Wednesday, 13 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

Do you like simple explanations that bring things into focus? 

From Richard Baehr at

May 13, 2009

The Circle of Life in Gaza

Richard Baehr

A classic video. In 1 minute and 22 seconds, everything you need to know about alleged Israeli atrocities.




Ken Berwitz

Remember when racial segregation meant White people separating Black people away from them?  That was wrong, disgraceful and despicable.  Just as it is now.

But over recent years a new kind of racial segregation has evolved, in which Blacks are separated away from Whites for reasons that some well meaning, but incredibly mistaken, people of both races fantasize as being positive in some way.

Let me give you an example.  Here, courtesy of, is a situation that is specifically related to that well meaning but incredibly mistaken outlook:


White African-American boy not 'black' enough for award
National debate sparked after Caucasian student seeking 'race-based honor' booted out of school

Posted: January 25, 2004
3:37 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs


The Omaha suspension of a white high-school student originally from South Africa is sending shock waves across America as debate rages over who can claim rights to the term "African-American."

The case centers on Trevor Richards, a junior at Westside High School, who moved from Johannesburg to Nebraska six years ago.

Richards and his classmates, 16-year-old twins Paul and Scott Rambo, were booted from classes last week after distributing posters touting Trevor as a candidate for Westside High's "Distinguished African-American Student" award on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.


"The posters were intended to be satire on the term African-American," Scott Rambo told the Omaha World-Herald.


Principal John Crook says the posters were disruptive.


"It was offensive to the individual being honored, to people who work here and to some students," Crook told the paper. "My role is to make sure we have a safe environment, physically and psychologically. We can't allow that kind of thing to be hung up on our walls."


Records from 2002-2003 indicate only 56 of Westside's 1,632 students were black, and some in this year's student body were reportedly upset by Richards' poster.


Ironically, the first two recipients of the student award were white.


"It was not intended at the beginning to be one race only," Clidie Cook, who helps organize the annual event, told the World-Herald.


But Westside officials pushed to change that, feeling the spirit of the honor meant giving it to a black student, and by 2001, the ministerial alliance in charge specified it was for blacks only.


Since the suspensions last week, the issue has been picked up by the Associated Press wire service, and has become a hot topic for columnists, talk radio and Internet messageboards.


"There is no room at the inn for the viewpoints of conservatives, libertarians, Christians, or constitutionalists in the public indoctrination system," says David Huntwork, a conservative activist in Fort Collins, Colo., who criticized the squashing of "this gallant expression of grassroots activism."



A question for you:  Is Trevor Richards an African American?

It depends on how you look at it:

-He is White, and that term specifically relates to non-Whites.  So he isn/t

-He is an African and now in America.  So he is.

Hmmm, this is not as easy as it might have seemed.....

Ok, I admit that's a tough one.  So let me ask you an easier question:  Why is there a "Distinguished African American Student" award?  Why is Principal John Crook separating Blacks from Whites this way? 

Does Westside High School also have a "Distinguished European American Student" award on George Washington's birthday, that is restricted only to Whites, the way the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day award is restricted only to Blacks?  And why not a Distinguished Irish American Student award on Saint Patrick's day.  Or a "Distinguished Jewish American" award on Chanukah?

The bottom line is that this is racism.  It is racial segregation.  It may appear to be well intentioned.  But it is incredibly mistaken. 

It singles out Black people by creating an award that one of them has to win because all Whites have been eliminated.  Is that supposed to make the winner feel good about him/herself?  Or does it make the winner feel inferior because 97% of the school population was segregated out of the competition?

I strongly suspect that the White student, Trevor Richards, was not a sincere candidate, and was just acting like a wise-ass.  But who gave him the opening?  The answer:  a well intentioned, but incredibly mistaken, Principal who thinks he is doing something positive by separating the races.

Wrong.  Disgraceful.  Despicable.  Just as it always has been.

free` I am sick of hyphenated-Americans. (05/13/09)


Ken Berwitz

It isn't easy chronicling the reasons I call Vice President Joe Biden "Jackass Joe".  I have just so much time to blog.

Illustratively, one true classic was his incredible ignorance regarding the duties of the Vice Presidency, which Mr. Biden loudly and proudly displayed during his debate with Sarah Palin -- and which our wonderful "neutral" media gave him a virtual free pass on (what else is new?)

Plainly speaking, Joe Biden is a walking gaffe machine, a bloated ego with a depressed capability and, generally, someone who should not be anywhere near serious decision making.

With that in mind, prepare to cringe as you read this excerpt from an article in today's Washington Post:

Obama Enlists Biden's Expertise About High Court

By Michael A. Fletcher

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 11, 2009


The person in the White House most knowledgeable about Supreme Court nominations sits in the vice president's office.


With President Obama filling his first high court vacancy with the retirement of Justice David H. Souter, Vice President Biden finds himself regularly consulting with the president and fielding queries from the White House counsel and others for insights on the process.


"The president is basically taking advantage of my experiences by asking me nuanced questions about both individuals and timing," Biden said in an interview Friday. "We've gone through specific nominees, which we're burrowing in on."


A former head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden chaired half a dozen Supreme Court confirmation hearings and voted on every sitting justice with the exception of John Paul Stevens. His feel for the personalities, complexities and sensitivities of the process has been forged during some of the most explosive confirmation battles, including those of Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Robert H. Bork, the conservative legal scholar who was rejected by the Senate.


Although Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is leading the search, which is being run through the White House counsel's office, Biden and the president have gone over lists of potential nominees, discussed the best ways to approach senators about a prospective pick, and talked about when it would be best to announce a choice.


For Biden, the consultative role is part of his expanding portfolio as Obama's all-purpose adviser, globe-trotting emissary and political handyman.


It has been said that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.  But what's the proverb when the one-eyed guy doesn't have a clue what he is seeing, but convinces himself he's got 20-20 vision?

Look, it is not out of the question that a decent supreme court judge nominee will be settled on by Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Mr. Emanuel and whomever else is in the process.  Though I'm more than a little apprehensive, it is only fair to reserve judgement until we see a name. 

What's that saying about even a broken clock being right twice a day?  Let's hope against hope that this is the time.


Ken Berwitz

My pal Russ just sent me this.  He says it's an old joke, (personally, I never saw it before). 

It is crude, but funny as hell.  So, with apologies if you are offended, I'm posting it. 

A woman arrived at a party and while scanning the guests, spotted an attractive man standing alone. She approached him, smiled and said, "Hello. My name is  Carmen."
"That's a beautiful name," he replied. "Is it a family name?"
"No," she answered. As a matter of fact I gave it to myself. It represents the things that I enjoy the most - cars and men. Therefore, I chose "Carmen." What's your name?"
"B.J. Titsengolf."

Ok.  Now back to politics.....


Ken Berwitz

If you are of a certain age you probably have heard of cat stevens (real name:  steven georgiou).  He was a very successful singer in the late 1960's and 1970's, who dropped out of the entertainment business and became a devout radical Muslim. 

Not a devout Muslim, a devout radical Muslim. 

So much so that stevens, by then calling himself yusef islam, was refused entry into the United States 5 years ago because of his ties to radical islamic groups and his fundraising for hamas.  (I assume I don't have to educate you on what he thinks of Jews).

Well, he's back.  He's recorded a new album.  And, somehow, he again is being allowed in the USA --- where he is being lionized by the Hollywood brain stem set.

Columnist/investigative journalist Debbie Schlussel has the details.  Please read not only her expos of stevens, but the links she provides which fully reference what she says:

May 13, 2009

Hollywood Gushes Over HAMAS Money-Mule, Rushdie Fatwah Supporter Cat Stevens

By Debbie Schlussel


I've written a lot about Yusuf Islam a/k/a Cat Stevens a/k/a Steven Georgiou, on this site over the years.


As I've noted the man served as a HAMAS financier and money-mule, who delivered money to HAMASniks in Israel, so they could carry out their terrorist attacks against Jews and other innocent civilians. As I've also noted, he was a strong supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini's death fatwa on Salman Rushdie. And he authored anti-Semitic pamphlets and was the keynote speaker at a veritable G-20 of Islamic terrorist groups. A map on his charity website had no Israel on it.


Initially, America did the right thing and refused entry to this pan-barbarian, turning his plane away. But, sadly, our government--under President Bush, the "counterterrorism" Prez--backed down to pan-Islamic political correctness and granted Islam visas to enter America, taking him off the no-fly list.


Even more sad, but just as predictable, a B-list Who's Who of Hollywood went to hear Islam at his concert last night in Los Angeles, gushing over this extremist and terrorist.


The invitation-only show at El Rey Theatre was filled with enthusiastic radio contest winners, music business insiders and celebrities, including singers Van Morrison and Josh Groban, film producers Steve Bing and Mitch Glazer (with actress wife Kelly Lynch) and actress Rosanna Arquette. . . .


Colin Farrell, who wasn't yet born when Cat Stevens withdrew from the global stage, sat in the first row sipping Red Bull and cheering. "It was beautiful to be in his company for a while," Farrell said afterward, adding that he'd been introduced to Cat Stevens tunes in the mid-'90s while living in Australia. "His music is evocative for a special period in my life."




And all of the tv talk shows are chomping at the bit for their favorite HAMAS king of pop:


He'll appear Wednesday on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Thursday on The Colbert Report and Friday on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.


But don't expect any of them to ask Islam a thing about his pan-terrorist activities and behavior. They'll be more concerned with giving him verbal Lewinskys about songs like "Peace Train," which weren't good when they are hits, and fast became sadly stale and phony since.


Peace Train, my ass. More like, let's blow up the train--there are dirty Jews on it.

Do you realize how many of these these idiots are proud to champion people like castro, and chavez, and michael moore, and anyone else they can find who hates the USA loudly enough? 

Well, now they have another hero:  the radical islamic, USA-hating,  Israel-hating, Jew-hating yusef islam/cat stevens/steven georgiou.  And they come running, like the good little brain stems they are.

It is to puke.

Oh, one other thing:  if you ever wondered why you should be wary of, go there, read the extensive material they have on this sack of manure, and try to find any of what you just read here.  Try to find anything besides love and kisses for him.

Lotsa luck.


UPDATE:  I just watched the cat stevens segment on the Tonight Show - not for the blog, but only because, by happenstance, I'm pulling an all-nighter to finish a report for an international client, so I'm up anyway.

Debbie was 100% correct.  stevens sang a song at the very end of the show, and they signed off right afterwards.  No interview, no questions, no nothing.  Was that a coincidence?  Or was this hate-filled sack of manure intentionally put on at the end, to give him protected species status?  Your call


Ken Berwitz

If you're going to pour trillions of dollars down a black hole, and call almost one trillion of it a "stimulus package", then it had damn well better stimulate something.

Is it?  Is the economy being stimulated?

Well, read this excerpt from an Associated Press article - then you tell me:

WASHINGTON Retail sales fell for a second straight month in April, a disappointing performance that raised doubts about whether consumers were regaining their desire to shop. A rebound in consumer demand is a necessary ingredient for ending the recession.


The Commerce Department said Wednesday that retail sales fell 0.4 percent last month. Many economists had expected a flat reading, and the April weakness followed a 1.3 percent drop in March that was worse than first estimated.


Retail sales had posted gains in January and February after falling for six straight months, raising hopes that the all-important consumer sector of the economy might be stabilizing. But the setbacks in March and April could darken some forecasts because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of economic activity.


The hope had been that consumers were starting to feel better about spending, helped by the start of tax breaks included in the $787 billion stimulus bill. Households had spent the fall hunkered down in the face of thousands of job layoffs and the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.


The latest retail data "are yet another illustration that, although the worst is now over, there is still no evidence of an actual recovery," Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics in Toronto, wrote in a research note.


While anecdotal evidence suggests some improvement in sales in recent weeks, "to offset the plunge in wealth, the household saving rate still needs to double from the current rate of 4 percent," Dales wrote. "With falling employment hitting incomes, this can only be achieved by a further retrenchment in spending."


The jobless rate rose to 8.9 percent in April when a net total of 539,000 jobs were lost and 13.7 million people were unemployed, the Labor Department said last week.

Reminding you: 

-The "stimulus package" was created with absolutely no Republican input.  Republicans were not invited to the table at all, not even to be patronized and then ignored; 

-It passed through the house of representatives without a single Republican vote - only Democrats supported it; 

-It then passed through the senate with only 3 of 41 Republicans voting for it - one of whom is now a Democrat, so make that 2 of 41.

So tell me:  who is Obama and Co. going to blame the failure (so far) of the stimulus package on?  BUSH?  REPUBLICANS?

I, and numerous other bloggers, talked about the absolutely ridiculous expectations of a "stimulus package" that would belch money in every direction for years to come, but didn't appear to have any ability to "stimulate" a thing in the short term -- other than the level of debt we are saddling our children and grandchildren with. 

Maybe now our wonderful "neutral" media would like to catch up -- if they're not too busy writing Barack Obama's hagiography, that is.


Ken Berwitz

Here is Mr. Bozell's column, from  No additional comments from me, because none are needed.

Bozell Column: Weak Knees at the White House

By Brent Bozell (Bio | Archive)
May 12, 2009 - 22:03 ET

The raucous sound of applause for President Obama when he spoke at the White House Correspondents Dinner underlined what could be the news medias motto: "You had us at Hello." They shamelessly cheered and screamed even louder when he only half-joked "I am Barack Obama. Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me."

The public should wonder: Are the media too personally infatuated with this president? A recent video even showed the White House press corps standing up in homage when President Obama entered the briefing room a definite, emotional break with the normal, disinterested stay-seated routine for that room. Any sense of detachment is utterly missing, even in their body language.

In the medias own mythology, they are the constant, unbending defenders of democracy who "speak truth to power" and refuse to act as a "stenographer" for the power elite. In the unfolding reality, our national press has become one giant....poodle to this president.

Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center has finished a new report titled "Cheerleaders for the Revolution," examining the network TV coverage of Obama during his first 100 days. The results are pathetic. What were seeing arent reporters. They are walking, talking press releases.

President Obama is very rapidly transforming American government into a European socialist model, and the study found that no network used the word "socialist" to describe Obamas plans. So is he a far-leftist? No. A leftist? No. They couldnt even call him a "liberal" as he took over banks and car companies and started firing CEOs and micromanaging bankruptcies to enable his campaign funders in the auto-worker unions.

Truth is the first casualty of their affections. Take the Obama budget. It carries an astounding price tag of $3.5 trillion dollars, with an expected of deficit of $1.75 trillion, or half the entire budget. Under Obamas budget plans, the national debt would explode to more than $20 trillion by 2019, the Congressional Budget Office determined. But in the four days leading up to Obamas putative State of the Union speech, as he organized fatuous "fiscal responsibility" events, the obsequious network evening newscasts painted the President more as a deficit fighter 83 percent of the time. Only in 17 percent of the soundbites was he painted as a big spender.

Their choice of stories was very selective. The networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the "infuriated" reaction to business than criticized politicians grandstanding. The networks spent days decrying AIGs $165 million in bonuses, but spiked the $210 million handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses. CBS gave it a whopping 27 seconds.

On every issue, the networks showered Obama with praise. The networks applauded Obamas decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research. "Scientists tonight tell us they are overjoyed by the news, saying Monday will be a great day for science and for patients," cooed ABCs Lisa Stark.

The networks piled on the positives for the presidents actions on global warming. When Obama demanded higher fuel-economy standards for cars, "The change in course delighted the Presidents audience of long-suffering environmental activists," CBSs Chip Reid reported.

Even President Obamas decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous positive coverage a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bushs successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago. The networks offered praise for Obamas surge, even as Obama had opposed Bushs Iraq surge.

On issue after issue, too many stories offered the opinions of only Obama and his minions. Critics were scarce.

Its not surprising that most presidents get a honeymoon in the early months. But Obamas TV news coverage has been better than any other modern president has received. The networks assaulted the tax-cut proposals of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush right away. The anchormen pressured George H. W. Bush to read their lips and abandon his "no new taxes" in the first 100 days. Even Bill Clinton drew some negative coverage from TV news stars disappointed at his clumsy Cabinet picking and front-loading the issue of gays in the military.

But Obama is a savior a savior of the economy, a savior of the environment, and a savior of Americas confidence and its reputation around the globe. Those screams and cheers at the White House correspondents dinner are just a tiny bit more pronounced than the "news" that anchors and reporters have offered every day, in every way.




Ken Berwitz

The following is a complete Associated Press article about the scaling down of global warming-related legislation.

Usually, in order to try to accommodate the AP's proprietorship of its materials I only show a segment, and add a link to the entire story.  But this time I can't, because there is a point that can only be made by posting every word.

So here it is:

House Dems scale back plans to curb global warming

May 12, 9:12 PM (ET)

By DINA WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders are scaling back plans to curb global warming and make the transition to cleaner energy in the hopes that they can get a bill passed this year.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., announced Tuesday evening the outlines of a deal that they said would ensure the legislation will please both environmental and industry groups and have the support of moderate Democrats on the House Energy Committee.

To do so, they have lowered targets for renewable energy, will require a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming, and will give away valuable permits to release pollution to electricity distribution companies and auto manufacturers.

"We have resolved a good number of the issues," said Waxman, who chairs the panel and has set a Memorial Day deadline for it to clear the committee. "I believe we will have the votes for passage of this bill next week."

The bill - the American Clean Energy and Security Act - would place a limit on heat-trapping gases for the first time and reduce fossil fuel use by boosting energy efficiency and requiring more electricity to be produced from renewable sources.

While these goals are endorsed by President Barack Obama, the legislation faced opposition from fellow Democrats in coal, oil and industrial states, jeopardizing its chances of making it out of committee.

Last week, Obama invited all three dozen Democrats on the panel to the White House to help forge a consensus.

Initially, the bill called for electricity producers to generate 25 percent of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2025. That target has been lowered to 15 percent by 2020, with as much as 5 percent coming from improvements in energy efficiency.

The deal also makes more modest cuts in greenhouse gases. The draft unveiled in March called for a 20 percent reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming. The version that will be unveiled later this week will call for a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.

While that early pollution goal goes further than the president has called for, it still falls short of what other countries are calling on the United States to commit to by December, when a new international agreement to reduce global warming pollution will be negotiated in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Other details of the bill still need to be worked out, such as how the allowances to emit greenhouse gases will be distributed. Obama has called for a 100 percent auction and would use the billions in revenue to help fund renewable energy technologies and to offset higher energy prices for middle-class households.

Waxman said Tuesday that the Democrats on the committee had agreed to give 35 percent of the allowances away for free to local electricity distribution companies to help ease costs. Allowances will also be doled out to auto manufacturers to help them develop cleaner cars.

"It is still a work in progress," said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., at the conclusion of a meeting Tuesday of the panel's Democrats. Boucher, who hails from a coal-producing district, has spearheaded negotiations on behalf of moderate Democrats and is one of the swing votes.

"Members are still working their way to individual conclusions on matters," he said.


Did you notice the absence of any group in this article?  Is there any group - in its entirety - that is neither represented, nor consulted, nor so much as mentioned here?

Let me ask more directly:  do you see the word "Republican" anywhere? 

Maybe it's just my poor eyesight, but I don't.  Not even once.

I recognize that Democrats have won a substantial majority in the house.  I recognize that to the victors go the spoils.  I recognize that Democrats should have the larger, and final, say on legislation for this reason.  Fair enough.

But I do not accept the premise that Republicans have no say at all.  And this article indicates that they do not. 

Majority notwithstanding, there are almost 200 Republican congresspeople in the house, and they represent parts of just about every state in the union.  If the idea is that they are completely shut out by Democrats, then Democrats have a lousy, unconscionable idea.

I would hope that our wonderful "neutral" media feel the same way and would least pay a little attention to Republicans being shut out of the global warming legislation.  But not if this article is any indication.  

The byline says that it was written by Dina Washington.  Add an "h" and you get Dinah Washington, the late, great singer.  Maybe the journalistic Ms. Washington should reflect on the fact that if the other Ms. Washington sang only half the words, she would eventually have been booed off the stage.

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!!