Tuesday, 07 July 2009

THE JULY 4TH TEA PARTIES...AKA NEWS THAT WASN'T REPORTED

Ken Berwitz

Did you even know they ran tea parties around the country on July 4th?  I'll bet you didn't see any significant coverage of them, probably none at all.

With that in mind, here is Michelle Malkin's report of the Dallas Tea Party:

37,000 at Dallas Tea Party and next steps

By Michelle Malkin    July 6, 2009 11:59 AM

 

I returned from the Dallas Tea Party this weekend inspired and motivated by the massive turnout of citizen activists. The official county estimate of the day-long events crowd: 37,000!

 

The Tea Party organizers arent surprised by the MSM games of lowballing numbers. And they are not letting it distract them from their agenda. Behind the scenes, they are mobilizing and organizing their troops; connecting political newcomers and old hands; and working hard down at the local level to restore conservative values and principles in their city councils and state legislatures. These efforts wont make front-page headlines or the cable news. But they will yield dividends for all of us in the form of candidates, initiatives, and reforms driven by the grass-roots instead of the Beltway establishment.

 

***

Glenn Reynolds has terrific photos and round-up links to other Tea Party events here, here, and here.

Asking again:  Did you even know the tea parties took place, or did our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media ignore them completely?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


FROM THE MAN WHO COULD HAVE BEEN OUR PRESIDENT......

Ken Berwitz

Would you compare someone who doesn't buy into global warming to a nazi? 

Before you attack me for asking such a consummately dumb question, please note that it is not me doing the asking.  The following article comes from today's edition of the Times of London:

Al Gore: Climate-Change Fight Like Battle Against Nazis

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Al Gore on Tuesday compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis.

The former vice president said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.

He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.

Speaking at Britain's Oxford University at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by the Times of London, Gore said, "Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilization in World War II."

He added, "We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource."

Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany.

Click here to read the rest of this story in the Times of London.

Think about the fact that this man could have been President of the United States.

Yikes.

BOBW AL GORE IS THE WHITE REV. SHARPTON- LOOKING TO CREATE SOMETHING FROM NOTHING TO MAKE A BUCK GORE IS AN IDIOT OF THE FIRST DEGREE AND NOTHING THIS FAT FROG SAYS MAKES ANY SENSE TO ANYONE EXCEPT TIPPER (MAYBE) (07/07/09)


DO YOU WANT THIS MINDSET ON THE SUPREME COURT?

Ken Berwitz

The following blog was written by Connie Hair at www.humanevents.com.  Please read it through - with very special thanks to Senator John Kyl - and think about whether this is who you want as a Supreme Court Justice:

Sotomayor Comes into Focus

by  Connie Hair

07/07/2009

 

Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor told the Puerto Rican ACLU that U.S. judges should consider foreign law in deciding unsettled issues.

In an April speech, Judge Sotomayor said:

 

[I]nternational law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system....It is my hope that judges everywhere will continue to do so because . . . within the American legal system were commanded to interpret our law in the best way we can, and that means looking to what other, anyone, has said to see if it has persuasive value.

 

What anyone has said?

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona yesterday spoke from the Senate floor about these and other disturbing statements made by the nominee.

What on earth does this have to do with judging? Kyl said. Asking what anyone has said to see if it has persuasive value? How about using traditional rules of construction, precedents, and other judicial tests based on our common law heritage?

Judge Sotomayor also reveals that she believes foreign law is a source for good ideas that can set our creative juices flowing, Kyl continued. Deciding an anti-trust case, or a commerce clause dispute, or an Indian law issue, or an establishment of religion case does not require creative juices. Indeed, it could interfere with specific rules of construction or application of precedent.

But Judge Sotomayor says that not considering foreign law would be asking American judges to close their minds to good ideas, Kyl said. What is close-minded about requiring that American judges interpret our laws and our Constitution? Thats what they take their oath of office to do!

Lets also remember that Judge Sotomayor has previously stated that appellate courts are where policy is made, Kyl added. When you combine the notion that judges may usurp the legislative power of policymaking with the view that foreign law is an incubator of creative ideas for a judge to employ as he or she sees fit, you open the door to the worst form of judicial activism -- one completely untethered from American legal principles.

Judges do not have the responsibility of finding new, good ideas that would make good policy, Kyl said. That is the role for our elected representatives. The ideas expressed by Judge Sotomayor threaten to undermine a system that has served us well for more than two centuries.

Will Sonia Sotomayor be confirmed?  Almost certainly yes, because Democrats own and operate the senate. 

Should she be confirmed?  Absolutely not.  Her history of racist and sexist comments, her appalling record of being reversed by the Supreme Court she would be a member of and, based on what you just read, her abject ignorance of what a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to do, should disqualify her out of hand.

Sadly, we deserve Sotomayor.  That is because we elected what amounts to one-party government.  So if an incompetent extremist like Sonia Sotomayor is nominated there is little that can be done about it. 

And we're stuck with our mistake until at least November of next year. 

I hope the lesson is being learned.


WARD CHURCHILL DENIED REINSTATEMENT

Ken Berwitz

The lying, plagiarizing, USA hating scumbag ward churchill was, today, denied reinstatement to the University of Colorado faculty.

From www.slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com:

July 07, 2009

Breaking--Ward Churchill Denied Reinstatement

 

**Update--full text of Judge Naves' ruling (pdf), and a mini-recap of the arguments presented after Churchill's April "victory," in which he was awarded damages of $1:

In April, a Denver jury agreed with Churchill's premise that he was illegally fired, but it stopped far short of awarding Churchill a high dollar figure. Instead it awarded Churchill $1.

Last week, Lane and Churchill were back in Judge Naves' courtroom arguing that their legal victory in April was enough for the judge to order reinstatement. Calling CU leaders, "constitutional law violators," Lane told Naves he had essentially no other choice but to reinstate the embattled professor.

CU's lead attorney Patrick O'Rourke argued that the $1 judgement in April should, in essence, speak for itself. O'Rourke suggested that reinstating Churchill would further damage the university's reputation.

--extensive SP Churchill archives

--more at PirateBallerina

Perhaps the final chapter in the Ward Churchill saga:

The University of Colorado doesn't have to give fired ethnic studies Prof. Ward Churchill his job back, a Denver District Court judge ruled today.

"I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court's recognition that 'considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,' " Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.

Naves went on to say that trial courts may deny reinstatement when, as " practical matter, a productive and amicable working relationship would be impossible" or "the employer-employee relationship has been irreparably damaged by animosity caused by the lawsuit."

A jury in April found that the university illegally fired Churchill after he was accused of research misconduct.

More from Channel 7:

Boulder learning will go on without Ward Churchill.

On Tuesday Judge Larry Naves granted CU's and the Board of Regent's motion for judgement as a matter of law that the Board of Regents is immune from being sued and vacates the jury verdict from April of this year.

Naves also denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay.

I would call this a victory for the families of those 3,000 or so "little eichmann's", as churchill put it, who died in the 9/11 attacks. 

 

Goodbye and good riddance.


RASMUSSEN'S PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL DATA

Ken Berwitz

Here's a little more news you are unlikely to be picking up from our wonderful "neutral" media.  It is Rasmussen's Presidential Approval data from the past two weeks.  See if you notice a trend:

.

Date

Presidential Approval Index

Strongly Approve

Strongly Disapprove

Total Approve

Total Disapprove

07/07/2009

-3 

33%

36%

52%

47%

07/06/2009

-2

33%

35%

53%

46%

07/05/2009

No Polling - Fourth of July

07/04/2009

No Polling - Fourth of July

07/03/2009

No Polling - Fourth of July

07/02/2009

-2

33%

35%

53%

46%

07/01/2009

-1

32%

33%

54%

45%

06/30/2009

-2

31%

33%

54%

46%

06/29/2009

+1

33%

32%

55%

44%

06/28/2009

0

32%

32%

54%

45%

06/27/2009

+2

33%

31%

55%

44%

06/26/2009

+2

33%

31%

55%

44%

06/25/2009

+2

32%

30%

56%

44%

 

Why is it that media, which love to report Mr. Obama's poll numbers, aren't reporting these? 

Want to hazard a guess?

 


OBAMA: FROM RUSSIA WITH 'LOVE' (the tennis kind)

Ken Berwitz

If you play tennis, you know that the term "love" means nothing.  If you are down in a game, say, 40 to love, it means that although you are trying to be successful, you haven't had any success at all.

Well, President Obama has had exactly that kind of 'love' in Russia.  He not only got nothing at all accomplished, but - as was described during  a segment of today's Morning Joe, his Russian hosts did everything short of yawn and go to sleep while he was talking. 

Simply stated, President Obama was treated as a necessary nuisance, to be patronized and dismissed.

I am not very familiar with Bill Dupray or the web site he writes for, www.patriotroom.com.  But he is drawing from sites I am familiar with and seems to have a pretty good bead on the disconnect between what at least some of the hopelessly pro-Obama media are saying about the Russia trip and what actually happened.  Here it is:

Despite MSN Spin, Obama Accomplishes Nothing in Russia

by: Bill Dupray   posted: 2009-07-07 07:58:00
Viewed 3 times. 0 Comments.

Another Obama talk-fest and another foreign policy adventure lands with a thud.

Here is the New York Times lauding The One's success.

President Obama signed an agreement on Monday to cut American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by at least one-quarter, a first step in a broader effort intended to reduce the threat of such weapons drastically and to prevent their further spread to unstable regions.

Mr. Obama, on his first visit to Russia since taking office, and President Dmitri A. Medvedev agreed on the basic terms of a treaty to reduce the number of warheads and missiles to the lowest levels since the early years of the cold war. The new treaty, to be finished by December, would be subject to ratification by the Senate and could then lead to talks next year on more substantial reductions.

They are going to "drastically" reduce the threat by cutting the nukes to "early cold war levels." Dramatic, right?

Not so much.

I mean this is an arms reduction deal, right? It seems, at a minimum, you ought to have an agreement on the amount of arms you are going to reduce. So what did Barry bring home?

From Politico.

The biggest achievement touted from the summit and the only document the two men signed was a nonbinding joint understanding setting target ranges for a new round of nuclear arms reductions.

But a look at the fine print shows the deal is less than meets the eye, experts said. The two presidents punted on how to count total weapons or total warheads a crucial detail in the mathematics of arms reductions. And they committed in writing only to finish the deal at the earliest possible date, though Obama said it would be done by years end, when the current Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires.

Its small progress. There are key issues being kicked down the road, said John Isaacs of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. There are a lot of details still to be worked out a lot of devils still to go.

And the non-agreed-upon number of weapons will need to be reduced to that non-agreed-upon figure within 7 years. Really stuck their necks out on that one.

And nobody at the press conference thought it important to note that Russia thinks the missile defense shield promised to Poland is probably a deal-breaker if we keep our promise to the Poles.

On the critical issue of Russia's assistance in stopping Iran's rush for the bomb? Nothing happening there either.

However, when it came time for the public news conference, Medvedev couldnt bring himself to single out Iran, which purchases weapons and many other goods from Russia.

There are regions around the world where the presence of nuclear arms would create huge problems, Medvedev said. There is no sense in naming them. But its quite obvious that on the situation in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, will depend the climate throughout the globe. ... We should make our utmost to prevent any negative trends there. And we are ready to do that, he said.

Experts say the U.S. will have little success containing the nuclear threat in Iran without a full-court press from Russia.

But Obama had his version of Bush's "I looked into his eyes" moment.

I trust President Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow up follow through on the agreements that are contained here today, Obama said, adding that he was very appreciative.

Sounds like Medvedev listened and negotiated very constructively already. When you don't have an agreement in the first place, it's pretty easy to follow through on nothing.

How many non-starters like this "summit" in Russia, how many failures (like the billions to GM and Chrysler that didn't avert bankruptcy), how many counterproductive disasters (like the "stimulus package") will it take for our wonderful "neutral" media to report about it? 

It's pretty clear that we're not there yet. 


MISLEADING ABOUT MISREADING

Ken Berwitz

Did Joe Biden lie when he claimed that the "stimulus package" is falling short of the Obama administration's predictions because they  "misread" how bad an economy they were dealing with (in other words, because it is somehow George Bush's fault)?

In a word, the answer is yes.  Joe Biden is lying to our faces.

John Lott, writing for Fox News, has the proof:

Stimulus Spending Is Making Things Worse Not Better

John Lott

FoxNews.com

July 7, 2009

Did Team Obama really "misread" the economy? If the Obama administration is going to invent history they might start with finding a single example where massive government spending has worked in the past.

506206069b652210VgnVCM100000a0c1a8c0RCRD

/opinion/2009/07/07/stimulus-spending-making-things-iworsei-better

It isn't that President Obama's policies aren't working. It is just that the economy was so much worse off than anyone realized. -- Or so the Obama administration claims. 

Vice President Joe Biden repeated the mantra again this past Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Host George Stephanopoulos asked him how the 9.5 percent unemployment rate in June squared with the administration's prediction that if the stimulus package was passed, "unemployment will peak at about 8 percent." Biden replied: "we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there."

Translation? The economy being much worse than ever predicted isn't Obama's fault, the Bush administration supposedly left us a worse economy than anyone realized. Even to Stephanopoulos, the alternatives were only two: "either you misread the economy [that the economy was worse than Team Obama realized] or the stimulus package is too slow and to small." A low and behold, here's this headline in today's Wall Street Journal reports "Calls Grow to Increase Stimulus Spending."

Biden is factually wrong. The administration never just "worked off" data from January, and the economy was not much worse than they thought. The administration's economic advisor Jared Bernstein contends that the 8 percent estimated unemployment "was before we had fourth-quarter results on GDP, which we later found out was contracting on an annual rate of 6 percent, far worse than we expected at that time." Even the president made the claim again today while in Moscow: "It was only after the [fourth]-quarter numbers came in, if you recall, that suddenly everybody looked and said the economy shrank 6%."

But despite the administration's claims and the typical misinformation by groups such as Media Matters, the administration predicted only a 8.1 percent unemployment for 2009 on February 28th (Click here for more) -- this was after the 6.2 percent drop in GDP during the fourth quarter of 2008 was publicly released.

There was plenty of warning even before that. In a piece published by The Wall Street Journal on December 11 with the telling headline"Fourth-Quarter GDP: Worse and Worse" the paper estimated a drop in GDP of 6 percent at an annual rate for the fourth-quarter. It is also a little hard to ignore business economists and forecaster expectations about what was going to happen to unemployment and GDP for the rest of the year and it got worse right when the stimulus spending bill was passed.

The alternative explanation should be obvious: the stimulus made things worse. The notion that "the stimulus package is too slow and to small" implies that massive government spending helped the economy. But the resources the government spends has to come from some place. Spending almost a trillion dollars on various stimulus projects means moving a lot of resources from where the private sector would have spent it, eliminating the jobs many people currently have.

On "FOX News Sunday," this past week Steny Hoyer, the Democratic House Majority Leader, raised yet another possibility: "we inherited 2 million jobs being lost in the three months before we took office. The policies that were put in place about 130 days ago -- not eight years ago, but 130 days ago." But job loses have accelerated under the Obama administration. Since 1990 there have only been three months where the unemployment rate has increased by as much as a half a percentage point, and two of those have been since Obama became president. During the last five months of 2008, 2.15 million jobs were lost. From February through June, 2.64 million jobs were lost.

Of course, the 130 days were claimed to be more than enough time for the stimulus to work before the stimulus was passed. On January 25, Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, said that the economy would start improving "within weeks" of the stimulus plan being passed.

Rewriting history may work for Media Matters, but it would be nice to hold the rest of the media to higher standards. Not all documents have conveniently disappeared down the memory hole. But if they are going to invent history they might start with finding a single example where massive government spending has worked in the past.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics. His previous pieces for FOXNews.com can be found here and here.

Joe Biden has pretty conclusively shown himself to be a man of limited intelligence but massively large mouth.  Not a good combo.

It's too bad he is now hitting for the trifecta by showing that he is a blatant liar as well.

Al Biden was always a dummy lightweight. Now he's next in line for the presidency and that's scary. (07/08/09)


ISRAELI JEWS: LIVE AMONG THEM, LIVE ALONGSIDE THEM

Ken Berwitz

This important, telling little blog was written by Paul Mirengoff of www.powerlineblog.com.  Please pay special attention to the quote by Ron Dermer, which is both indented and in bold print:

An absurd kind of peace

July 6, 2009 Posted by Paul at 10:01 PM

Ron Dermer is the Director of Communications and Policy Planning in the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I've heard some refer to him as Netanyahu's Karl Rove, though I don't know how apt the comparison is.

Recently, Dermer had this to say about Israeli settlements:

On a personal level, I have a problem with the idea of a Jew not being able to live wherever he wants. A Jew can live in Paris and they can live in Muncie, but they can't live in Hebron, where Jews have been living for 3,500 years until the community was massacred 80 years ago? The whole concept that peace demands an area be cleansed of Jews is very problematic for me . . . . [I]t makes no sense. I actually think that when the Palestinians are prepared to live with Jews among them they are much more likely to be prepared to live with Jews alongside them.

This is a point that has been obscured recently because Obama's stubborn insistence that Israel halt "natural growth construction" in the major settlement blocs placed the focus on this narrow aspect of the settlement issue. But Dermer is absolutely right on the broader point. Why would Israel want to enter into a peace agreement in which it must rely on the good intentions of a chronic adversary that hates Jews to the point that it will not permit them to live in their would-be state?

Mr. Dermer's point is dead-on 100% correct.  As I have pointed out many times, there are well over a million (actually about 1.4 million) Palestinian Arabs living in Israel proper and the vast majority of them live in peace with Israeli Jews.  Israel, therefore, has demonstrated by its own actions that it allows peaceful coexistence with Palestinian Arabs.  When have Palestinian Arabs in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria (the west bank) ever given even the slightest hint of being able to do the same?

Like the song says, "You can't have one without the other".  The ball is in their court, not Israel's.  It would be nice if someone finally at long last picked it up and ran a few yards with it.


AFGHANISTAN: PLAYING SECOND FIDDLE TO MICHAEL JACKSON

Ken Berwitz

I wonder if this story, by Brent Baker at www.newsbusters.org, is a testament to our warped sense of priorities, the media's warped sense of priorities, or both.

Here it is.  You decide.

Seven Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan Get 1/20th Time Given to Jackson

By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
July 7, 2009 - 02:39 ET

Two days after Sunday's Washington Post carried a letter from a woman who asked where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who were killed in the days after Michael Jackson died, attacks in Afghanistan took the lives of seven U.S. soldiers, but their deaths earned a total of less than one minute combined on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Monday night -- 1/20th the time devoted to Jackson a week-and-a-half after he passed away.

Emblematic of the disparity in priorities, CBS anchor Katie Couric read her 13-second item on the deaths in Afghanistan as she sat in Los Angeles with the Staples Center, the venue for Jackson's memorial, in the background. Those 13 seconds were squeezed in around just over 13 minutes, more than half the newscast's 22 minutes, dedicated to Jackson -- a disparity of 60-to-1 (790 v 13 seconds). ABC and NBC allocated about eight times more time to Jackson than Afghanistan (2:50 v 20 seconds on ABC; 3:00 v 23 seconds on NBC).

On CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, news reader Erica Hill and Cooper spent nearly 40 seconds discussing the Wife-Carrying World Championship in Sonkajarvi, Finland and how the winner got his wife's weight in beer, but allocated just 15 seconds to Afghanistan. (The Situation Room aired a full story on the challenges in Afghanistan.)

Even without Jackson it's doubtful these deaths would have generated significant television network coverage, as demonstrated by the MRC's 2006 study: "Touting Military Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes."

My Monday NewsBusters item, Regrets Media Didn't Memorialize a Soldier Killed Same Day Jackson Died, recounted:

Army 1st Lt. Brian N. Bradshaw was killed in Afghanistan, fighting in a war to protect all Americans, the same day that Michael Jackson died, prompting a letter to the Washington Post, which the paper published on Sunday, from Bradshaw's aunt, Martha Gillis, who scolded media priorities:

My nephew, Brian Bradshaw, was killed by an explosive device in Afghanistan on June 25, the same day that Michael Jackson died. Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media. Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week? There were several of them, and our family crossed paths with the family of another fallen soldier at Dover Air Force Base, where the bodies come home. Only the media in Brian's hometown [in Washington State] and where he was stationed before his deployment [Alaska] covered his death.

The short reports on the losses in Afghanistan on the Monday, July 6 evening newscasts:

Charles Gibson on ABC's World News:

In Afghanistan, U.S. forces suffered the highest single-day loss of life in nearly a year. A total of seven U.S. troops were killed in a series of bombing attacks and firefights. Meanwhile, a suicide bomber attacked the gate of the main NATO base in southern Afghanistan. Two civilians were killed, 14 others, including two Afghan soldiers, were wounded.

Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News:

This was the deadliest day for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in nearly a year. Roadside bombs killed six in separate attacks in the north and south while in the east one soldier was killed in a firefight with insurgents.

Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News:

This was a deadly day for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Seven deaths in all, including four killed in a roadside bomb attack on U.S. military trainers in the northern part of Afghanistan. Two killed in another attack in the south. One more who died after a fire fight in the eastern region of the country. It was the worst one-day toll in almost a year of fighting.

Of course there is another possible explanation: 

-As a candidate, Barack Obama demanded that we go all-out to find osama bin laden in Afghanistan/Pakistan.  He also told us that a troop surge in Afghanistan was far more necessary than the surge in Iraq. 

-But now, as President, we don't hear a word from him about osama bin laden.  And violence in Afghanistan has become worse since the troop surge, culminating in those 7 deaths.  Therefore, the less reporting there is about Afghanistan, the less negative news there is about Barack Obama.

Ok, there are the facts.  Feel free to see things any way you want to.

BOBW ENOUGH OF MICHAEL JACKSON- HE WAS A WHITE PEDOFILE ENTERTAINER WITH NO NOSE- SO HE IS DEAD. WHO CARES QUESTION- ED McMANN DIED A FEW WEEKS AGO- HE GAVE MORE TO THE HUMAN CAUSE THAN MJ. NOT ONLY DID HE SERVE IN THE MARINES BUT WORKED FOR YEARS AND YEARS WITH JERRY LEWIS RAISING MONEY FOR KIDS-- MJ TALKED IT UP BUT DID HE EVER EVEN SEND IN A VIDEO TRYING TO HELP THE KIDS THAT HE SAYS HE LOVED. DID PAUL NEWMAN GET HIS PROPER PLACE IN HISTORY- A GREAT ENTERNAINER- I ASK YOU HOW MUCH MONEY DID HE RAISE FOR CHARITIES? DID ED McMANN OR PAUL NEWMAN HAVE REV. (GREASEBALL) SHARPTON OR JESSY (WHAT THE HELL DID HE SAY) JACKSON PROMOTING THERE FUNERALS TO MAKE A BUCK I GUESS THE REV AND THE SLUR DID NOT KNOW MJ WAS WHITE?? ENOUGH OF THIS CRAP- BURY HIM AND BE DONE WITH IT-- WHATS NEXT A POSTAGE STAMP OF MJ- I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE FUN LICKING IT (07/07/09)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!