Wednesday, 27 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

This appeal was sent to me by David Horowitz, on behalf of Joe Kaufman (whom you can read about by clicking here).  I am reprinting it in the hope that readers will consider the facts, think about the alternatives and donate generously.  Thank you.


Dear Freedom Center Supporter,

I have an urgent update for you on the radical Islamic groups who are waging a fight to silence a good friend of the Freedom Center, Joe Kaufman.

Briefly, seven Muslim groups claim that Joe is a threat. They convinced a court that Joe "intends to threaten to take unlawful action... cause bodily injury... or threaten Plaintiffs or their members with immediate bodily injury." On those grounds the court imposed a restraining order on him. In addition, the groups are suing Joe for defamation to stop him from writing about Muslims in the future and to close down his web sites.

Joe's never threatened anyone in his life. He's written well-detailed reports, however, about the growing threat radical Muslims represent and he's identified individuals and organizations in the United States that are supporting our enemies.

The seven Muslim groups who've united to attack Joe and strip him of his rights are well financed and savvy to our court system. There has been a flurry of legal activity as these radicals continue to fuel the fire with senseless demands and accusations - and money. They have deep pockets. They truly believe they can silence Joe by financially breaking him and the Freedom Center's legal team

You see, the Freedom Center's legal team - the Individual Rights Foundation - is handling Joe's defense. But we need your help. Legal fees are mounting. And we're turning to you.

If Joe Kaufman loses, radical Muslims will know they can stop anyone from investigating and writing about any Muslim groups and individuals. This is why I am urgently asking you to make an emergency contribution to help the Freedom Center pay for Joe's defense.

You see, this case is nearly two years old. Yet, the court refuses to toss out the lawsuit, so the case continues. Joe is being represented by a team of lawyers who are generously donating their time. But the other legal costs are considerable.

To date, the Freedom Center has paid more than $30,000 in legal fees. Another $25,000 needs to be paid - and the case has just had another round of oral arguments to add to the legal costs. I'm working hard to raise $45,000 as soon as possible. I can't let this case end with the radical Muslims winning. You see, Joe's not the only one on trial here. The Freedom Center's efforts, the work at Jihad Watch, and the work by many others who are exposing a threat the mainstream media won't touch in jeopardy, as well.

Like Joe, many of the journalists, web publications, and internet watchdogs are doing this out of their passion for freedom and their desire to help protect America from the Islamo-Fascist threat. The case these seven radical Muslim groups have brought against Joe Kaufman is simply the first step in silencing every one of us!

The lawsuit against Joe Kaufman is part of a strategy by these Muslim groups to bully us into silence. That's why we cannot let them win.

I am asking you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more,< /A> to help us raise the $45,000 we need right away to pay for Joe Kaufman's defense. Any amount you can give will help. Please follow this link immediately to give. It's extremely urgent!

Thanks in advance for your support.


David Horowitz
President & Founder

P.S. We must continue to fight for Joe Kaufman. Radical Muslims have already shown they can bully their enemies in courtrooms in Canada and Europe! We cannot let it happen here! We must raise the money needed to win this case. Please follow this link to chip in whatever you can to help us reach our goal of $45,000.


Ken Berwitz

Janet Napolitano, our Secretary of Homeland Security, is not satisfied with falsely accusing Canada of being the entry-point for the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11.  Now she is upset with Canadian media for talking about it.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Read this:

OTTAWA (AP) - U.S. Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano is trying to make amends with Canada for erroneously saying that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists entered the United States through Canada.

Napolitano traveled to Canada for the first time on Wednesday to discuss security issues with Canadian Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan.

Napolitano caused an uproar in Canada last month for saying in an interview that the Sept. 11 terrorists crossed from Canada. The Sept. 11 commission found that none came through Canada. But other extremists have, such as the would-be millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam.

Napolitano said she regrets that the Canadian media only seem to hear her earlier misstatementand she wants to move on.

Sorry Janet.  This isn't the USA media, which would happily have moved on to give you a free pass on your ignorant comment (as proven by the fact that they did).

By the way, to use your own terminology, they weren't terrorists. They were man-made disasterists.  Why don't you tell that to the Canadian press and see what they say.


Ken Berwitz

Most people are aware that Chrysler Corporation, which is now under the thumb of the Obama administration, has informed a large number of dealerships they will be closed. 

Most people probably assume these are weak, underselling dealerships whose closure will therefore strengthen the corporation.

But if you're one of them, I suggest you hold off on that assumption.

From Rick Moran, writing for

May 26, 2009

Did Chrysler play politics with dealer closings?

Rick Moran
Doug Ross has done a little digging and discovered a disturbing pattern in the choices Chrysler (and the Obama administration) made in closing dealerships.

It appears there is a real possibility that if you contributed to Republican candidates or the RNC, your number came up and your dealership was yanked.

Doug explains:

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

In fact, there may have been other criteria involved: politics may have played a part. If this data can be validated, it would appear to be further proof that the Obama administration is willing to step over any line to advance its agenda.

It bodes poorly for America and the rule of law.

Jeez, what a surprise, huh?

Follow the link and take a peak at the dozens of dealers who have been torpedoed by Chrysler and notice that it appears a lot of very big GOP contributors (5 or 6 figure donors) are being financially ruined by Obama and Chrysler.

This is a preliminary study as Doug points out but if Ross was able to find dozens, I suspect there are hundreds who have also been disenfranchised by Obama.

Kind of puts George Joseph's letter we published a while back in a different light, doesn't it? Maybe it's not so mysterious a turn of events after all.

I do not know if what you just read is correct.  But I do know that someone who purports to have cross-checked dealer closings with political donations claims Chrysler appears to systematically be putting Republican-supporting dealers out of business.

Is this worth a serious investigation?  You tell me.

One other thing:  Moran's piece links to a letter from George Joseph, whose family has operated a Chrysler dealership in Melbourne, Florida for 35 years and was told Chrysler was shutting it down.  I posted the letter earlier this month, but maybe you didn't see it at that time.

Before you make any judgement about the likelihood of Chrysler being used as a partisan tool, you owe it to yourself to read what Mr. Joseph wrote.  


Ken Berwitz

I watched the Today Show this morning.  Predictably, the lead story was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom President Obama has nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I noticed that just about every time any criticism of Ms. Sotomayor was cited, Matt Lauer made a point of saying that "conservatives" would be the ones doing the criticizing. 

I was wondering how Today would try to slough off the fact that Ms. Sotomayor has made a number of overtly racist and sexist remarks, in which she suggested she was superior because she was a woman rather than a White male, and because she was of Latino heritage.  Evidently the strategy (and make no mistake, this is a strategy - they are in love with her over there) is to deflect the (very legitimate) criticisms by ascribing them to the people they've already demonized.

This, of course, is both disgraceful and dishonest.  There is no good reason to assume that only conservatives would be against someone this prejudiced.  Aren't liberals and moderates against prejudice?  Why is it expected that they would be ok with prejudice from Sonia Sotomayor?  

But, hey, it's Today.  What do you expect.

I've already written about the comments in question.  But the Washington Times has an excellent editorial this morning which cites them, and also demonstrates Judge Sotomayor's awful decision in the New Haven Firefighter's case - which is still another instance of Ms. Sotomayor exhibiting racial prejudice against Whites.

Read it for yourself.  The bold print is mine:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

EDITORIAL: A judge too far

With his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has abandoned all pretense of being a post-partisan president. While he may like to think of himself as a thoughtful moderate soaring above the issues that divide America, his actions reveal what hides under that hopeful lining.

Presidents usually nominate judges that espouse their philosophy. So what does this nomination tell us about Mr. Obama's true colors?

Even the liberal establishment worries that Judge Sotomayor tilts too far to the left. New Republic essayist Jeffrey Rosen reports that fellow liberals who have watched or worked with her closely "expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and... [they have said] she is 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.' "

A suspiciously high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said that record shows "she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

There will be much to say in days to come about Judge Sotomayor's manifest lack of appropriate judicial restraint and about other problems in her record. For now, though, three red flags beg for attention.

Speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005, Judge Sotomayor said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." On its face, the assertion runs counter to more than 200 years of American legal tradition holding that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law, not actively make policy choices.

Immediately realizing she was on thin ice, the judge continued: ". . . and I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't 'make' law." To much laughter, and with facial and hand gestures to indicate that her next line was to be taken with humor as a useful fiction, she added: "I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it."

But judicial activism is no joke. It undermines the Constitution and substitutes judicial whim for democratic decision-making. Unelected judges, answerable to no one but themselves and serving for life, can all too easily become dangerous oligarchs.

Judge Sotomayor seems to think that inherent racial and sexual differences are not simply quirks of genetics, but make some better than others. Consider her 2002 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

She also accepted as potentially valid the idea that the "different perspectives" of "men and women of color" are due to "basic differences in logic in reasoning" due to "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

If a white male had said these openly racialist words in a prepared speech, his chances of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court would be gone in an instant. Instead, it seems that these outlandish remarks are what qualified Judge Sotomayor in Mr. Obama's eyes.

Judge Sotomayor seems to favor racial discrimination. Consider the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. In that controversial case, 19 white firemen were denied promotion because no blacks scored high enough on a race-neutral test to also be promoted. Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters.

If Mr. Obama wanted a judge with the right "empathy," he struck out with Judge Sotomayor. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion - but then was denied, simply because he is white.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by a Democratic president, complained that the ruling written by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case."

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Ricci v. DeStefano before the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join.

Judge Sotomayor seems to be the most radical person ever nominated for the high court. To continue to command public respect, the Senate will have to ask her some hard questions. The simplest one to ask will be the hardest one for her to answer: Given her statements against whites and males, can she be fair to all Americans?

Suppose I told you that a Black firefighter with a learning disability quit a second job and spent $1,000 on instruction materials to overcome that disability and qualify for a promotion - no special privileges, just take the same test everyone else was given.  Suppose I told you he successfully did so, finishing well within the range that would get him the promotion.  Now suppose I told you he was denied the promotion specifically because he and the other successful candidates were the wrong color. 

Would you be outraged?  I hope so.  Because you should be outraged at that kind of in-your-face racism.  But Judge Sonia Sotomayor, given the exact same situation with a White firefighter, not only was not outraged, but ruled against him. 

Would she have ruled against the disabled Black firefighter in my example?  Would she have ruled against a disabled female firefighter?  Well, read her comments about White males and draw the logical conclusion.

All this said, I do not believe Republicans have the will or principle to oppose Ms. Sotomayor - at least not so far.  That in itself is a pretty damning statement about Republicans.  They are all too willing to play politics with this nomination and pander to Latino voters who, they think, care less about Judge Sotomayor's attitudes than they do about "one of their own" being on the Supreme Court.

The best thing I can say about Republicans' motives is that maybe they know of other racist and sexist statements she has made, so they are positioning themselves as willing to vote for her at this point but will decline to do so when those other statements come out.  That's a pretty thin thread, but it might be their game.

My problem with this possible strategy is that what Ms. Sotomayor has already said should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be better - much better - if they were principled enough to say as much and vote accordingly?

This is the worst kind of politics.  And, as you can see, both sides play it.


Ken Berwitz

Want another reason not to accept Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice?

Read this excerpt from Judge Sotomayor's American Bar Association profile:

 She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Womens Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. .

Let's put aside the fact that Ms. Sotomayor belongs to every ethnic/gender group she can find.  Let's just talk about the National Council of La Raza.

Do you know what La Raza ("The Race") is?  What it means?  What it believes?

Here are excerpts from an article written by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga) which explains what La Raza is and what it wants.  The bold print is mine:

Exclusive: The Truth About 'La Raza'

by  Rep. Charlie Norwood



Radical 'Reconquista' Agenda

There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall "La Raza" movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza -- the Council of "The Race".


Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn't at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as "Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to "La Raza" once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished.

This plan is what is referred to as the "Reconquista" or reconquest, of the Western U.S.

But it won't end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of "Aztlan."

As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

How do you feel about this?  How do you feel about a justice of the United States Supreme Court with this affiliation?

This morning, on the Today Show, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York informed me that Judge Sotomayor was a moderate.  If I had any doubt about what a lying windbag Schumer was before hearing this BS, I can assure you I have none now.

She is not a moderate.  She is not even a liberal or a leftist (I distinguish between the two).  She is a hard left La Raza activist. 

Sonia Sotomayor has no business being on any judicial bench, let alone the United States Supreme Court.



Ken Berwitz

We just received this email from the (corrupt) Senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez.

The text of his email is in maroon.  My responses are in blue.

Tuesday was a historic day: President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the United States Supreme Court. I am thrilled the president has chosen such a qualified nominee and, at the same time, moved toward a Supreme Court that looks more like America. Judge Sotomayor would be the first Latina, and only the third woman, to serve on the nation's highest court.  What does more like America mean, other than being code words for its not a White male, isnt that great?  Well, it isnt great.  Its selection by race and gender.  Evidently for the Menendez crowd, racism is odious and despicable unless it benefits a minority, in which case it is wonderful and glorious.  Hypocrites.

Judge Sotomayor's vast knowledge of the law, excellent temperament and lifetime of experiences make her a great choice
. Her temperament is very much in question.  I blogged about it just yesterday.  She's authored about 400 legal opinions, and she understands how laws affect people, businesses and government. Judge Sotomayor has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past century and has garnered bipartisan support: She was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush and the Second Circuit by President Bill Clinton.  The George H.W. Bush appointment is technically accurate.  But it doesnt mean she was a bipartisan selection at all.  Bush appointed her at the request of New Yorks Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  It was a gesture of collegiality and good will try and find either in this administration.

Despite all of her qualifications, Republicans stand ready to obstruct. On Tuesday, de facto party spokesman Rush Limbaugh went so far as to accuse President Obama, and Judge Sotomayor, of racism. "Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he's appointed one ... Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. Limbaugh is absolutely correct.  She is a racist.  She has made several overtly racist statements implying that, because she is Latino and female her judgement is superior to that of White males.  She also belongs to La Raza, which is an overtly racist organization.  Notice that Menendez doesnt tell you why the claim of racism is made because to do so would require citing her comments, which would make Rush Limbaughs point for him.

With statements like that from Limbaugh, we can expect to have a fight on our hands. You can be assured, however, that the DSCC, the branch of the Democratic Party solely dedicated to electing more Democrats to the Senate, is working hard every day to elect senators who will give President Obama's nominees a fair hearing. It's what America expects of us. 
A fair hearing i.e. a hearing that treated Sonia Sotomayors racism as racism - would disqualify her in two seconds flat.

Robert Menendez

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!!