Thursday, 09 July 2009


Ken Berwitz

Read this news report from Phil Trexler of The Akron Beacon Journal, and see the incredible racial double standard that we now live under:

Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family

By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer

POSTED: 07:44 p.m. EDT, Jul 07, 2009

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''

They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others.

When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens.

His daughter, Rachel, 15, who weighs about 90 pounds, tried to come to his rescue. The teens pushed her to the ground.

His wife, Yvonne, pushed their son, Donald, 14, into bushes to keep him protected.

''My thing is,'' Marshall said, ''I didn't want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything.

''I'm lucky. They didn't break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.''

After several minutes of punches and kicks, the attack ended and the group ran off. The Marshalls' two adult male friends were not seriously hurt.

''I don't think I thought at that moment when I tried to jump in,'' Rachel Marshall said. ''But when I was laying on the ground, I was just scared.''

Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center.

The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance.

''I knew I was going to get beat, but not as bad as I did,'' Marshall said. ''But I did it to protect my family. I didn't have a choice. There was no need for this. We should be all getting along. But to me, it seems to be racist.''

Akron police are investigating. Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night.

The department's gang unit is involved in the investigation, police said.

''We don't know if it's a known gang, or just a group of kids,'' police Lt. Rick Edwards said.

The Marshalls say they fear retaliation at home or when they go outside. They are considering arming themselves, but they're concerned about the possible problems that come with guns.

For now, they are hoping police can bring them suspects. They believe they can identify several of the attackers.

''This makes you think about your freedom,'' Marshall said. ''In all reality, where is your freedom when you have this going on?''

A White family is attacked by a gang of Blacks who scream "This is our world" and "This is a Black world".  Nope, no hate crime there.  Move on, sheeple, nothing to see, nothing to see...."

I wonder how many bona fide racists will be created by this story - people who will resent and fear the double standard enough to project it to all Black people. 

Is this fair?  No.  Of course it is not.  But is there a potential for it to happen when people read this, and then consider how little a White person has to do to be tagged a racist?  You bet there is.

The cure is honesty.  Racism is racism, regardless of which race it comes from and people are responsible for their acts regardless of their skin color. 

I can only hope that more people finally start realizing as much and acting accordingly.


Ken Berwitz UPDATE TO "REALITY": Since you have railed about the "right wing and racist blogisphere" which "embraced and spread" this story, I thought you might be interested in another online account. This one has the incendiary title, "ACTION: Tell Akron PD not to ignore this hate crime!" I would say it proves your point, except for one thing: The web site happens to be the Daily Kos. ------------ Still think only right wingers and racists are talking about this? (07/10/09)


Ken Berwitz Reality: I admit to being fascinated by your characterization of me as a right winger and a racist based on my citing a newspaper article and pointing out that there is a vast difference between what the word racism means, depending on whether the person in question is Black or White. You're right:  I wasnt there so I do not know whether or not the incident actually took place -- just as you werent there and dont know any more than I do. However, the one police quote in the article does not suggest there is any doubt about the attack (it speculates about whether the perpetrators were an organized gang or just a group of kids). In any event, my points - which are a) that Black racism requires a significantly higher standard than White racism and b) rightly or wrongly this causes a great deal of racial resentment among Whites  stands as written. Calling me names for saying so wont change a thing. If you have facts to dispute what I've said, then show them to me. I assure you I have facts to support my points, far in excess of this article. By the way, is the Akron Beacon-Journal really a right wing racist publication? Since it is the source for all those "right wing and racist" bloggers, I suppose you must think so. (07/09/09)

Reality Let's put the cart back in its rightful place, behind the horse. This homeschool family claims that 30-50 black kids attacked them, on a neighborhood street, just after the city fireworks display was over, chanting "this is our world." The video of the father shows no signs of struggle. The daughter, a frail little thing, has no visible wounds despite her story that she was bleeding and pulled one of the attackers off her father. The mother has no visible wounds. They don't sound in shock or scared, despite talking about how scared they are. Not a single witness can confirm that even one of these 50 kids was there. There are no suspects. The police aren't calling it a hate crime because they have enough sense to realize the story probably isn't true. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's not true but that hasn't prevented the right wing and racist blogisphere to embrace it and spread it within hours of it being reported. How many of you will write about it when it's determined the entire story is a work of fiction? If you believe this story then I have a nice Nigerian man who would like to contact you about an investment opportunity. (07/09/09)


Ken Berwitz

What would hugo chavez have done with an Inspector General who was truly independent, and insisted on holding his supporters to account for their illegal actions?

Well, he'd make sure a reason was concocted to fire the poor boob and make sure it stuck.  No more investigation, no more problem.  No muss, no fuss, no bother.

Which leads us straight to President Barack Obama.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner explains:

AmeriCorps stonewalls questions of White House involvement in IG firing

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
07/09/09 8:50 AM EDT

A top official of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the government agency that oversees AmeriCorps, has refused to answer questions from congressional investigators about the White House's role in events surrounding the abrupt firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin.

Frank Trinity, general counsel for the Corporation, met with a bipartisan group of congressional investigators on Monday.  When the investigators asked Trinity for details of the role the White House played in the firing, Trinity refused to answer, according to two aides with knowledge of the situation.

"He said that's a prerogative of the White House, so he didn't feel at liberty to disclose anything regarding White House communications," says one aide.

Investigators asked Trinity whether he was claiming executive privilege, something that could only be authorized by the president.  Trinity answered again that it was a White House "prerogative."  When the investigators pointed out that, in the words of one aide, "there is no legal basis whatsoever" for such a claim, Trinity still declined to answer.

According to the knowledgeable sources, Trinity refused to say what contacts the Corporation had with the White House prior to the firing, or after the firing.  He refused to say who at the Corporation had spoken to whom at the White House.  He refused to say whether Corporation officials had discussed the specific reasons for the firing with the White House.

The last topic is particularly important to investigators, who believe the Obama administration may be constructing an after-the-fact rationale for canning Walpin.

When Walpin was fired on June 10, a White House lawyer told him that the president no longer had confidence in him.  When congressional Democrats asked for a more detailed reason, the White House said Walpin had become "confused" and "disoriented" at a May 20 meeting with the board of the Corporation.  Now, the story has shifted again, to emphasize allegations of racial and gender insensitivity in a
parody newsletter produced to mark the retirement of a worker in Walpin's office in May 2008. 

The newsletter, which was not written by Walpin, said that the departing worker, who handled procurement for the office, had "finally procured her federal retirement" from a "retirement vendor" who was a "qualified minority-female-veteran-disabled person."  The newsletter also joked that the procurement official would be replaced by disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who specialized in "the procurement of blondes, brunettes, and redheads."

The newsletter was written more than a year before Walpin was fired.  The board of the Corporation did not cite it as a reason for its unhappiness with Walpin.  The White House did not mention the newsletter in earlier versions of its reasons for firing Walpin.  Yet at the meeting with congressional investigators on Monday, Trinity pointed to the newsletter as one of the main reasons for Walpin's dismissal.  When asked whether anyone at the Corporation had discussed the newsletter with anyone at the White House, Trinity refused to answer.

Prior to being fired, Walpin had been investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by Sacramento, California mayor -- and prominent Obama supporter -- Kevin Johnson.  Walpin's investigation led to conflicts with members of the Board, who supported a decision by Trinity and other top Corporation managers to reduce Johnson's punishment.  Walpin strongly opposed that decision.  After board chairman Alan Solomont, a top Democratic fundraiser, complained to the White House, the White House counsel's office claimed it conducted an "extensive review" of the matter before the president's decision to fire Walpin.  But three board members have told congressional investigators that the White House did not contact them during the review.  (One was told about Walpin's firing at about the time it happened, and the other two were contacted days later.)  In addition, the White House never contacted Walpin himself, nor did it contact his top assistant, leading congressional investigators to question whether the "extensive review" was really just a cover for a decision that had already been made.

The investigators plan to interview more Corporation officials in the days ahead.  Read more about the Walpin matter
here and here and here.

Do you think that's bad?  Well it is worse than you may realize.  This story has been out there for ALMOST A MONTH.  And our wonderful "neutral" media has given it all the coverage it would give to the opening round of the Midwestern tiddlywink championships.

By contrast, there was full coverage of Karl Rove being deposed this week.  And the reason he was deposed?  A three year old witchhunt involving 9 US Attorneys who were legally fired by then-President Bush.  In other words, no reason at all.

Rove's deposition was news.  But Walpin's firing wasn't.  The chavezing of the United States didn't make it past the Michael Jackson adulation, the ball scores and the weather.

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


Ken Berwitz

This startling blog comes to us from John Hinderaker of

Quote of the Day

July 9, 2009 Posted by John at 7:32 AM

Without looking ahead to the end, guess who said this, in an interview that will be published on Sunday:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

That was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview to be published Sunday in the New York Times Magazine. Of course, the interviewer didn't ask what "populations" those might be. For a moment, at least, we catch of glimpse of what some liberals really think about abortion.

This, it should be noted, is the same Justice Ginsburg who thinks the U.S. Constitution isn't enough when it comes making decisions, she wants to utilize "international law" as well.  For the record, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution starts as follows:  "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."  Nowhere does it suggest that any other law from any other place is within the purview of the Supreme Court.

What a great duo Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would make.  One thinks abortion is a tool for weeding out undesirables and the U.S. Constitution isn't the final word on how she rules.  The other thinks she is superior based on her race and gender. 

Every time I think it can't get does.


Ken Berwitz

According to the Huffington Post, Roland Burris, a man whose resum looked pretty good until things - major things - started coming out about him, has "decided" not to seek election to a full senate term in 2010.

I put "decided" in quotations because I think that decision was pretty clearly made for him by his party:

Burris Won't Run For Senate Seat In 2010

U.S. Senator Roland Burris will not try to hang on to his seat in 2010, the Sun-Times reports.

The embattled Senator, who was appointed to the seat by impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has raised just near 20,000 toward a campaign, according to the Sun-Times' Michael Sneed.

Burris will reportedly announce his decision Friday in a statement to the press.

$20,000 toward a a campaign?  That isn't just handwriting on the wall, that is the entire first edition of "War and Peace".

Bye bye.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


Ken Berwitz

I don't believe in political polls.  But I do put some stock in what the same poll says from wave to wave (on the grounds that whatever errors and misassumptions there might be are the same each time, so they more or less cancel out).

That said, the trend for Barack Obama in several polls has made a sudden and decided move downward.

-Today's Rasmussen poll has President Obama's "strongly approve" rating at 30% and "strongly disapprove at 38% - a minus 8% differential.  By contrast, the day after his inauguration Mr. Obama was at 44% strongly approve and 16% strongly disapprove.  Just two weeks ago it was 33% - 31%. 

Rasmussen's trend is identical for Mr. Obama's overall approval/disapproval numbers.  The day after his inauguration Rasmussen showed 65% approval and 30% disapproval.  Now it is 51% - 48%

-Gallup, which has consistently shown Mr. Obama's approval ratings to be much higher than Rasmussen's, is at the lowest level since he became President.  Currently it is at 56% approve, 36% disapprove.  A week ago it was 62%-31%;

-The latest Quinnipiac poll in the bellwether state of Ohio shows that, in the past two months, Mr. Obama has dropped from 62% approval to 49%.

-Public Policy Polling in another key state, Virginia, shows Mr. Obama down to just 48%.

Reminding you:  This is political polling.  There is no guarantee that it is accurate, and it is certainly subject to rapid change (which could take it in either direction). 

But if these data are a realistic indication of what is happening, the Obama administration is headed for some very major trouble.  Unemployment is moving toward double digits and, apparently, people are not buying into the administration's claim that the failure of Mr. Obama's "stimulus package" to hold unemployment at 8% - which is what he promised - is somehow George Bush's fault.

Plus, "cap and trade" is so clearly a disastrous policy for our economy that it is doubtful even his 60-40 Democratic majority congress will pass it. 

Add to this Mr. Obama's waffling on Iran and his distancing the US from Israel.  Maybe these factors have something to do with those poll numbers too.

Stay tuned..........

free` Ken, Imagine what they would be if the media wasn't covering for him and biden. (07/09/09)

Ken Berwitz free - that would be very difficult. Because if the media wasn't covering for Obama and Biden they probably would not have been elected in the first place.  Barack Obama would have been dismissed as someone without any qualifications to be President and there would have been demands to either produce his birth certificate - the real one, not the COLB he has shown us - or get off the ticket. Joe Biden would have been dismissed as someone with heavyweight mouth and a flyweight brain who (based on the debate) didn't even know what the job he was running for entailed. (07/10/09)


Ken Berwitz

Soon Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be questioned by the senate judiciary committee about her opinions and judicial record.  Then the committee will or will not send her on to the full senate for a confirmation vote.

It seems a given that she will be sent on, because a majority of the committee is comprised of Democrats.  But before they do, I want to remind readers (maybe a couple of them are in touch with our senators) of what Ms. Sotomayor said in that infamous speech at Berkeley. 

Since the initial excuse for her much-publicized racist, sexist comment (in bold print) was that it was taken out of context, here is the entire paragraph.  As you will see, the "out of context" excuse not only is a lie, but her comments, in context, are even worse than we thought:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice OConnor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice OConnor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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 hasnt lived that life."

Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging?  Ms. Sotomayor is telling you in so many words that she will comport herself not as a dispassionate judge, but as a latino and a woman. 

What the hell is that supposed to mean?  That the law is subordinate to her ethnicity and her gender?  Apparently yes, because that is what she is specifically saying.  " may and will make a difference in our judging".

So, as bad as the ending of this paragraph is ("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."), the beginning - which provides the context - makes it even worse.

If Democrats, who run the senate, have a scintilla of honor they will keep her off the USSC bench.  

That said, I fully expect that she will be confirmed.  And we will have a proud racist and sexist as 1/9th of our Supreme Court.


Ken Berwitz

Do you like bluntness?  If so, you will love James Hansen.

From Noel Sheppard of

NASA's Hansen: Obama's Cap-and-Trade Bill 'Less Than Worthless'

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 9, 2009 - 18:55 ET

In a stunning rebuke of the Obama administration, NASA's James Hansen, one of the world's foremost climate alarmists, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the anti-global warming bill that recently passed the House, "less than worthless."

Not only that, he referred to it as a "counterfeit climate bill" that employs a "Ponzi-like 'cap-and-trade' scheme" setting the nation on a "disaster course" as a result of the 219 members of Congress he accused of voting for it without reading it.

As you might have already deduced, Hansen's complaint is that the bill doesn't go far enough to solve what he believes is a looming cataclysm.

But, who cares? It's fun watching the alarmists eat their own, especially as it seems quite unlikely his critique published at the Huffington Post Thursday will get much media coverage (h/t Climate Depot):

It didn't take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama's agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked... [...]

With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon. [...]

For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme. [...]

The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It's less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.


Think you'll be hearing much about his views on this bill now that it's moved to the Senate?

No...I don't either.

Mr. Hansen is not just some schtummie in a back room.  He is a highly distinguished scientist, he heads the Goddard National Institute for Space Studies, and he is an adjunct professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University.  When James Hanson talks, reasonable people listen.

But will congress listen?  Will President Obama listen? 

Maybe if reason and logic won't work, Mr. Obama's falling poll numbers will. 

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!!