Wednesday, 23 September 2009


Ken Berwitz

There are now reports that Honduras has cut off electricity, water and telephone service to the Brazilian embassy - the embassy which illegally has given refuge to deposed President manuel zelaya after he snuck back into the country.

What will Brazil do about it? 

Will Brazil stand by helplessly and accept this humiliating situation?

Will Brazil invade Honduras, and fight to reinstall zelaya - who was legally removed by Honduras' supreme court because he was flouting the country's constitution?  What would that make Brazil?  And what would happen to the peace and safety of the entire central and south American region?  Is that what Brazil wants?

Maybe, just maybe, Brazil's head of state, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, should have thought about these things before acting like a horse's ass and facilitating zelaya's return.

Zeke .... The UN has withdrawn its technical assistance in the mechanics of running the Nov 29 Presidential election. ..... Apparently, Secretary General Ban feels that there is insufficient tyranny in the Republic of Honduras to merit it adhering to its constitutional schedule for Presidential elections. (09/23/09)


Ken Berwitz

Insane.  Mass murderer.  Ranting out lunacy. 

And the head of state of a valued member of the United Nations - one which has as much of a vote in the general assembly as the United States.

End of blog.


UPDATE:  I didn't think I needed any more than what is written above.  But this wild-eyed lunatic just implicated Israel in John F. Kennedy's assassination.  His "evidence"?  jack ruby, who killed JFK's assassin, lee harvey oswald, is "an Israeli" and died under suspicious circumstances afterwards.

Reality:  ruby was Jewish.  He was not Israeli.  He was born in Chicago (1911) raised there and moved to Dallas in 1947.

ruby was known to love JFK.  After assassinating lee harvey oswald he said it was to redeem Dallas in the world's eyes and to spare Jacqueline Kennedy having to endure Oswald's trial. 

jack ruby died in jail, in 1967.  The cause of death was cancer, which had spread throughout his body. 

Evidently, the madman qaddafi equates being Jewish with being Israeli, and being Israeli with being a part of every Israeli conspiracy he can dream up.

Sadly, qaddafi is far from the only one who "thinks" this way.  And they're not all at the UN either.


While I was writing the facts about jack ruby, qaddafi actually said:  "Arabs have no animosity or hostility toward Israel" 

Where's a straitjacket when you need one?


Ken Berwitz

No, no! said the Queen. Sentence firstverdict afterward.

Stuff and nonsense! said Alice loudly. The idea of having the sentence first!

Hold your tongue! said the Queen, turning purple.

I wont! said Alice.

Off with her head! the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

Who cares for you? said Alice (she had grown to her full size by this time). Youre nothing but a pack of cards!

That passage, of course, is from Lewis Carroll's classic "Alice In Wonderland".  Who could have anticipated that it would become the policy of a political party?

From Michelle Malkin:

Dems lied, transparency died: Senate Finance Committee nixes Obamacare online disclosure

By Michelle Malkin    September 23, 2009 12:35 PM


The Senate majoritys contempt for the American people rears its ugly head again. The Senate Finance Committee just voted down a GOP amendment requiring that Obamacare legislation be available online 72 hours before the panel votes. Instead, the Democrats offered to make conceptual language available.


Dems lied, transparency died:


Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.


Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.


Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.


The Democrats noted that unlike other committees, the Finance Committee works off conceptual language that describes policies instead of legislative language that ultimately becomes law, and which the GOP amendment would have required.


Democrats accepted an alternate amendment to make conceptual language available online before a vote.


Philip Klein has more:


Currently, the only version of Chairman Max Baucuss proposal we have is a 223-page draft (PDF) that is written in plain English and explains the bill in conceptual terms. Republicans argued that until the bill is written in legislative language it will be impossible for the CBO to provide an accurate cost estimate.


The Bunning ammendment would have required the committee to have the legislative language of the bill, along with the CBO cost estimate, posted on the internet for 72 hours before a vote.


Democrats argued that waiting for the legislative languange to be written, and for the CBO to evaluate it, would needlessly delay the process by weeks.


Lets be honest about it, most people dont read the legislative language, Sen. John Kerry said.


The Bunning amendment was defeated by a 12 to 11 vote, with Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln the only Democrat

Must be the new math. 

If we get all of three days to read the bill, we are holding the bill up for weeks.  Try that on your calculator and see if it computes.

The lopsided Democratic majority has quite a plan. First we vote, then we see what we voted for.  The verdict before the trial.

And if you consider it "stuff and nonsense" (which I hope, for your sake, that you do), remember:  the pack of cards pushing it has the numbers to trump you until the 2010 elections.

They can't come soon enough.

Zeke ....Dang ! ... We need to worry about poor Mr Obama. ... Passing the Stimulation bill so fast ... and Health Care being fast tracked (a few road blocks, but The One has the majority), Climate Change, Our bold new foreign policy (Appeasement and Abandonment) .... why ..... just think ... poor Mr. Obama will have worked himself right out of a job before he is up for reelection. Nothing left to do (09/23/09)


Ken Berwitz

The American Associationof Retired People (AARP) is a huge,and hugely profitable, enterprise.  Its mission is supposed to be advocating for older people.

So why is it so wholeheartedly supporting the health care legislation offered by President Obama and his Democratic congress?  Doesn't "Obamacare" gut Medicare?  Aren't elderly people among its most vocal and animated critics?  What gives?

Well, the Republican party thinks it know the reason.  And Phillip Klein at American Spectator agrees.  

Here is his column.  See what you think of it. (The bold print is mine):

GOP Report Charges AARP Getting "Kickbacks" In Dem Health Care Bills

One of the subplots to the health care debate I've been following is the cozy relationship between AARP and the Obama administration, as the group has thrown its full-throated support behind the Democrats' health care push even though their membership comes from the age group most opposed to Democratic health care proposals. Today, House Republicans have issued a report providing evidence that AARP is in a position to recieve tens of millions of dollars in "kickbacks" if Democratic health care legislation becomes law.

President Obama and Democrats have proposed saving money to pay for health care legislation, in part, by cutting $162 billion in payments to Medicare Advantage, which allows Medicare recipients to choose privately-administered coverage. If these changes go through, millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage would lose their current coverage, forcing them into government-administered plans with less generous benefits. As a result, many of them would have to purchase policies to supplement traditional Medicare. Enter AARP.

In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.

If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP.

"In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund 'kickbacks' to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans," the GOP report charges.

But this isn't the only way that AARP is getting special favors, according to the report.

Earlier this month insurer Humana Inc. sent customers who enrolled in the company's Medicare Advantage plan a letter warning them that their benefits would be in danger if the Democratic health care legislation passed. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which not only ordered Humana to stop sending the letters to its customers, but prohibited any other private insurers from doing the same. Except, that is, AARP -- which sponsors a Medicare Advantage program in addition to the Medigap policies it offers, but was exempt from the Obama administration's gag order.

I have a call into AARP, and will update the post once I get a response.

UPDATE: AARP emailed this statement from its executive vice president, Nancy LeaMond, as a response, though it doesn't address any of the specific charges raised in the report:

"Any effort to derail AARPs commitment to reform will not succeed.  Similar to death panels and other scare tactics, this latest effort is a misguided attempt to talk about anything other than the health care reform this country needs.  AARP will continue to work on reform for our members that prohibits insurers from discriminating based on health status or pre-existing conditions, strengthens Medicare by improving quality of care, cutting out fraud and abuse, and closing the so-called doughnut hole for prescription drugs.

"AARP was started more than 50 years ago to fight for older Americans and their need for health care our fight continues today.  Over those 50 years our public policies have always dictated every decision we have made.

"The only benefit AARP is looking for in health reform is relief for the millions of Americans who are crushed by soaring prescription drug prices, relief for the millions of Americans who are told they cant get coverage because theyre too old or too sick, and relief for the millions of Americans who need Medicare strengthened. Period."

Is this true?  It certainly reads that way.

If the answer is yes, then AARP's relationship with the Obama administration is disgusting, maybe even outright illegal.

We should be demanding answers here.  Loudly and strongly.

I'd say that our media should be, but I have pretty much given up hope that they will go after Barack Obama and his congress in any meaningful way. 

How I hope to be proven wrong.


Ken Berwitz

Here, without comment from me, is John Stossel's explanation (as you can see, it is Part II.  You can read Part I by clicking here). 

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

 Going to Fox II

by John Stossel


When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."


Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?

The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its page-one story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..."


Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.


Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.)

A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible.


Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.

In addition, reporters seem to think they've done their job if they merely describe the intentions behind the proposed "reform." But the burden of proof should be on the sponsors of regulation and spending. They should have to make a convincing case that their new rules are superior to the free market. Who cares about intentions?

Fuel-efficiency standards, intended to save gasoline, give us less crashworthy cars, so more people die. Subsidies to American farmers destroy Third World markets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged shaky subprime mortgages and helped cause the housing and financial turmoil.


The long list of bad results that have emerged from well-intended regulation ought to dim reporters' enthusiasm. But it hasn't.

I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy -- libertarianism -- now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don't ask.

I don't claim to be the expert. But some of my colleagues who write about business know nothing about economics. Many are comically hostile to profit -- they dismiss it as "greed" (although they bargain for the highest salaries possible).

On my former ABC blog, some people called me a biased "conservative."


"Your (sic) a shill anyways John. dont (sic) let the door hit you in the you know what."

I'm surprised that the self-described enemies of intolerance can't tolerate even one MSM reporter who doesn't share their statist premises. The interventionist state has been the status quo for generations, so I must be something other than "conservative." "Liberal" is what my philosophy used to be called. It's the statists who are the reactionaries.

Not all the blog comments were hostile:

"Congratulations. The mind boggles at the thought of giving free reign on air to someone who actually understands economics."

"Stossel challenges conventional wisdom, so I hope Fox lets him do that."

I assume Fox will. My points of view on things like immigration, nation-building and the war on drugs differ from those of many at Fox, but libertarians like Judge Andrew Napolitano ( still seem to thrive there. The alleged "conservatives" are pretty tolerant.

I think they'll tolerate me. See you there next month.


Ken Berwitz

Michael Moore is coming out with another USA-bashing "documentary.  This one is called "Capitalism:  A Love Story"

At least the name is appropriate, since Michael Moore has made a fabulous fortune by bashing exactly what he is;  a hugely successful capitalist.

Here, from, is Julia A. Seymour's piece on this consummate hypocrite, and the equally hypocritical media which suck up to him every chance they get:

Media Embrace Millionaire Moore's Vendetta Against Capitalism, Leave Out Critics


By Julia A. Seymour (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2009 - 17:22 ET

Millionaire Michael Moore says capitalism is evil and that the entire system should be thrown out for one that is "democratic" and "fair."

That's the overarching message of Moore's new documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story," which will be widely released Oct. 2. The film won two prizes at the Venice Film Festival and was lauded by critics there and at the Toronto Film Festival. Now Moore is being warmly greeting in softball interviews by television anchors and reporters - particularly on ABC.

ABC's "Nightline" ran an 8-minute long segment Sept. 22 interviewing Moore and showing clips of his film, an it received an additional five minutes on "Good Morning America" Sept. 23. ABC didn't include a single critic of Moore in those 13 minutes, and neither segment rebuked Moore for past lies in his movies.

The film has generated uncritical buzz among many other news outlets including MSNBC, The New York Times, Associated Press and "The Jay Leno Show." He is also scheduled to be a guest of "Larry King Live," "The Situation Room," and "The View" Sept. 23 and 24. Four networks, a wire service and three out of five major newspapers will have covered the movie in the span of a week.

Many of the media descriptions of the "fascinating filmmaker" were flattering. ABC's Terry Moran said, "Michael Moore hates capitalism. He hates it with a savagely funny and surprisingly religious passion."

Picking up on that religious theme, The New York Times' Bruce Headlam said that in private conversation Moore "could pass for a kindly Jesuit. Headlam wrote a 2,133 word feature the filmmaker and political activity on Sept. 20 that also left out Moore's critics entirely.  

MSNBC's Alex Witt praised the movie in a Sept. 20 discussion, but at least she mentioned that people have been critical of Moore as hypocritical - making millions from his movies why campaigning for the end of capitalism. Witt told viewers Moore has made $172 million from his documentaries.

But hypocrisy isn't the only criticism of Moore. Moore is a documented liar and, according to the USA Today, his movie "Sicko" used "omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand to make its points." One exaggeration Moore used in "Sicko" was the claim that 50 million Americans are uninsured. The Business & Media Institute has exposed this falsehood time and time again, pointing out that the census figure of roughly 46 million people includes almost 10 million non-citizens.

Despite that, much of the news media gushed over "Sicko" and Moore. Reports said he shows "compassion" and "generosity." The same ABC reporter, Moran, gushed in 2007 that Moore was "taking on America's deeply flawed health care system" because "fixing health care is a moral, even a religious obligation."

Moran even suggested Moore might make a good political candidate in that interview. Many reporters, including Moran were impressed by Moore's charisma.

Radical' Ideas and Lies

ABC gave Michael Moore plenty of time to spread his "radical" anti-capitalist notions to its millions of viewers.

In his "Nightline" interview with Terry Moran, Moore called Goldman Sachs "public enemy No. 1" and declared that Wall Street was literally "a crime scene." Video showed Moore stretching yellow, crime scene tape around banks like Chase. He also declared capitalism to be "anti-Christian" and claimed that he's "embarrassed" by the fact that his movies enable him to make a "decent" living.

Moran indicated that Moore was rich, but didn't call him a millionaire or let viewers know the shock filmmaker's movies have made him $172 million dollars according to MSNBC. His mostly fawning segment with Moore did include one surprisingly harsh comment near the end: "So he shambles on. Like some angry overweight prophet of our times, either crazy or brilliant. Traitorous or patriotic, depending on your point of view, but always laughing."

The very next morning Chris Cuomo interviewed Moore for "Good Morning America." He began by showing a clip of the movie in which Moore tells a Goldman Sachs security guard, "You can trust me."

"You can trust me," Cuomo repeated as he welcomed Moore to the show. But the fact is Moore is not trustworthy. He has lied with his films beginning with "Roger & Me" in 1989 in which he tried to chase down then General Motors CEO Roger Smith. His entire film depicts a failed attempt to get an interview with Smith.

But as Steve Finefrock reported, Smith had "granted a lengthy interview" on-camera while that movie was being made.

Cuomo didn't ask about that misrepresentation or others including Moore's claim not to own stocks. Instead, Moore was given five minutes to rail against the unfairness of capitalism.

When asked for a solution, Moore said part of it was to "get money out of our politics." But according to a filmmaker or film producer with addresses in Michigan or New York named Michael Moore has donated to many Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Added together those contributions totaled more than $16,000, and four other Michael Moores listed might have been his contributions.

Cuomo didn't ask Moore about his political contributions, but the AP reported that screenings of "Capitalism: A Love Story" in Bellaire, Mich. along with three parties raised $25,000 for the Democratic party in Antrim county.

Now there's some hard-hitting journalism:  give a USA hater free reign to bash us to his heart's content, without a word of disagreement.

These are the same media who won't give conservatives Mark Levin (his book was #1 for 12 weeks and has sold a million copies) or Michelle Malkin (#1 for 4 weeks) the time of day.  But the outer-fringe leftist Michael Moore, a liar and hypocrite supreme?  Love and kisses.

Then they wonder why so many people are running, not walking, to the internet for their information.


Ken Berwitz

Here is an endorsement President Obama probably wishes he didn't have.  It comes from the madman, and mass murdering lunatic, moamar qadaffi, and is translated from his insane rant at the United Nations today:

We are content and happy if Obama can forever stay forever as the President of America

He had a lot more nice things to say about Mr. Obama as well, but you get the idea. 

Now, why would someone like moamar qadaffi be so taken with President Obama?  Maybe it has something to do with Mr. Obama's speech, earlier today, in which he said:

"We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements (in the West Bank)"

Is it any wonder that Barack Obama is liked by qadaffi?  That he is far more popular in Arab countries than in Israel? 

Are his words today what you would expect from a friend of Israel?  An ally?

To the 78% of US Jews who voted for Barack Obama - most of whom, presumably, support Israel - I hope you're happy with what you got.

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


Ken Berwitz

I am listening to Barack Obama's speech to the UN.  He just referred to  "two states, Israel and Palestine".

Did I miss something this morning?  Was a state of Palestine declared and approved by the UN?

Add this to the demand by Mr. Obama that Israel build no more homes in existing west bank settlements (we're not talking about new settlements, only new homes as their populations grow), and maybe you'll have a bead on why Mr. Obama is disliked, even despised in Israel....but beloved among Palestinian Arabs.

To the 78% of US Jews, most of whom support Israel, and about 78% of whom, according to exit polls, voted for Barack Obama:  I hope you're happy with what you got.

As one of the other 22%, I assure you I am not.



Ken Berwitz

I am still listening to President Obama's speech.  At least a half dozen times, so far, he has made what he evidently thought was a dramatic statement, stopped and waited for applause.  The applause did not come.

Yes, there have been other lines he spoke that did get the desired response.  But they mostly fall into the "The United States is wrong or deficient and we pledge to not be as bad as we have been until now" category. 

Heck, Benjamin Netanyahu could apologize for Israel holding all of Jerusalem and get a round of applause from the Arab countries too......


UPDATE:  The single biggest applause line of President Obama's speech was his criticism of Israeli settlements in the west bank (Judea and Samaria). 

What does this prove?  It proves that, at the United Nations, you can get applause by attacking the United States and/or Israel.

What a surprise.



Ken Berwitz

Are we, as a country, hungering for an overhaul of our health care system?  Not if you read the latest Gallup polling data:

September 23, 2009


Cost Is Foremost Healthcare Issue for Americans

But public largely skeptical that healthcare reform will bring relief

by Lydia Saad


PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.

"Close to 4 in 10 Americans (38%) -- by far the largest percentage mentioned for any issue -- cite the cost or affordability of healthcare as the nation's biggest healthcare problem."

If Gallup's data are accurate it means that, for the most part, the only people clamoring for health care reform are people who don't have it now.  And since most of those people cannot pay for health care, what they are really supporting is "free" health care for themselves, paid for by others. 

Wait.  Y'mean people like getting something for nothing?  What a shock.

Maybe this explains the huge number of people who became involved with those tea parties the media tried so hard to defame.


Ken Berwitz

Time out from politics, to tell you about a really terrific vacation - and business - opportunity.

For a year or so I have been scouring the various online businesses to see if there is anything that looks worthwhile.

I have gone through countless scams and phony get-rich-quick schemes and rejected them all.  How many times have we seen the $29.95 books that are going to make you a millionaire by next Tuesday, or the day-trading "techniques" that will allow you to work for about 10 minutes each day and make untold sums of money. 

What a bunch of BS.

But now I have found one that is real.  It is a real company with a real, tangible, desirable product - one that I would be proud to sell to anyone.  So I have become part of it, and am now selling memberships.

The company is Global Resorts Network (GRN). 

GRN is an inexpensive, highly flexible alternative to purchasing time shares.  And it is terrific.

In simplest terms:

-Membership cost:  $3,095 one time.  End of membership payment. (FYI, membership is fully transferable if at some time in the future you want to pass it along to someone else - either a relative, a friend or someone else.  The only charge is a $75 transfer fee);

-What you get:  Access to the entire Global Resorts Network hotels/condos/apartments around the world at prices that are ridiculously below retail or even wholesale (match them up against the bargain sites like Travelocity, Priceline, Expedia, etc. and see for yourself);

-You can book a week or more at mostly four-star properties (with a smattering of 3 star and 5 star properties as well), for between $298 and $699 (subject to availability, of course).  THAT IS THE ENTIRE COST FOR A FULL WEEK!  Try getting prices like that, or anywhere remotely near them, on your own.  And you can book additional condos for friends and/or family to come along with you at the same rates.

IMPORTANT:  In the interests of being 100% truthful, I acknowledge that there are people who would not like this program, because they know they want to be at a specific place at a specific time of year.  Illustratively, my wife and I have good friends who always go to Aruba in mid-December.  They own a time share there and, given that this is their once-a-year vacation and they don't want to go anywhere else, it makes all the sense in the world for them.  If that is the way you travel (and lots of people do), then GRN is probably not for you.

But if you are not fully settled on one place for the same time each year, GRN may not only be good for you, it may be nothing short of spectacular.

Here are two actual conversations I have had in the past 24 hours that might bring the value of GRN home better than my ranting about it:

1)  Yesterday I spoke to the accountant for one of my marketing research businesses.  I told him about GRN - partly as general conversation and partly to a money professional's opinion of it.  IHe told me that he, and his sister, own time shares at a resort facility in the San Diego area.  He paid $12,000 for his week and also must come up with $600 a year maintenance.  It turns out that the same facility is available at GRN.  For what he pays in maintenance alone. 

2)  This morning, my partner in a Chicago business reminded me that, during a business trip several years ago, we had stayed at a condo/time share location in Pompano Beach, Florida.  I checked and that one is also in the GRN -- and appears to cost something like $100 less per day than what we paid those years ago.

So help me, both examples are real. 

Simply stated, I loved this concept when I saw it.  And now that I've joined and am going public with it, I'm finding out it may be even better than what I thought.

If this interests you and you want to learn more -- maybe even make me some $$$ by becoming a member under my name, go to and see, first-hand, what it is all about. 

Once you are there, if you want to look at the entire registry of properties (which can change day to day because GRN is constantly securing new inventory), click on "BROWSE THE GLOBAL RESORTS REGISTRY" at the bottom right.  When the registry screen pops up, use the ID "resorts" and the password "lookfor" -- it will enable you to see every property in every location around country and the world.

Then, please comment to me about what you think.  I value every opinion (seriously).

I think you'll be as impressed as I am.  And maybe you'll even want to not only become a member, but sell memberships to others as well.

Zeke need your login id & password in order to browse the registry... it says to ask 'the person who referred you to this site' for that info ..... Looks interesting. (09/23/09)

Ken Berwitz Zeke: The login is "resorts". The password is "lookfor". And, yes, it is VERY interesting. I meant what I said in the blog. After a year of looking over every so-called opportunity under the sun, this is the only one that, to me, is both legitimate and beneficial. (09/23/09)

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!!