I was living in?


Ken Berwitz

Are the lying, fraudulent Democrats who have railed against waterboarding, even though they knew we were doing it to elicit information from "high value" terrorists, about to start paying for their BS?

John Hinderaker of thinks so.  Here is his analysis:

The Fruits of Hatred

May 8, 2009 Posted by John at 9:22 PM


For anyone who has been paying attention, one of the most striking political phenomena of the last six years has been the degree to which the Left, and over time the Democratic Party, has been swept away by a current of hate. The liberals' animus has been directed largely, but by no means exclusively, at President Bush and his administration. Vast numbers of words have been consumed in trying to diagnose the reasons for this outburst of often-hysterical vitriol, but that topic is far beyond the scope of this post.


Many thought that the liberals' venom would abate with the end of the Bush administration, especially since liberal Democrats now control all the levers of power in Washington. But that has not been the case. Instead, the Democrats' base has howled for "investigations" of alleged Bush-era malfeasance. The party's office-holders needed little encouragement; as Paul has noted, those who refer to President Obama being "pressured" by the left wing of his party fail to appreciate that Obama is the left wing of his party.

So we had the "torture" story--intended by the Democrats to be the torture scandal. The Democrats tried to vilify President Bush and his administration on the ground that they approved the waterboarding, and other relatively rough treatment--the dreaded caterpillar!--of a handful to top-level terrorists. It appears that the Democrats originally intended this agitation to lead to Congressional investigations and, perhaps, criminal prosecutions.

In addition to lacking any merit, the "torture" theme was always stupid from a political perspective, for a number of reasons: 1) the Bush administration's aggressive efforts to root out terrorism were popular, not unpopular; 2) at the time, the Democrats' leaders in Congress were fully on board with being tough on terrorists; 3) the Obama administration, notwithstanding its grandstanding on matters like Guantanamo Bay, has actually kept the bulk of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies in place, and no doubt would be hard on terrorists, just like the Bush administration, if it was necessary to prevent an attack; and 4) by promising a kinder, gentler attitude toward terrorists, the Obama administration virtually guaranteed that it would be blamed, and bitterly so, in the event of a successful terrorist attack.

Which brings us to where we are now. The Democrats' attack on the Bush administration, with respect to "torture," has fizzled out. There will be no criminal investigation or prosecution; Nancy Pelosi is on the defensive due to a CIA leak of what everyone already knew, that she approved of waterboarding when she was on the House Intelligence Committee; polls show that most Americans approve of waterboarding, etc., and the Democrats are trying to forget the whole thing.

The public is left with two conclusions: 1) the Democrats' main indictment of the Bush administration is that it was mean to terrorists, and 2) if terrorists pull off an attack between now and 2012, the kinder and gentler Obama administration will be to blame.

This is a terrible position for the Democrats to be in, and the wound is entirely self-inflicted. We've been waiting for a while for the Democrats to pay a price for their orgy of hatred, and it looks like they finally have.

John hits the nail on the head.

-First off, most people do not have a problem with the waterboarding we did, because they believe that it yielded important information that saved US lives.  They believe this in spite of  the Obama administration's adamant refusal to declassify the documents that would prove it.  The only thing that Obama and holder are accomplishing by withholding these documents is to lose credibility.  

-Secondly, most people have no problem with who was waterboarded.  9/11 "mastermind" khalid sheikh mohammed and osama bin laden confidante abu zubaydah aren't exactly seen as citizen of the year candidates.  In fact, I have a strong suspicion that a lot of us would have preferred a lot more aggressive interrogation techniques than waterboarding.

-Thirdly, they now know that many of the Democrats who are pretending they didn't know waterboarding took place are full of crap.  (Actually, I'm certain most assumed as much even before the damning evidence came out.)

If US political history has shown us anything, it has shown us that big majorities for one party over the other come...and then they go.  With this in mind, you would think there has to be some point when the Democratic party sttarts thinking about the consequences of actions like these; at least in terms of what might happen to them in the next election. 

Maybe being nailed for their waterboarding BS is a wakeup call for them.  We'll see....


Ken Berwitz

David Harsanyi writes for the Denver Post.  His latest column is an attempt to translate what President Obama says so that we can understand its real meaning.

He does a bang-up job.

Here, without further commentary, is Mr. Harsanyi's column:

The Obama Lexicon

By David Harsanyi

Washington always has been a thermonuclear clich generator. But the Obama administration, with all its super-smarts, has taken the exploitation of the euphemism to spectacular new heights.

This week, we learned a bit more about what the terms "sacrifice" (do what we want, you filthy, unpatriotic swine), "era of responsibility" (double the "sacrifice," half the prosperity) and "investments" (we squander money so you don't have to) really mean.

"Transparency" is when Barack Obama promises that the enterprising citizen will be able to track "every dime" of the $787 billion forever-government stimulus bill via a nifty Web site, called (sic).

Reality is when that much-heralded site won't be complete until next spring, when half the stimulus money will have been wasted and... well, it probably won't be especially helpful.

Earl Devaney, the chairman of the "Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board" -- who, to absolutely no one's surprise, admitted this week that fraud is a distinct possibility -- claims the site won't be ready for five months because there isn't enough data storage capacity to hold it all.

"Stimulus": too big for cyberspace.

In the "new era of responsibility," Obama vowed during his campaign that his administration scrupulously would pore over the federal budget "line by line" to extract savings, eradicate waste and find inefficiencies.

After teeing up a record-breaking $3.4 trillion budget -- on top of bailouts, deficits, stimulus packages and other goodies for special friends -- we know that's bunk.

But watching Obama engage in his act of false heroics this week -- claiming that "we" were going to make tough budget cuts by trimming programs no one in this galaxy cares about in an effort to slice a subatomic fraction from the budget that no one will notice -- well, that was a special treat.

When it comes to "investments," the general idea is this: Every unproductive and superfluous job or project that an army of pencil pushers and special interest groups have conjured up needs someone to fund it. And because you won't do it voluntarily, the administration will do it for you in the name of "community."

After all, what other than a top-down economic model could sustain a place called the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, which is in Pennsylvania and services an average of 20 passengers a day?

An Investor's Business Daily analysis found that $154 million in stimulus funds were going to rural airports that hardly anyone uses -- many already receiving subsidies and tax breaks.

Why should taxpayers have an opportunity to buy things they value, go to airports they actually need, and grow the economy as they see fit when we have far smarter congressional Democrats and an extraordinary president to decide what is good for us ahead of time and invest "appropriately"?

Which bring us to "sacrifice." After investing billions of tax dollars in Chrysler -- your average return on this venture will be zero -- the failing company declared faux bankruptcy. The Obama administration then went ahead and made an offer to bondholders -- 33 cents on the dollar -- without allowing a judge to decide what the bonds were really worth.

Well, some of these selfish companies who hold Chrysler's debt (the ones who accepted TARP funding, a subsidiary of Obama Co., went along with the administration) want to head to court to determine the actual worth of the bonds in bankruptcy proceedings.

Obama responded that these firms were "hoping that everyone else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none."

No sacrifices? Everybody else?

So now those who take real risk, who invest real money, who refuse government welfare and create real jobs are selfish. They can be bullied by the president and have their legal contracts arbitrarily dismantled.

Well, at least we're getting a better sense of what Obama means when he speaks.


Ken Berwitz

ACORN is an organization that registers voters.  It is heavily funded by taxpayer money.  That sounds ok, doesn't it? 

Well, maybe not.  Let's fill in a blank or two:

ACORN is an organization that attempts to register voters almost exclusively in places where Democrats would benefit.  It has been charged with numerous instances of fraudulent activity in over a dozen states, and has had numerous instances of its workers admitting to fraudulent activity.

That's a bit different, isn't it? 

But one thing stays exactly the same:  it is heavily funded by taxpayer money.

Another thing you should know is that Barack Obama has been in bed with ACORN for a long time.  And that ACORN worked assiduously to elect Mr. Obama to the presidency.  And that, under President Obama, the taxpayer money continues to flow like water to the bottom of Niagara Falls.

With this in mind, please read the following piece by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal.  It will give you an up-to-date look at how ACORN is behaving  - and who its benefactors continue to be. 

Please read it all -- but pay special attention to the bone-chilling paragraphs I have put in bold print:


MAY 9, 2009

More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light

Congressional Democrats still want the group to be eligible for federal money.


Democrats are split on how to deal with Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that deployed thousands of get-out-the-vote workers last election. State and city Democratic officials -- who've been contending with its many scandals -- are moving against it. Washington Democrats are still sweeping Acorn abuses under a rug.

On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.

Acorn spokesman Scott Levenson calls the Nevada criminal complaint "political grandstanding" and says that any problems were the actions of an unnamed "bad employee." But Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs.

Other Democrats on the ground have complaints. Fred Voight, deputy election commissioner in Philadelphia, protested after Acorn (according to the registrar of voters and his own investigation) submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall. "This has been going on for a number of years," he told CNN in October. St. Louis Democrat Matthew Potter, the city's deputy elections director, had similar complaints.

Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution. In the 2008 election, Acorn's practices led to investigations, some ongoing, in 14 other states.

The stink is bad enough that some congressional Democrats have taken notice. At a March 19 hearing on election problems, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed New York Rep. Gerald Nadler, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to hold a hearing on Acorn. He called the charges against it "serious." Mr. Nadler agreed to consider the request.

Mr. Nadler's office now says there will be no hearing on Acorn because Mr. Conyers has changed his mind. Mr. Conyers's office released a statement on Monday saying that after reviewing "the complaints against Acorn, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." A Democratic staffer told me he believes the House leadership put pressure on Mr. Conyers to back down. Mr. Conyers's office says it is "unaware" of any contacts with House leaders.

Then there's Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Last month, he voted for a committee amendment (to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.) to block groups indicted for voter fraud from receiving federal housing or legal assistance grants. Identical language was passed into law in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Mr. Frank now says he "had not read [the amendment] carefully" before backing it. He gutted the amendment on Thursday, claiming that the language Congress passed just last year is "a violation of the basic principles of due process."

A lot of money is at stake. In the stimulus bill passed by Congress, Acorn is eligible -- along with other activist groups -- to apply for $2 billion in funds to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes. Meanwhile, public records show that last spring the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn, most of which concerned employee withholding.

All of this infuriates Marcel Reid, who, along with seven other national Acorn board members, was removed last year after demanding an audit of the group's books. "Acorn has been hijacked by a power-hungry clique that has its own political and personal agendas," she told me. "We are fighting to take back the group."

Bertha Lewis, the head of Acorn, told me last year before their ouster that the "Acorn Eight" were "obsessed" and "confused." But Anita MonCrief, an Acorn whistleblower, says the problems run deep. Ms. MonCrief worked at Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate, in late 2007. She says its development director, Karen Gillette, told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and also told her to call Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate but who could contribute to Acorn. Project Vote calls her charges "absolutely false." (Ms. Gillette has declined comment.)

Acorn's relationship to the Obama campaign is a matter of public record. Last year, Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group controlling Acorn, was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting them after reporters from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.

Mr. Obama distanced himself from the group's scandals last year, saying "We don't need Acorn's help." Nevertheless, he got his start as a community organizer at Acorn's side. In 1992, he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the new Motor Voter Act -- the very law whose mandated postcard registration system Acorn workers use to flood election offices with bogus registrations.

But Acorn's registration tricks may soon be unnecessary. Congressional Democrats are backing a bill to mandate a nationwide data base to automatically register driver's license holders or recipients of government benefits.

This "would create an engraved invitation for voter fraud," says Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, who points out that these lists are filled with felons and noncitizens who are ineligible to vote. Ironically, in light of its troubles with the law, Acorn was selected in March to assist the U.S. Census in reaching out to minority communities and recruiting census enumerators for the count next year.

As for the Nevada indictment, Acorn isn't worried. "We've had bad publicity before, and all it does is inform the community that we're here working for the community," Bonnie Greathouse, Acorn's head organizer in Nevada, assured the Las Vegas Review-Journal this week. "People always come forward to our defense. We're just community organizers, just like the president used to be."

Do you like what you just read?  I certainly hope not.

Do you understand that ACORN is a fraudulent, dishonest organization that takes taxpayer money for the purpose (other than enriching the pockets of its hierarchy) of registering Democrats -- not voters in general, but Democrats? 

In other words ACORN is a partisan group, which frequently operates outside the law, that we all are subsidizing -- even those of us who do not buy into its partisanship.

And, since the people who benefit from its fraud and partisanship are in control, that money is going to keep flowing right into ACORN's coffers.  No one in the Democratic Party is going to turn off Niagara Falls.

We have a year and a half before we can do anything about this.  Or will the deck have been stacked so completely by that time that we won't be able reverse this even if we want to?


Ken Berwitz

Steve Gilbert, the human ferret who runs, shows which of the many, many Democrats who were briefed on, and therefore knew all about, waterboarding -- including some of the loudest loudmouths ranting against it today, as if they didn't know a thing.  If you have trouble seeing the list, just click here.

Please also note that if you click on Steve's "apparently" link, it will lead you to an article by Josh Gertstein of which confirms Steve's information and references reporting by ABC News as  a source:

More Dems Briefed On Waterboarding

May 8th, 2009

Apparently, members of Congress were briefed about waterboarding by the CIA at least forty times since 2002.

Behold some of the names that appear just on a partial list of from the intelligence report sent to the White House (a pdf file):

(Click on images to enlarge)


You will find some of the biggest blowhards in the Democrat party on the list, including John Murtha, John Rockefeller, Jerrold Nadler and even Keith Ellison.


Will they and of course Ms. Pelosi also be tried for their crimes against humanity?


What lying frauds they are!  With nancy pelosi the biggest liar and fraud of them all.

And the only way they can ever get away with this is through media complicity --- but this time ABC News is reporting their lying and fraud, so at least some of the public will know the truth.

I have to say that, with all my railing about our wonderful "neutral" media, ABC News has emerged as significantly more willing to tell both sides of the story than CBS (which rarely does) or NBC (which seems to revel in its partisanship-posing-as-news).

Good for ABC News.  Its people, especially Jake Tapper, have earned the right to sleep better at night than the other two, because they are trying to be real journalists rather than pimps for one side of the political aisle. 


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of the New York Post, is Alan Dershowitz' attitude about the possibility that President Obama, through Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, is trying to force Israel to deal with Palestinian Arabs by tying it to our policy regarding Iran and the nuclear weapons it is creating:




By Alan M. Dershowitz

Last updated: 1:06 pm
May 9, 2009
Posted: 1:06 pm
May 9, 2009


"The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said, according to sources in Washington. Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians." - Jerusalem Post, May 4


Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is dangerous.

I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.

But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the US - not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:

[Rifsanjani] "boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world."

Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.

In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way - defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.

After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the US were opposed.

Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution - that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.

Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.

Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements.

Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.

My only carp with Mr. Dershowitz's piece concerns Rahm Emanuel.  I'm not at all convinced he is a good man.  And if he is actually tying US policy regarding Iran's nuclear weapons to Israel knuckling under to Barack Obama, he's no friend of Israel either - even if he used to be.

That aside, however, Mr. Dershowitz makes eminently good sense.  Therefore, expect him to be skewered by the Jew-hate....oh, excuse me, Israel haters.  I keep forgetting that they are completely different from one another.

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!!