Tuesday, 27 October 2009


Ken Berwitz

My pal Bob put me onto this.  He found it at www.canadafreepress.com.  Read it and be outraged, because you ought to be.

Recession, Depression, What Michelle Worry?

First Lady requires more than twenty attendants By Dr. Paul L. Williams  Tuesday, July 7, 2009

By the staff of thelastcrusade.org

Update: First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who dont do anything about it
Albert Einstein

In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much, she said. See, thats why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesnt perform any official duties. But this hasnt deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.

How things have changed! If youre one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michele are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

  1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
  6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
  7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
  20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
  21. Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)

I guess this is Michelle Obama's personal stimulus package.

What a complete outrage.  Not just the staffers and the cost, but the fact that I had to go out of the country to find the list. 

Thank you, thank you, thank you to our wonderful "neutral" media.


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I watched part of Hannity's show and two of his guests - Dick Morris and a second one who is not immediately coming to mind (I'm getting old, I guess) said that they thought Chris Christie would defeat Jon Corzine and become New Jersey's Governor.

I thought that was surprising, given a combination of New Jersey's recent, nearly all-blue, history along with the fact that a poll had come out during the day (The Suffolk Poll, whatever that is) which showed Corzine opening up a 9% lead.

Well, here is another voice of cautious optimism:  Jim Geraghty of National Review:

Tuesday, October 27, 2009


A Slight Sense of Momentum for Chris Christie

As noted yesterday, the Suffolk poll showing Democrat Jon Corzine up 9 is garbage; you can't presume that turnout will be 93 percent.

Two polls out today have much brighter news for Republican Chris Christie; Rasmussen puts him up by 3 percentage points, while Public Policy Polling puts him up by 4 percentage points. What's more, PPP notes:

There are several indications within the numbers that Christie is in a better position than Corzine one week out from the election. 95 percent of his supporters say they will definitely vote for him, compared to 79 percent of Corzine's. Daggett's support continues to be pretty malleable, with only 57 percent of his voters saying they are strongly committed to him. 42 percent of Christie's voters are very excited about voting this fall to 29 percet of Corzine's who express that sentiment. The comparative excitement levels could have implications for which candidate is better able to get his supporters out.

I know some people have doubts about Rasmussen's robo-pollsters, but coupled with the PPP result, it does give some sense of momentum; every poll in the past month, besides Suffolk, has put the race within four percentage points. It appears that Christie's ads hitting Daggett are having an effect, and the wave for the independent has crested.

If PPP's numbers are accurate, Chris Christie and his supporters can feel good in this final week. But many of my readers fear that in a close race, the Apparition-American vote* will remain active after Halloween to vote Democrat. If Christie's got any more tricks up his sleeve, now's the time to use them.

* UPDATE: A reader fears this comment, meant to refer to voter fraud with ballots cast by dead voters, will somehow be construed as racially insensitive. (sigh) Lest anyone think I meant to offend, feel free to refer to these voters as casting "Eternally Absentee Ballots."

Could it be?


Ken Berwitz

It's a pretty good bet that, unless he unloads a major chunk of his personal fortune, Alan Grayson will be a one-term-and-out congressperson. 

Graysonbarely won in 2008, as a Democrat in a usually-Republican district who was swept in with Obama.  But his big, vile, viciously offensive mouth makes enemies every time he opens it.

Here is the latest affront to good taste and adult behavior:

 Alan Grayson's camp defends 'whore' remark

A spokesman for Rep. Alan Grayson is defending the Florida Democrats use of the word whore to describe a female official at the Federal Reserve, pointing to a secondary dictionary definition to argue that Grayson meant only that the woman had sold her soul for financial gain.

The attack was on her professional career, not her personal life, Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. The second definition of whore in the American Heritage Dictionary is 'A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

I think a reasonable person could believe that a person who was paid to promote and defend Enron has 'compromised principles for personal gain.'

Jurkowski was responding to the outrage from both sides of the aisle that came after Republicans circulated a clip Monday of Grayson calling Linda Robertson, an aide to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a K Street whore in a radio interview last month.

Robertson lobbied for Enron, the Clinton Treasury Department and Johns Hopkins University before going to work for Bernanke; Jurkowski said his boss was simply making a point about Robertsons prior work.

"She had the audacity to attack a congressman who used to be an economist. She's a career lobbyist who used to work for Enron and advocates for whatever she gets paid to promote," Jurkowski said.

The online version of the American Heritage Dictionary actually lists three definitions for the word whore: 1. A prostitute. 2. A person considered sexually promiscuous. 3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

It's the second time in recent weeks that a Grayson aide has cited a less-incendiary meaning for a word to try to put out a political fire Grayson lit by using strong language.

In a House floor speech earlier this month, Grayson blamed Republicans for the current state of the health care system, which he referred to as a "holocaust in America."

He was rebuked by the Anti-Defamation League and offered an apology for his remarks, but staff for Grayson, who is Jewish, insisted he was using the small-h "holocaust" rather than the capital-h "Holocaust" that refers to the Nazis murder of 6 million Jews.

Several of Grayson's colleagues, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) have said his comments about Robertson were uncalled for.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) called them "a bit extreme and rather sexist."

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said Monday night that Grayson is "one fry short of a Happy Meal," but changed his tune a bit after speaking to his Florida colleague about the matter.

"Alan Grayson is a friend and an extraordinary member of Congress. No obviously playful comment from me should distract from the important role Rep. Grayson has played in focusing on the true and tragic costs of our broken health care system," Weiner said in a statement e-mailed to POLITICO. "He is a leader and a patriot."

Todd Jurkowski can dissemble all he wants.  So can any other jurkowski who would speak for what Grayson said.  But it is what it is.

I have a great idea.  Maybe Alan Grayson can consider the possibility that if he would just shut that vile, filth-laden mouth of his a little more he wouldn't need some jurkowski to lamely try explaining his vile filth away.


Ken Berwitz

Here is the first part of a terrific piece by Josh Gerstein, writing for www.politico.com.  It talks about how different press coverage for Barack Obama is, compared his predecessor, George Bush:

What if George W. Bush had done that?

 By JOSH GERSTEIN | 10/27/09 5:02 AM EDT

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things and more.

Whats remarkable is what hasnt happened. These episodes havent become metaphors for Obamas personal and political character or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

Its a sign that the medias echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

We have a joke about it. Were going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com, former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. ... There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But its not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left Bushs loudest critics, Obamas biggest backers.

But others say theres a larger phenomenon at work in the story line the media wrote about Obamas presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obamas story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama like a sense that he was more flash than substance track what negative coverage hes received, captured in a recent Saturday Night Live skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it, said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama getting a pass hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obamas aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect well get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we dont, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. Its not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins but it doesnt mean the Saints have liked every story thats been written about them since training camp.  It goes with the territory.

I love it.  These guys are telling us that Barack Obama's almost unbroken chain of positive news coverage (until a few minor chinks developed just recently) isn't media bias, it is that he has just been that good.

In addition to the list provided by Josh Gerstein: 

-We're trillions more into debt, the unemployment rate that the debt was supposed to stop in its tracks is up 20%;

-Violence in Iraq has increased significantly (now that the enemy knows we are leaving and has been given a timetable for it);

-Violence in Afghanistan is up significantly (as President Obama dithers for months on sending the troops his own commanding general told him were imperative to the war effort);

-Health care is a political catastrophe;

-Cap and trade is virtually dead until next year;

-The swine flu vaccine we were assured was in plentiful supply is, in reality, woefully short. 

Are these the "successes" Democrats are talking about?

I don't know about you, but I don't much like it when someone pees on my head and tells me it's raining.  And when these guys tell us that Barack Obama's ridiculously positive press coverage is because he has been successful so far, they are peeing on my head and telling me it's raining.

Maybe the elections next month, few though they may be, will give our wonderful "neutral" media a more tangible hint that, even if they're still hot and heavy, the voters' love affair with Barack Obama is on the skids.

We'll see.


Ken Berwitz

Here is Noel Sheppard's incredulous blog about how two far-left women have skewered keith olbermann for his vile attack on Michelle Malkin and his unending screed about health care reform - even though the attacks are against what olbermann considers the right wing.

Air America Calls Out Olbermann for Sexist Attack on Michelle Malkin

By Noel Sheppard October 27, 2009 - 15:00 ET

Here's something you don't see every day: a far-left media outlet calling out one of the far-left's heroes to defend one of the far-left's most hated conservatives.

Yet that's what happened a few weeks ago when Air America's editor of news and politics took on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for sexist and misogynistic comments he made about conservative author Michelle Malkin.

As NewsBusters' Brad Wilmouth reported on October 13, Olbermann on "Countdown" that evening called Malkin "a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Air America's Megan Carpentier was quite displeased at this sexist display (h/t NB reader Joseph McMahon):

Olbermann starts with a recitation of Malkin's emails, belittling her voice and putting on a "Valley Girl" accent--i.e., an unintelligent female voice. But it's only after that unfortunate display of sexism that Olbermann hits it out of the misogynist park. [...]

For the record, on average, once every 24 minutes in this country, a woman does become a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." Nearly 1.3 million American woman will be a victim of domestic violence this year, and one in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime.

A liberal, progressive critique of Malkin need not and should not resort to an attack on her looks or her gender or rely on silly stereotypes or imagery that brings to mind victims of domestic violence.

By attacking MIchelle Malkin's politics with an assault on women of every political persuasion, and then indicating a desire to see her physically harmed, a person might understandably get the idea that Keith Olbermann only respects women if they agree with him.

And if they don't? They're obviously just stupid Valley girls who deserve a good beating.

Wow. Amazingly, this was the second time in less than a week a far-left woman went after Olbermann, for as NewsBusters' P. J. Gladnick reported October 8, Randi Rhodes wrote quite a piece the previous day criticizing the MSNBC host for his one hour "Special Comment" about healthcare reform.

It's nice to see some people on the left becoming as sick of this man as virtually everyone on the right is.  

Simply stated, the reason a lot of people are getting sick of keith olbermann is that he is sickening. 

The only thing that distinguishes olbermann from a pathologically hate-filled, viciously personal, barroom loudmouth is that he uses more polysyllabic words than a pathologically hate-filled, viciously personal, barroom loudmouth does. 

Other than that?  Clones.

By the way, I tuned in for a short time last night and heard him refer to "tea partiers" (I think that was the term he used) instead of "tea-baggers".  I suspect that the network finally caught enough hell over his use of the "tea-baggers" term (which, in case you are unaware, refers to an explicit sexual act that a man might perform on a straight female or gay male partner) and told him to stop.

It only took a few MONTHS. 

How proud MSNBC must be to put his show on every weekday night.


Ken Berwitz

The great Thomas Sowell has written a superb column which was published today (what other kind does he ever write?).  It explains in clear, concise terms, what President Obama is doing to our country.

Here it is, without further comment - because you don't improve on Thomas Sowell.  But I will put a couple of especially salient parts in bold print:

Dismantling America

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "G0d damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year each bill more than a thousand pages long too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question and the biggest question for this generation.

Thank you, sir.


Ken Berwitz

How ironic that this comes out just after Steve Phillips is fired by ESPN for consorting with a young female staffer

From www.tmz.com:

Ex-Letterman Writer Claims Sexual Favoritism

A former Letterman writer claims Dave's show was a "hostile, sexually charged atmosphere" -- and "sexual politics" played a role in why she eventually quit the job.

The woman making the claim is Nell Scovell, who spent roughly 5 months working for Dave back in 1990.

In an article for Vanity Fair, Scovell claims during her employment, she was well aware that Dave and other high-level male employees were having sexual relations with female staffers.

Scovell also claims those female staffers were "benefiting professionally from their personal relationships."

She adds, "Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no."

But she's talkin' now.

In the article, Scovell claims she's not looking to take any legal action against Dave or the show -- and she never identifies any of the alleged staffer-bangers by name.

Maybe Letterman can do another comedy routine posing as an apology. 

Then he can go back to bashing Sarah Palin for what he considers to be her deficiencies.

Robert Burns said it well, over 200 years ago:

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"

The amazingly ironic name of the poem that line comes from?  "To A Louse".  So help me.



Ken Berwitz

My sister just sent this to me.  As you can see it is attributed to Newt Gingrich.

I don't know if Gingrich actually said it and, frankly, he's not my favorite guy in the world.  But whoever said it has a damn good point:


"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - - Newt Gingrich



Ken Berwitz

Newt Gingrich, who is a conservative Republican most of the time, is tenaciously clinging to support of Dede Scozzafava in New York's remarkably competitive 23rd district.special congressional election.

His reasoning makes sense - if the one and only goal is to have someone with an -R after his/her name, regardless of that person's actual political positions.  If there is any goal beyond that, it makes no sense at all. 

Michelle Malkin has written an excellent rebuttal of Gingrich's position today, which I thought you might want to see:

Yes, Newt, the GOP should be purged of left-wing saboteurs

By Michelle Malkin    October 27, 2009 11:32 AM


Newt Gingrich continues to Alinsky his conservative critics and hide behind straw men.


He took to the airwaves last night to decry what he called a purge of the GOP by opponents of his chosen candidate, radical leftist Republican congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava, in the NY-23 special election:


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) late Monday had some choice words for Republicans supporting Conservative Party party candidate Doug Hoffman (N.Y.), accusing them of conducting a purge of the GOP

The former Speaker faced a push-back from the right after his announcement but he upped the ante on Monday.

This idea that were suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country were going to purge the party of anybody who doesnt agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obamas reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life, he told Fox News last night.


100 percent unadulterated nonsense on a stick.


Scozzafava isnt just anybody who doesnt agree with us 100 percent.


Shes an ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend, Margaret Sanger Award-Winning Radical in GOP Clothing a left-wing saboteur who seeks to marginalize mainstream conservatism with conservatives own money.

As for Gingrichs attack on conservative candidate Doug Hoffmans supporters outside of New York


So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided whether theyre from Minnesota, or Alaska, or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I dont think so, he added.


Ill repeat what the New York Post editorial board said today in its endorsement of Hoffman:


New Yorks 23rd Congressional District lies near Canada, far to the north but next weeks special election merits attention throughout the state.


Thats because the Republican candidate in that race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is the product of an obscenely corrupt political bargain by GOP bosses that sells out their party and New Yorkers generally.


Because of that, and because so many of her positions ill-serve the interests of New York and the nation, The Post today endorses businessman Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee.


No, Republicans neednt toe the conservative line without any deviation. Moderate GOPers like Rudy Giuliani have managed to stray on some issues without wholly betraying their party.


But a Republican should adhere to certain minimum GOP principles. Scozzafava is just too far to the left too often.

And not only on social matters, like same-sex marriage and abortion. In Albany, Scozzafava has been such a profligate tax-and-spender, she can almost make Speaker Sheldon Silver blush.


With the backing of the ACORN-allied Working Families Party, she supports Big Labors favorite organizing bill card-check as well as the federal stimulus, opposed by every House Republican.


Hoffman, by contrast, understands the dangers of unchecked spending, monster deficits and ever-higher taxes i.e., concerns of average working Americans.


And Ill repeat what I said last week: One thing is guaranteed at the conclusion of the NY-23 special congressional election: The Beltway Republicans who endorsed radical leftist Dede Scozzafava are going to have indelible egg stains on their faces. And GOP establishment fund-raising organizations will be the poorer for it.

Ms. Scozzafava may be a lot of things, which you may like or dislike.  But, that -R after her name notwithstanding, she ain't a Republican.  And Douglas Hoffman, despite that -I (or is it -C) after his name, is.

I can argue for and against a Republican voting for Hoffman.  But I have a great deal of trouble finding a viable argument for a Republican to vote for Scozzafava, whose positions would put her somewhere near the Barney Frank wing of the Democratic Party - a party that, given her positions, she might very well change to if she were to win the election.

But I don't think a win is in the cards.  I suspect it is now between Democrat Owens and Independent-Conservative Hoffman - with Scozzafava a distant third.

We'll know for sure a week from now.


Ken Berwitz

Here's a classic "you can't make this stuff up" story. 

Man who threw feces in courtroom draws 31-year sentence for robbery

By Dana Littlefield

Union-Tribune Staff Writer

5:45 p.m. October 26, 2009

SAN DIEGO A man who sneaked a small bag of feces into a courtroom during his robbery trial, smeared the contents on his lawyer and threw it at jurors, was sentenced Monday to 31 years and four months in prison.

Weusi McGowan, 38, pleaded guilty to robbery and residential burglary in connection with the original case, and two assault charges in connection with the feces-flinging incident.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Frank Brown recommended that McGowan be housed at California State Prison in Lancaster, which a defense attorney said was better suited to handle McGowan's mental health needs.

McGowan was tried in January on charges stemming from an October 2007 robbery in Barrio Logan. According to court documents, McGowan demanded money from a 54-year-old man and hit him with a rock that was inside a sock.

During jury selection, McGowan asked the trial judge to declare a mistrial because he believed members of the jury had seen him in restraints while being escorted into the courtroom, according to court documents.

Judge Jeffrey Fraser spoke to the four jurors in question, then dismissed them from the proceedings. He then allowed the selection process to continue.

According to court records, McGowan became very boisterous and somewhat belligerent after his request was denied. At one point, he told sheriff's deputies, You better put the chains back on before I do something.

Three days later when the trial was under way, the jurors stood for a mid-morning break. As they began to file out of the courtroom, McGowan pulled out a bag of feces he'd hidden in his clothing, rubbed excrement on his lawyer and threw it at the jury.

It did not hit anyone in the jury box, but some landed on a computer case that belonged to one of the jurors.

Fraser declared a mistrial and a new defense attorney was picked to handle McGowan's case.

On Monday, Deputy District Attorney Christopher Lawson said in court that McGowan clearly has mental health issues, but he committed an intentional act when he threw the feces.

Brown, who took over the case after the mistrial, ordered McGowan to pay $129 restitution to replace the juror's computer case.

After the hearing, attorney Stephen Cline who did not represent McGowan at trial said his client is very moody and suffers from bipolar disorder. He was not taking his medication

When he hits the bottom, he gets angry when he is mistreated or when he feels he is mistreated, Cline said.

There are so many bad puns here that I refuse to start pumping them out.  You don't need me to do this, you can find plenty of your own.

Other than noting that Brown may have taken over the case after the mistrial, but that's a pretty good description of the last guy too....

And that this is hardly the first time that S#!+ has been thrown around in a courtroom...

Whoops, sorry, I said I wouldn't do that.



Ken Berwitz

How do you feel about illegal aliens having not just the same rights and latitudes as legals, but more of them?

If you oppose this idea, we are in agreement - no matter where you live.  But if you happen to live in San Francisco, you must be spitting blood altogether.

Columnist Debra J. Saunders explains:

 License To Drive While Unlicensed

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders


Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Mayor Gavin Newsom's office has argued that San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy protects undocumented immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding residents.


But as The Chronicle's Phil Matier and Andrew Ross reported Monday, San Francisco has a new policy starting on Nov. 1 that prevents city cops from automatically impounding cars driven by giving never-licensed drivers 20 minutes to find someone with a valid license to drive their car. Only if an unlicensed driver is caught again within six months, is there an automatic 30-day impound, which can cost around $2,500.


So otherwise law-abiding residents now refers to people who only violate federal immigration law and the state law that requires that drivers have valid licenses. (And auto insurance.)


Consider it a sop to the pro-illegal immigrant lobby, which has been angered by the Newsom decision to allow SFPD to notify federal immigration officials when illegal immigrant juveniles are arrested on felony charges. After all, Newsom is running for governor.


"We recognize that this is a problem within the Hispanic community, where people working here can't get a driver's license because of their immigration status," Police Chief George Gascon told Matier and Ross.


Gascon told me that the new policy should not be confused with a get-out-of-jail free card. Unlicensed drivers will be cited and subject to fine. "We're stopping them from driving. We're replacing a licensed and uninsured driver with a licensed and insured driver," said the chief.


Except that they'll be letting unlicensed drivers keep their cars -- after they have been chauffeured home by a licensed pal.


Gascon also argued that the new policy should discourage unlicensed drivers from fleeing the scene of an accident. He also believes that locals will buy better vehicles -- not "throwaway cars" -- if they believe they can keep them.


Great. Now cross your fingers and hope that you aren't in an accident with an unlicensed driver. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety updated its study of fatal accidents last year and found that from 2001 through 2005, 20 percent of fatal car crashes involved one or more unlicensed or improperly licensed drivers. In California, 29 percent of fatal crashes involved an unlicensed or invalidly licensed driver. Now, 1,964 those drivers had their licenses suspended or revoked, but 1,802 were simply unlicensed, while 1,200 were unknown -- which often means they fled the scene. Those folks should not have been behind the wheel.


Gascon asserts that the new policy "has nothing to do with immigration per se" -- as it also could apply to people who can't afford to get a license or undergo driver training. "It's a much broader population."


OK, but there is another "broader" population -- people who ride the bus. If this were the desert, you might understand the argument that people need their cars to get to work. But this is San Francisco -- with BART, cable cars and Muni. If Newsom and company don't think people without licenses should be limited to the bus, then why spend more than $700 million on public transit each year?


Talk to City Hall about how expensive it is to park, and city solons will tell you there is no right to drive. But if you break federal immigration law, they'll work on it.

Isn't that special?  If you're an illegal and you decide to drive without a license you have a go-free pass, courtesy of Mayor Gavin Newsom and those wonderful folks at San(ctuary) Francisco.

That means the illegals who have no right to be there and who either are taking jobs that legals could have gotten or siphoning off social services at taxpayers' expense, can also drive cars without licenses, and they don't have a care in the world about doing so.

I have a question for Mayor Newsom and the other geniuses who are in on this policy:  Forgetting the apparently trifling matter of legality, does it occur to them that people without drivers' licenses may not know how to drive?  May not know the rules of the road?  May do things in a car that someone who has gone through driver training would not do?  And that those actions might be responsible for a great many of the accidents and casualties associated with illegals who drive?

I do not wish a car accident or an injury - possibly even death - on anyone.  Let me say that again:  I do not wish a car accident or an injury - possibly even death - on anyone.

BUT, if it is going to happen, let it happen to one or more of the people who inflicted this policy on San Francisco, its citizens and its legal visitors.  They're the ones who sanctioned it; let them be the ones to suffer its consequences.

Brittanicus As I perceive it the hardest place to install E-Verify, 287 G, or even directing ICE to raid employers is Sanctuary Cities and even States? CALIFORNIA seems to be the epitome of Sanctuary States, but it is estimated to be 127 cities and towns that ignore the US government. San Francisco and Los Angeles stands out as being Sanctuary cities where it's mayors Galvin Newsom and Antonio R. Villaraigosa, along with an compliment of police departments who have cultivated over the years a refuge for the impoverished illegal immigrants, illegal criminal of other countries. Very few businesses have enforced E-Verify, because at this time there is no mandatory law, except for federal contractors/subcontractors. Sen. Sessions has at this time been the fortress against illegal immigration through the Bush and now President Obama administrations. He is determined to adjoin E-Verify as a permanent amendment to the Senate Unemployment benefit extension bill H.R.3548 for 14 weeks. In the same amendment Sen. Sessions would require new applicants for unemployment compensation to have their citizenship status verified using E-Verify. The computer software program E-Verify could also be used for identifying applicants for drivers licenses, automotive insurance, all health care benefits, real estate purchases and mortgage and of course ineligible workers. Even the Public option if enacted in health care could be used to verify all positive recipients and over time become a very sophisticated matrix of data bases to reject ineligible applicants for government benefits. Senate leaders are currently negotiating which amendments will be considered for the bill, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is trying to prevent a vote on the amendment altogether. E-Verify is becoming a significant potent weapon against illegal immigration in the ongoing battle. It has come under constant legal bombardment by a long list of open border organizations, including the US chamber of Commerce. E-Verify however remains intact, although other enforcement tools such as 287 G, has been weakened by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano. Without millions of dollars being appropriated, E-Verify on a continuous basis can eradicate illegal labor for pennies. No need for mass deportation as E-Verify will streamline removal of foreign nationals, owing to parasite businesses will be in incessant fear of being fined or sentenced to a prison term if apprehended by ICE for using illegal workers. As with 2010 census? Those who entered without--THE PEOPLE'S--permission, have violated our laws, and should not, must not be allowed to be enumerated in the decennial census? Is Washington so sure that they will pass this 2nd Amnesty, when Ted Kennedy previous comprehensive immigration reform turned into fraudulent travesty? Ordinary American workers have become watchdogs for suspicious activity in the working environment. My blogs, comments and articles are limited in information, but keep this issue under public scrutiny. For more details of malevolent politicians who need to be constantly reminded who they work for? For immigration enforcement grading NUMBERSUSA. To light a fire under nonchalant politicians who are selling American workers futures to highest bidder contact WASHINGTON at 202-224-3121 As easily as you voted for these people, you can vote them OUT? Demand NO--MORE--AMNESTIES. Rebuild a two-tier Southern border fence as originally intended. TELL THEM YOU WANT PERMANENT E-VERIFY FOR EVERY WORKER, WHO’S ON A PAYROLL. STAND WITH SEN. SESSIONS. Study the corruption in every level of government at JUDICIAL WATCH. Read about unstoppable OVERPOPULATION GROWTH at CAPSWEB. Read lists of legislators are trying to push through another path to citizenship--alias AMNESTY at tinyurl.com/CIR-letter-to-POTUS. THESE CONGRESSMAN/ WOMEN WANT TO STEAL YOUR JOB AND GIVE IT TO ILLEGAL ALIENS? KEEP THEM EMBOSSED IN YOUR MEMORY AND UNSEAT THEM WHEN THEY COME FORWARD FOR RE-ELECTION. (10/27/09)


Ken Berwitz

I watched a few minutes of "Countdown" tonight.  And one of keith olbermann's "worst people (or, in this case newspapers) in the world" was The New York Post.  Among the reasons olbermann gave, in his smirky, snarky obnoxious, insulting way, was that, in a story today about cable news ratings, the Post combined the viewership of CNN and its sister network HLN. 

In attacking the Post, using his standard (i.e. vicious and offensive) tone, olbermann made it seem for all the world that combining the two networks was the Post's idea  His exact words:  "The Post created a new ratings statistic, "The combined audience for CNN and HLN in prime time among 25-54 year olds...".

But that is untrue.  100% untrue.

Here is the relevant segment of the Post's article:

"The trend of viewership declining at CNN has been going on for quite a while, so it was only a matter of time before this happened," said Andrew Tyndall, whose Tyndall Report monitors television network news programming. Tyndall said CNN thrives when news breaks but doesn't function nearly as well as a day-in/day-out news destination.

The average audience figures are based solely on the 25- to 54-year-old demographic in primetime. CNN ranks ahead of MSNBC and HLN to trail only Fox News in ratings for the full programming day.

For Time Warner, which owns both CNN and HLN, the ratings results aren't as bad as they seem. While the declines at CNN are alarming, the gains at HLN are encouraging.

"Put the ratings from the two networks together and they are still competitive," Tyndall said.

Indeed, the combined audience for CNN and HLN in primetime among 25-54 year-olds would equal 421,000 viewers, leapfrogging MSNBC into second place, but still trailing Fox News by 267,000 viewers.


As you can see, the combination of CNN and HLN was not the Post's idea at all.   It was Andrew Tyndall's.  The Post's contribution was doing the addition, to show readers how many CNN/HLN viewers there would be in Tyndall's model. 

So olbermann was full of what a bull produces after dinner.  Again (and again and again and again).

The saddest part is that there still is an audience of olbermann loyalists who actually think he is telling them the truth, instead of defrauding them.

Too bad.  Maybe one day they'll realize.


Oh, one other thing:

Yesterday, congressperson alan grayson of Florida was excoriated by both Republicans and Democrats for calling one of Ben Bernanke's female staffers a "K Street whore".

Not to be outdone, last night keith olbermann referred to congressperson Dr. Paul Broun as "a streetwalker for the insurance cartel". 

olbermann is second to no one in being disgusting.  Not alan grayson, not anyone.


Ken Berwitz

I watched Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for Governor of New Jersey, on Sean Hannity's show last night.

Given Hannity's personal politics, it is no surprise that the interview was a puff-piece, intended to showcase Christie.  Hannity may overwhelm the competition in his time slot but, frankly, it was far better when Alan Colmes was there with him.  I will take shows where both sides are presented 100 times out of 100 over the one-sided, partisan genre.

That said, Christie gave a decent, if lackluster, account of himself. 

He doesn't sound very Gubernatorial (but, then again, neither does Corzine). 

He is prone to repeating his talking points, which makes him sound either less than sincere or not very good at public speaking (hard to tell whether it is one, the other, or both).

But Christie did have one shining moment that, if he could compete with Corzine funds-wise, he should be talking about every day.  He explained why small businesses have so much trouble surviving in New Jersey, thus why they flee to neighboring states (and take their employment and tax revenues with them).  His best line of the interview was that New Jersey's taxation rate on business is over 10%, while Pennsylvania's is 3%.

Why he hasn't featured clear, significant, meaningful information like this in his ads to date is beyond me.  It's fine to accuse Corzine of being a tax and spend incompetent, but what Republican wouldn't run against a Democrat that way?  It comes across as noise, little else.  The relative tax rates, by contrast, are a specific, credible explanation of why Corzine's policies have hurt New Jersey.

Corzine's people understand this far better than Christie's.  Illustratively, Corzine has hit Christie hard, and contiually, over what his ads characterize as Christie's umbilical attachment to the insurance industry - coupled with charges that Christie will deny women important services, like the ability to get mammograms.  That is specific, meaningful, and credible in the absence of a strong response.

But Christie's response has been ridiculously weak - basically "Well, my mother had a mammogram that saved her life, so I wouldn't deny one to anybody". 

I'm very happy for Mr. Christie that his mother got her mammogram and it helped her to live many years longer than she otherwise would have.  That's a lovely story.  But what does it say to the rest of the women in New Jersey?  Corzine is telling them that THEY won't be able to get a mammogram. 

Either Corzine is telling the truth or he's lying.  If he's telling the truth, Christie probaby shouldn't be Governor in the first place.  If he's not (and my understanding is that Christie called for the availabily of no-frills OPTIONAL insurance coverage that would exclude mammograms, which would make Corzine's claim a lie), then why in god's name isn't he countering Corzine's charges every day in every way possible?  Why didn't he mention this last night on Hannity?

I would like Christie to win this election - primarily because I want Corzine - whose entire political career has existed because he can buy elections and because our wonderful "neutral" media give him a free pass on his scandals - to lose.  But, truth be told, I will be very surprised if it happens. 

While Christie might win, the greater likelihood is that Corzine will buy another one.  And the people of New Jersey, saddled with his lousy governance for four years, will reward him with four more, because they saw a lot of TV ads that Christie didn't have the funds or clever ad people to answer effectively.

Great.  Just great.


Ken Berwitz

October is not over yet.  But it already is the single most deadly month in our 8 year involvement in Afghanistan.

Excerpted from an Associate Press article at www.yahoonews.com:

KABUL Eight American troops were killed in two separate insurgent attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.


In one of the insurgent assaults, seven Americans were killed while patrolling in armored vehicles, U.S. forces spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said. He said an Afghan civilian died in the same attack. The eighth American was killed in a separate attack elsewhere in the south, also while patrolling in a military vehicle, he said.


The military issued a statement saying the deaths occurred during "multiple, complex" bomb strikes. It said several troops were wounded and evacuated to a nearby medical facility, but gave no other details.


Capt. Adam Weece, a spokesman for American forces in the south, said both attacks occurred in Kandahar province. In Washington, a U.S. defense official said at least one was followed by an intense firefight with insurgents who attacked after an initial bomb went off. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information.


The deaths bring to 55 the total number of American troops killed in October in Afghanistan. The previous high occurred in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential elections amid a wave of Taliban insurgent attacks.

In August, commanding General Stanley McChrystal - an Obama administration appointee - has been begging for increased troops.  He has told President Obama in so many words that the too-low troop total endangers our soldiers, that we could literally lose the war because of it.  And for two months - and still counting - President Barack Obama has dithered and dawdled and done nothing.

How many of these casualties are a direct consequence of his dithering?  We'll never know, but what do you think?

Is Barack Obama waiting for the elections so that his decision to send more troops will not alienate the hard-left base before they help his candidates?  Is he deliberately putting our troops at increased risk for political purposes?

President Bush, hated though he was by these people, made the tough decisions - and spent almost 8 years being tarred and feathered every day for it. 

That is the difference between courage and cowardice.  That is the difference between principles and politics. 

The next elections cannot come fast enough.

Zeke .... The MSM was relentless in reporting daily casualties in Iraq, implying Bush was directly responsible. .... Sen. Harry Reid proclaimed "the war in Iraq is lost", and demanded we bring the troops home immediately. .... Bush in his constipated speaking manner declared we "must stay the course", and he was absolutely correct, .... although not at all eloquent. .... .... There has been NO media criticism of Jackass Joe Biden's scheme to withdraw from Afghanistan and fight the war with unmanned aircraft and special forces raids ( both of which require detailed intelligence on the ground ... which is obtained ONLY if you appear to be the winning side -- and not if you are invisible ). (10/27/09)


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of Sammy Benoit at www.yidwithlid.blogspot.com, is another example of Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs trying to stumble, jumble and mumble through another lie on behalf of the administration he flaks for:

Monday, October 26, 2009

CHENEY VINDICATED: Press Secretary Gibbs Admits Obama Got Bush's Afghan Review

Two weeks ago, Obama's hit men Axelrod and Emanuel went after the Bush administration on Afghanistan claiming the Bush team's efforts were adrift, they did not ask any key questions about the war in Afghanistan, and that Obama officials had to form a strategy from scratch.

Emanuel told CNN that the president is "asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side."

"It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting pointand that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner."


 Last week Cheney fought back:


Recently, President Obamas advisors have decided that its easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The Presidents chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadnt asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.


In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obamas team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision a good one, I think and sent a commander into the field to implement it.


Real Clear Politics is reporting today that the Bush administration did indeed present a totally revamped Afghanistan Plan to the Obama Team:

Gibbs Tries to Defuse Rahm's Bomb. He Fails.

In the press gaggle aboard Air Force One this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Gibbs admitted the Obama administration received and was briefed on the Bush team's review of Afghanistan.


Gibbs said he can't talk about it because the review is top secret -except to say that "some of the information was helpful" to President Obama. Gibbs concluded by saying the existence of the review wasn't the real issue anyway.
Here's the exchange:


Q    The Afghan review that the Bush administration -- or Cheney says was handed off to your administration, you said last week you would go and look at that.  What did you find when you did that, when you went and looked for the report?  Did they hand it off, and what did it say?


MR. GIBBS:  Well, I -- well, it's top secret, so I appreciate the opportunity to get into what it says.  Many members of our administration briefed people on the review's existence.  I don't think what was -- I don't think what's --

Q    Was your administration briefed?

MR. GIBBS:  With people that -- it's been public that we got these reviews.  I mean, we can show articles where these things are discussed.

While some of the information was helpful, the President obviously found it instructive to do a review of his own, and that's what Bruce Riedel did in the spring, which led to the President signing off on additional forces that went to Afghanistan.

I don't think it's the existence of the reviews that seems to be an issue here, Jon.  I think it's a focus on one area of the world at the expense of another.


For the record, this is what Emanuel told John King on October 18:


And when you go through all the analysis, it's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift. That we're beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years.




You have literally got into a situation, is there another way you can do this? And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Who would be better doing the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops, which is -- not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path -- before you make that decision, there's a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it's clear after eight years of war, that's basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked.


All emphasis added.  Contra Gibbs, it's pretty clear Emanuel was saying that Bush's team hadn't done squat on Afghanistan: they hadn't asked any tough questions or conducted any analysis of tactics and strategy. They basically threw the problem in Obama's lap, forcing him to "start from scratch." It's also pretty clear, as we now know, that just wasn't true.

Another blatant lie.  And another instance of our wonderful "neutral" media aiding and abetting the lie. 

Like the title of this blog says...(YAWN).  It appears to be media's ongoing policy that Barack Obama and his people can lie to their heart's content.  No problem at all.


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


Ken Berwitz

What does Bob Lonsberry have in common with Cass Sunstein?

The answer is that both have belief sets that are far from mine (Lonsberry to the right, Sunstein to the left) but both have at least one position that I strongly agree with.

Last week I talked about how much I agreed with Sunstein's position on government involvement in marriage (he and I both feel government should not be in the marriage business at all).  Today I want to show you Lonsberry's excellent column on the "Public Option" fraud that is about to be foisted on what Democrats hope is an unsuspecting, wholly gullible nation. And they may be right, too.

Here is the column:



What a con.


The opt-out clause theyre putting on the public option in the Senate, what a bald-faced con. This is a fraud with a capital F.


Ill explain, but first let me define the terms.


The public option is Democratspeak for the government getting into the insurance business. It taxes you, it collects a premium, and then it gives you crappy health care -- after a long wait. Opt out is something new they thought of over the weekend. It says that the public option would be, well, an option, and that individual states could opt out of it. They could decide, by a vote of their legislature, that they dont want their residents to be clients of the federal public option.


The opt-out provision lets Democrat senators from moderate or conservative states go home and tell their constituents that they didnt vote for the public option for their particular state. These senators can pretend to oppose it while simultaneously supporting it.


But like I said, its all a con. Nothing more than a shell game intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. If the opt-out option goes forward, it is the same as imposing the public option on the entire country.

There are three reasons why I say that.


The first is that while a state may choose not to benefit by the public option, it may not choose not to pay for the public option. The operating deficits of the public option -- and there will be operating deficits -- will be made up out of the public treasury. Residents of all the states pay income taxes which go into the public treasury. The same is true of all other federal taxes, on individuals, businesses and transactions. It all goes into one pot.


So everybody pays for the public option, even if they or their state choose not to benefit by it.


The second reason is like the first.


The public option is essentially a false insurance plan offered by the federal government. False in that, unlike real insurance, it wont be a shared-risk pool, it will be an indemnification. It wont have to balance its books, it wont have to operate in the black. It will be playing by a different set of rules -- most significantly the rule that it can suck money out of the treasury any time it wants. It will quack like a duck, but bite like a tiger -- especially if youre a real insurance company.


The public option wont compete with real insurance companies, it will undercut them. It will sell health-care coverage at a loss and destabilize the real insurance companies that try to match its premiums.


And thats no good. First, because most of us rightly trust our insurance company more than we trust our government. Second, because the insurance-company money lost in the opt-in states will have to be made up in the opt-out states.


So in an opt-out state, not only will you have to pay taxes to support a program you dont use, youll have to pay higher insurance premiums to bolster a company being gutted by the public option.


Thus far, opt-out is a lose-lose -- and we havent even gotten to the Constitution yet.


Specifically the Fourteenth Amendment which, among other things, guarantees equal protection under law. The Fourteenth Amendment has been held to guarantee equal access to government benefit.


Which means that the first day a state actually opts out, some liberal activist is going to file a lawsuit in federal court claiming that his/her/its rights are being denied. The argument will be that in some other state there is access to this federal benefit, but not in this state, and that is the unequal application of federal largesse. For good measure they will throw in the fact that their federal taxes -- as if liberal activists paid any taxes -- are paying for something they are not getting.


I predict it would take an activist federal judge about a nanosecond to impose an injunction and the opt out would be opted out. It would be found to be an unfair and arguably unconstitutional denial of access to a federal program.


And thats all she wrote.


At that point, the public option would be nationwide, not by congressional vote, but by judicial decree.


And the Democrat senators will laugh themselves silly -- in private -- while pretending to be astounded and dumbfounded in public. They would say a few words about activist judges and about how this isnt what they intended, and then back in the cloakroom theyd be high-fiving one another and preparing to receive the Iron Cross from Caesar Obama.


This is all a con.


Obama and the liberals want the public option. It is the stepping stone to what they really want -- a single payer. And single payer is Democrat code for socialized medicine.


And the opt-out fraud allows them to lie themselves one step closer to socialized medicine.


I dont know whether to be more offended by the underhandedness of this, or by the presumption that we were so stupid we wouldnt catch on to it.

Is that fraudulent enough for you?  If not, I suspect the frauds who are providing the fraudulence can up the ante. 

Thank you Bob Lonsberry for laying this out so plainly. 

And thank you to our wonderful "neutral" media for not doing so to this moment - with thanks, in advance - for not doing so afterwards as well.

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!!