Sunday, 17 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

My previous blog spoke of Israel hatred at the UN.  But why stop there?

Here, courtesy of Charles Johnson at, is a massive dose of Israel and Jew hatred from a genuine hotbed of both - The University of California - Irvine (if you have trouble seeing the video, click here  :

UC Irvine Muslim Student Union Antisemitic Hatefest, Featuring Cynthia McKinney

US News | Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:00:15 pm PDT


Ive posted many times about the radical Islamic group calling itself the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine; well, theyre at it again, with another anti-Israel extravaganza featuring hate speech and conspiracy theories from the likes of the notorious Cynthia McKinney and the completely insane Abdel Malik Ali: Amir Abdel Malik Ali, a UCI Muslim Student Union Fave, an Anti-Semitic, Homophobic Coward.


A representative of this hate group has posted dozens of videos of the event at Youtube. Whats going on at UC Irvine is almost beyond belief.


Lets cut into McKinneys speech, just as she really gets going into her Jews control Washington rant:

This is what passes for thought at UC-Irvine.  And let's remember that cynthia mckinney was a 6 term congresswoman from Georgia.

Who said there weren't taliban-style madrassahs in the United States?


free` The left have taken over academics, nothing anyone can do about it. (05/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

Swiftboating.  It's a term that has come to mean successfully attacking someone in a vicious and dishonest way.

That's pretty sad, given that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were dramatically more truthful than John Kerry, the guy they went after.  But to read our wonderful "neutral" media you would never know it.

In any event, after the 10,000th or so time the term "swiftboating" was used this way, that's what it came to mean.  And President Obama has no problem whatsoever using it to promote his agenda - as you can see from the following blog, which was written by Steve Gilbert of :

Obama Faces Healthcare Swiftboaters

May 16th, 2009

We have been forwarded an email from Obamas campaign manager political strategist, David Plouffe:


Paul -

We knew health care reform would face fierce opposition and its begun. As we speak, the same people behind the notorious "swiftboat" ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads. Their plan is simple: torpedo health care reform before it sees the light of day by scaring the public and distorting the Presidents approach.

We need the resources to take them head on with an urgent, grassroots campaign to pass real health care reform in 2009.

When the swiftboaters flood the airwaves with distortions, well flood the streets with volunteers armed with facts. When they send lobbyists to tell Congress to back down, well send millions of calls, letters, and stories from real Americans asking them to stand up.

Please donate $5 or more by midnight Sunday to fight back against these phony attacks and take our message of reform to the American people.

The swiftboaters are once again trying to sell the American people short. As during the election, we deserve a serious conversation not fear-mongering and deceit. You and I see the importance of health care reform every day. We cant miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to face one of Americas greatest challenges head on.

Passing real health care reform will be the toughest, most important challenge weve faced together since electing Barack Obama President.

But its also a big reason we fought so hard to get here. I know that by working together, and speaking with one, determined voice, we can prevail over the cynics and defenders of the status quo. Americas families are counting on us to do just that.

Donate $5 or more to defend health care reform today.

Thank you,

David Plouffe

What was the Swiftboaters crime again?

Oh, thats right. They told the truth. And they have never been successfully challenged.

So its clear the Obama administration is promising to do everything in their (and the unions and ACORNs and Soros) power to prevent anyone from telling the truth about the upcoming healthcare reforms.

They have to criminalize the truth. Its the only way they can win.

This administration promised transparency.  And transparency is what we are getting.  It is so transparently dishonest in so many ways that it staggers the imagination.

But, although things may be starting to change (hallelujah) our wonderful "neutral" media has, for the most part, decided not to notice.

free` This administration promised transparency.<<< except with obama's birth certificate or his college records. (05/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

A few days ago I blogged about keith olbermann missing three days of his "Countdown" show and put up an article by which suggested he walked off in a snit because he had Ben Affleck booked, but Affleck somehow wound up on Rachel Maddow's show instead.

Here, via, is olbermann's reaction to this story:

Friday, May 15

Keith Olbermann on "Sleazy Gossip." Dan Abrams Responds

On his show last night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann responded to a story on, about his previously unexplained absence for several nights in late April.


CityFile's story, picked up on a variety of other blogs, quoted insiders who described a booking battle, which Olbermann lost, between Rachel Maddow's staff and Countdown's over Ben Affleck, who was promoting his movie, "State of Play. But Olbermann said his absence was not due to the Affleck booking but because he hit "an emotional wall about my mother's passing," and took a long weekend off, before hitting "another kind of wall over the weekend and by Monday I was in bed with flu or something like it."


Olbermann also mentioned former MSNBC anchor and GM Dan Abrams, brought up in the CityFile story as an example of a previous Olbermann grudge. "Considering Mr. Abrams' irrelevance to the rest of the story, and indeed now to MSNBC, it does rather point a finger towards a small group that could be the 'sources' of this sad, and sadly out-of-touch, gossip," said Olbermann.


Abrams tells TVNewser, "I have no idea why my name came up and knew nothing about Keith's schedule until now. This must be a difficult time for Keith and during these times, we sometimes say things we come to regret."

As for what actually happened with the Affleck booking, Olbermann said: "Ben Affleck had been tentatively booked for Countdown, then wound up on Rachel's show due to some really shoddy work by a fill-in publicist for his latest movie. This double booking stuff happens. It was resolved internally and quickly."

You can decide for yourself if olbermann is telling the truth. 

But while you're deciding, please also note how freely olbermann's bile flows.  This is all because of a small group that holds a grudge, they're sad and sadly out of touch, the Affleck situation was due to some really shoddy work by someone else, etc.

For someone who seemingly cannot stop himself from dishing it out, olbermann has remarkably little talent for taking it.  Wouldn't you say?

Ken Berwitz In my original blog about this incident I expressed my sympathy with olbermann regarding the death of his mother. And meant every word of it. Look back and see for yourself.  Your dismissal of people who criticize olbermann's daily bile-fest (presumably me included) is unfair. olbermann spews vicious hatred on virtually every show, and has a history of reacting childishly to real or imagined "offenses" against him. That said, however, I did not condemn him for this specific incident because I do not know what the truth is.  I suggested that readers decide for themselves. It is a hell of a lot more wiggle room than olbermann gives the people he attacks. (05/17/09)

Ken Berwitz blog reader - Think what you want. (05/17/09)

blog reader I'd be sensitive, too, if my mom had recently died and on top of that, a bunch of internet harpies tried to create the suggestion of workplace infighting by conflating a routine scheduling snafu with a three-day absence. There's a bigger lesson here, though: all bloggers take an indirect hit whenever a few misbehave. Online sites should be sure of the info they post -- even if it's celebrity gossip -- if they ever hope to achieve credibility. It's not up to those written about to disprove the crap that so often gets posted. (05/17/09)

blog reader Adding to another person's already heavy grief by carrying a tale you couldn't confirm more or less canceled out any condolences expressed in this case. And at the end of the day, Ken, it doesn't matter what you think of Olbermann or how fair you think he is. This is your credibility we're talking about, and that's shown in how fairly and compassionately you and your fellow bloggers treat your least favorite subjects because as we all know, anyone who's universally popular can always get the benefit of the doubt. (05/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

How is Barack Obama handling our relationship with Israel?

Anne Bayefsky tells us.  And the story is not a pretty one:

Obamas U.N. Mistake

America is now on a collision course with Israel.

By Anne Bayefsky

In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahus visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesnt fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.

It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.

This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January which said only that The Security Council welcomes the Quartets consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009. Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League most of whom dont recognize the right of Israel to exist and one Jewish state. A great idea if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.

The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Thats a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. Americas U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.

Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israels wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israels position: Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.

By contrast, Rice told reporters: We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrovs initiative to convene the Council, and were very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Councils behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and were pleased with the outcome.

The Obama administrations total disregard of Israels obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international solution down the throat of the only democracy at the table Rice told the Council: The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries . . . must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts. In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop for a price.

On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Councils Western European and Others Group it was a three-state contest for three spaces.

The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:

adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;

entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might require the Councils attention;

held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;

insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;

spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states and even observers like the Palestinians get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.

Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Councils constant anti-Israel barrage.

Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandoras box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.

The UN cannot solve problems anywhere in the world.  In fact it declines to acknowledge that most problems are problems.  But it can spend every hour of every day going after Israel.

And, based on Barack Obama's actions, after 60 years of championing Israel we now have to worry that the United States is going to hand the baton to that same UN.

In the past election, 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.  I hope they are happy with what they got.

Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I am not.

free` The left must be very happy about this. For the life of me i can't figure out why the left hates Israel and sides with the terrorist countries. (05/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

You know that your spending scandal is bad when the Queen of England attacks you for it. 

Here is the story, from London's Daily Mail.  The bold print is mine:

The Queen tells Gordon Brown she is 'deeply troubled' over MPs' expenses

By Simon Walters, Political Editor
Last updated at 11:37 AM on 17th May 2009

The Queen has told Gordon Brown she is worried that the scandalous revelations about MPs' expenses could damage Parliament.

She discussed the explosion of public outrage over the scandal in what is understood to have been a candid exchange of views when she met the Prime Minister for their weekly audience at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday.

Queen's counsel: Her Majesty has been advising Gordon Brown on the future of Parliament

Details of their conversation - which covered the vital need to restore trust in Parliament - came to light as:

  • The identities of the shadowy figures who leaked the MPs' expenses were revealed.
  • Speaker Michael Martin told friends he is ready to quit.
  • A shock new poll put the anti-EU UKIP on course to overtake Labour in next month's European elections.
  • Public demands for criminal charges against at least five expenses-cheat MPs grew.
  • Labour's overall poll rating fell to yet another all-time historic low - just 20 per cent.
  • A Labour MP was discovered to have claimed 125,000 expenses for a run-down garage via his 'office' expenses.
  • Another Labour MP was suspended for claiming 13,000 for a mortgage that had been paid off.

Writing in the News of the World today Gordon Brown said he was 'appalled and angered' by last week's expenses revelations.

He also apologised, on behalf of all parties, to those striving hard in these difficult times that the political system had let them and the public down.

The Prime Minister said he was brought up to believe you did the right thing and that trust, integrity and honesty are the most precious assets of all.

He also said: I want to assure every citizen of my commitment to a complete clean-up of the system. Wherever and whenever immediate disciplinary action is required I will take it.

The bottom line is that any MP who is found to have defied the rules will not be serving in my government.

His comments come as Labour's most generous donors are to withdraw financial support worth millions and called for the arrest of some MPs at the centre of the expenses revelations, according to the Observer.

Gordon Brown said Westminster could not operate like a gentlemans club where MPs or parties alone decide whether tax payers money should be paid back.

Neither Buckingham Palace nor Downing Street would comment on  the conversation between Mr Brown and the Queen, insisting that it remain confidential. However, well-placed sources say the Queen is 'deeply troubled' by the scandal and had made it clear that she feared it could inflict 'long-lasting damage' to the Commons.

'She won't discuss individual MPs but she feels this scandal has done a lot of long-lasting damage,' said the source.

'She is aware the public feel repulsed by this sort of thing. She is conscious there is a recession on.'

An entirely separate source told The Mail on Sunday that the Queen had expressed her 'disappointment' at the expenses disclosures.

(FYI, one of the miscreants in this scandal happens to be Jacqui Smith, the homeland security genius who banned a talk show host, Michael Savage from entering the country - and in so doing, inherently suggested he is comparable to jihadists and murderers.)

While the assessment of what has gone on under the hapless, hopeless Gordon Brown seems right on target, you have to laugh that any admonishment would be coming from the Queen of England. 

According to an article last December published by Agence France-Presse, her annual head of state expenditure last year was 40 million pounds - that's about $60 million dollars.

Now, in fairness, it used to be a ton more.  In 1991-1992 the queen's annual head of state expenditure was a nightmarish 87 million pounds ($130 million dollars).  So it would appear that she has really cut back. 

And that sounds pretty impressive --- unless you also think about the fact that she has virtually nothing to do with governing England and all this money is basically to keep the queen and her family in crowns and gowns and castles and servants and road trips. 

In other words, it is to divert people's attention from reality by perpetuating a silly, antiquated little storybook fantasy about royalty. 

Hmm, I hope what I said doesn't mean that Jacqui Smith will ban me from Britain.

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!!