Monday, 16 November 2009


Ken Berwitz

I saw this at today:

In slow moving traffic the other day the car in front of me had an Obama bumper sticker on it. It read "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8"

I would tell you what that psalm says, but it would take away all the fun.

Look it up and see for yourself.

Zeke ... A prayer for Jackass Joe to become the Nation's Leader ... Thank you, NO ! ! (11/17/09)

Ken Berwitz zeke - hmmmmmm, I didn't think about that. You raise an ugly imagery. And if the same psalm applies to Jackass Joe Biden, we wind up with Nancy Pelosi, don't we? Remember what Matthew Broderick said in The Producers, when it was a hit instead of a flop? "No way out, no way out, no way out....." (11/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

Let me head this one off at the pass.

The Obamapologists have come up with a novel explanation for why it is ok for the President to have bowed obsequiously to Japan's Emperor Akihito.  They have unearthed a 1971 photo of then-President Nixon seemingly doing the same when greeting then-Emperor Hirohito:

What a crock of BS.

First off, it is not certain that President Nixon was bowing at all.  The Japanese Emperor was a good deal shorter, and Nixon may just have been leaning toward him for that reason. 

However, I believe it probably was a bow of sorts.  Why?  Because Hirohito did exactly the same thing - he leaned slightly toward Mr. Nixon too.

But the key point is that if it was a bow, it was a bow by both men, denotive of mutual respect.

Now look at what Obama did and tell me you see the same thing:

I rest my case.  And if the BS artists who claim equality between these two pictures had any honesty or shame, they would apologize.  Immediately. 

But they don't, so they won't.  And I guarantee at least some of our wonderful "neutral" media will go along for the ride on their behalf.

Then they wonder why people call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

From Mitt Romney, as reported in an article at on Saturday:

"The President has held his job for 10 months but does not yet have a strategy," Romney said during his speech before the Young America's Foundation in Santa Barbara, California. "What has he been doing that is more important than protecting the lives of the troops of which he is Commander-in-Chief? He has been campaigning- rallying at phony town meetings and making over 30 campaign stops for fellow Democrats. This President's inattention and dereliction remind me of those Northwest Airlines pilots who were so distracted from their jobs that they lost their way. But in this case, the consequences are far more severe."

Romney has been a constant critic of the Obama administration. In March, Romney accused the president of neglecting the country's needs, while posing for magazine covers, and making appearances on late night television during an interview with CNN's Larry King.

"This is a president who is learning on the fly," Romney said. "He's never turned anything around before. He hasn't had the experience of leading a nation or a business or a state in trouble. And the first rule I can tell him is focus, focus, focus. "



Ken Berwitz

Before you take up any collections for Lou Dobbs, who left and/orwas dumped by CNN last week, consder this article from today's New York Post:

Dobbs got $8M to quit

CNN 'wanted him out'

Last Updated: 6:44 AM, November 16, 2009

Posted: 3:14 AM, November 16, 2009

CNN was so sick of Lou Dobbs, it gave him an $8 million severance package to leave, The Post has learned.

 "They wanted him out," according to a source.

 Dobbs, who a source said had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract, shocked viewers last Wednesday by announcing he was quitting.

 CNN boss Jonathan Klein and Dobbs, 64, had been publicly feuding over the kind of reporting Dobbs was doing on his show -- especially stories about illegal immigration and the anti-Obama "birther" movement, which contends the president was not born in Hawaii and is not an American citizen.

 But it was not clear until now that CNN was willing to pay Dobbs so much money to leave.

"What they do is their business," Dobbs said yesterday. "I tried to accommodate them as best I could, but I've said for many years now that neutrality is not part of my being."

Klein long believed Dobbs was at odds with CNN's desire to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals -- conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC.

 Dobbs characterized his split with CNN after 27 years as "pleasant, friendly and professional" in an interview with the Atlanta Constitution-Journal.

 But, he added, "I truly believe that it's also a liberating moment for me."

 Dobbs said he is free to take a new job at another network, but said it would be "weeks, probably months" before he decides what to do next.

 The end came quickly once the exit package had been negotiated, said Robert Dilenschneider, a spokesman for the anchorman.

 Originally, plans had been for Dobbs to announce his decision to leave during last Friday night's broadcast.

"But when his assistant asked, 'Lou, do you really want to leave on Friday the 13th?' he decided to make it Wednesday instead," Dilenschneider said.

 Dobbs is set to give his first TV interview since then to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly tonight, leading to speculation that he may be headed there. But TV insiders said such a move is highly unlikely.

 Talk about a possible political career -- possibly as candidate for the Senate from New Jersey in 2012 -- is also probably overblown, friends said.

 "He couldn't stand the scrutiny," said one colleague.

I'm not entirely certain of what that "$12 million contract" means (is it per year, or for the entire year and a half?).  But let's assume it is per year.  Since $12 million a year is $1 million per month, Dobbs can take a half-year off from the rigors of a daily TV show, then start a new gig somewhere else -- and be $2 million to the good anyway.  Sweet.

Now I know why so many people looked to him as a financial advisor.


Ken Berwitz

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani knows a little something about terrorism in New York City.  And he knows a little something about the people who perpetrated 9/11.  So when he talks about the logic/illogic of trying the 9/11 "suspects" in a civil proceeding in Manhattan, it is definitely worth paying attention to.

Here, as reported by Tom LoBianco of the Washington Times, is what Mr Giuliani has to say:

The intelligence and common sense is Mr. Giuliani's.  The bold print is mine:

Giuliani calls Obama soft on terrorism

Monday, November 16, 2009

By Tom LoBianco

Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani called President Obama soft on terrorism for deciding to try the acknowledged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and said it would increase the security risk to the city.

Trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in the city also would wrongfully force Americans to pay for his security, both in court and in holding while awaiting trial, said the Republican who oversaw the city's response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"What the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality the war on terror from their point of view is over," Mr. Giuliani said on "Fox News Sunday." "This seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public."

The former mayor made the criticisms the same day that Democratic officials in Illinois trumpeted a prison in their state as a potential site to hold Guantanamo Bay prisoners when the Obama administration closes the facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is scheduled to happen next year.

The Obama administration announced Friday that Mohammed and four other accused co-conspirators would be tried in a civilian court in New York, sparking immediate protest. Supporters of the White House decision say the trial will be the ultimate test of the American style of justice.

"I have a lot of faith in our judges. They know how to run a trial," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said on CBS' "Face The Nation." "They know how to keep decorum in their court. If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed wants to stand up and say, as he did in Guantanamo, 'I committed all these murders, I did all these things': Fine. If I was a prosecutor, I would just sit there and let that jury hear it, because he's going to be convicted."

Mr. Giuliani made the rounds of Sunday talk shows, holding few punches, and other Republicans have been similarly critical of the decision to grant civilian trials to those accused of being illegal combatants.

"In this particular case, we're reaching out to give terrorists a benefit that's unnecessary," Mr. Giuliani said on ABC's "This Week." "In fact, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, when he was first arrested, asked to be brought to New York. I didn't think we were in the business of granting the requests of terrorists."

He also indicated that he detected a pattern of administration softness in dealing with Islamist killers, citing the administration's handling of the mass shootings at the Army base in Fort Hood, Texas, where a Muslim officer is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29 others.

"It seems to me that the Obama administration is getting away from the fact that we're at war with these terrorists. They no longer use the term 'war on terror.' They have been very slow to react to the whole situation with Maj. [Nidal Malik] Hasan, which was clearly a terrorist act in the name of Islamic terrorism. Gosh, he announced it as such when he did it. He was carrying around business cards saying 'soldier of Allah,' " he said on ABC's "This Week."


The decision to try the five Sept. 11 suspects in New York is part of Mr. Obama's larger push to end detentions at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 22 - a date that a senior White House adviser acknowledged Sunday may not be met. The facility is holding 215 prisoners.

"We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that," David Axelrod said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Meanwhile Sunday, Illinois' top two Democratic elected officials pushed the maximum-security Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles west of Chicago, as a place to detain the terrorist suspects, sparking criticism from local and national Republicans.

Gov. Pat Quinn and U.S. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said that using the near-empty prison this way would create, directly or indirectly, about 3,000 jobs in the depressed rural area.

"We have an opportunity to bring thousands of good-paying jobs to Illinois when we need them the most," Mr. Durbin told reporters at a news conference in Chicago. "We have an opportunity to bring them to a part of our state that has been struggling, and that's an opportunity we are not going to miss."

Federal officials from the Bureau of Prisons and the Pentagon will tour the Illinois facility Monday. Several other facilities, including prisons in Kansas and Michigan, are being considered, sparking local debate about jobs versus security.

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican and a 2010 Senate candidate, urged the White House in a letter "to put the safety and security of Illinois families first and stop any plan to transfer al Qaeda terrorists to our state."

Republican gubernatorial candidate Andy McKenna agreed, saying in a statement, "I wholeheartedly oppose Governor Quinn and President Obama's efforts to move Gitmo detainees to our neighborhoods."

Mr. Quinn dismissed the concerns, saying the prison could hold detainees safely.

"We're not going to let the fearmongers carry the day," he said.

Many Democratic leaders have been broadly critical of the way in which detainees were treated at the detention center and have pushed for court trials for the prisoners. And Mr. Obama's promise to close the Guantanamo Bay facility was widely hailed by his political base when he announced it at the start of his term this year.

But meeting that promise has proved tough as he and his administration have struggled to decide where to put the prisoners. Calls to hold the detainees on U.S. soil have - much like this most recent announcement - turned into political issues.

"This is ideology run wild. We're going to go back into New York City, the scene of the tragedy on 9/11. We're now going to rip that wound wide open, and it's going to stay open for, what, two, three, four years as we go through the circus of a trial in New York City?" Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said on "Face the Nation."

The defendants "are going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus" for their Islamist ideology, he said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the city's law enforcement officials "believe that New York City can not only handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us."

Mr. Axelrod spoke similarly Sunday, telling CNN, "We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City near where their heinous acts were conducted in full view, in our court system, which we believe in."

Mr. Leahy denied on CBS that civilian trials would be a sign of U.S. weakness, saying instead, "What we're saying to the world is 'the U.S. acts out of strength, not out of fear.'

"We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let's show the world that we can use that system just as we used it with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh," he said. "If somebody murders Americans, they ought to be prosecuted in America and hopefully convicted in America."

Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, said, "The people in New York who saw the towers fall" would be the ideal people to judge the Sept. 11 terrorists. He also said military trials would play into Muslim sympathies for holy warriors.

"If we try them before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want," he said on Fox News.

 A few thoughts:

-Rudy Giuliani is dead-on correct in what he is saying;

-Patrick Leahy talks like an idiot.  I'm glad he has confidence in the courts' ability to keep decorum.  Does he also have confidence that this will be a stage for these subhuman scumbags to proudly boast of what they did and to tell likeminded scumbags-in-waiting that it makes them shahids (martyrs) for Allah?  And does he have confidence that, given the huge media coverage of this civil trial, these statements will be an invaluable recruiting tool for al qaeda and its pals around the world?  Personally, I have complete confidence that both of those things will happen. 

When khalid sheikh mohammed was captured, he asked for two things:  A (presumably civilian) lawyer and a trial in New York City.  President Obama and AG eric holder have provided both on a silver platter.

Speaking of decorum, isn't Patrick Leahy the senator who spent years calling Dick Cheney a liar and a thief --  but then, when they met face to face, held out his hand as if they were bosom buddies?  And isn't Leahy the guy who whined like a baby in need of a diaper change when Cheney declined to shake his hand, and told him to go eff himself?  Even if you don't like Cheney for anything else, you should like him for that.  Honesty in Washington DC is hard to come by.

-Don't you love the effrontery of Illinois Governor Quinn?  He tells us that it's fine and dandy to have these terrorist scumbags in his state because "We're not going to let the fearmongers carry the day".  But then, along with the equally dishonest Senator Dick Durbin, Quinn also tells us that to put them there will directly or indirectly create 3,000 jobs. 

Fascinating.  If they put these five terrorist scumbags in an Illinois jail , they'll need 3,000 new employees to do it -- that's 600 employees necessary to protect us from each terrorist scumbag.  But we're the ones engaging in fearmongering.

Thank you, Mr. Rudy Giuliani, for your blunt honesty and common sense.  We need it.

And to Leahy, Quinn and Durbin?  Something-else you, for talking to us as if we are absolute idiots; spuds, without functioning cerebrums. 

The saddest part of all this is that there are people, and no small number of them, who are just as idiotic/spudlike as Leahy, Quinn and Durbin take them to be.  And I guarantee that they include many members of our wonderful "neutral" media.

I wonder if these geniuses will call it the "Terrorist Trial" or the "Man-Made Disaster Trial".

Zeke ... Remember, Rudy Giuliani was a federal prosecutor for decades. His specialty was organized crime prosecutions and white collar crime. ... ... Rudy's words carry a LOT of weight. (11/16/09)

Zeke ... Give a Terrorist a World-Wide Propagaenda Platform ... ... seems like a dumb idea to me ... ... and what happens if one of the jurors decides to vote "not guilty" ... ... Bonfire of Vanities ... ... (11/16/09)


Ken Berwitz


So how is that vaunted stimulus package working out?


Jonathan Karl, writing fror ABC News, has some insight for you.  And, somehow, I doubt that youll be very pleased about it.



Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist Lists Millions Spent and Hundreds of Jobs Created in Districts Not on Map

Nov. 16, 2009


Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.


There's one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.


There's no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government's Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there.




-Exclusive: Stimulus Job Count: Fuzzy Math?


-Exclusive: Obama Administration Strips 60K Phantom Jobs From Stimulus Report Where Are Stimulus Dollars Going?


In fact, lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don't exist.


In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- on Congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.


In Connecticut's 42nd District (which also does not exist), the website claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.


The list of spending and job creation in fictional Congressional Districts extends to U.S. territories as well.


$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st Congressional District of the U.S. Virgin Islands.


$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th Congressional District of the U.S. Virgin Islands.


$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.


$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th


Stimulus Fund Mystery


Interesting facts and figures, but none of these districts exist.


The Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program. The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.


Did you really expect the $$$ accounting to be more accurate than this?  If so, why? 


This is the same Obama administration that told us it created or saved 600,000-1,000,000 jobs, as the unemployment rate went from 8.1% to 10.2%.


This is the same Obama administration that promised us transparency, but zealously hides the contents of its major legislation from us (not to mention most people in congress).


And, lest we forget, this is also the same government that wants to be in charge of your health, and the health of your family.


The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012.


Ken Berwitz

From - without any further comment, because it doesn't need any:

1994 NYT Blasted Clinton For Bowing

November 16th, 2009

From the archives of the New York Times:

THE WORLD; The Presidents Inclination: No, It Wasnt a Bow-Bow

Published: Sunday, June 19, 1994

"IF I see another king, I think I shall bite him," Teddy Roosevelt once growled. Offered that opportunity with the Japanese equivalent last week, Bill Clinton turned out to have had quite something else in mind.

It wasnt a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent [sic] President, and the Emperor of Japan.

Canadians still bow to Englands Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about? But Mr. Clinton, alas, is not the only one since George Washington who has seemed not quite to know what to make of monarchs.

There was that curtsy, during the Reagan years, when Lenore Annenberg, herself the chief of protocol, forgot herself entirely and did a little dip to greet a visiting Prince Charles. That prompted a stern warning from Miss Manners against those who might mock the effort that "was once put into freeing Americans from the necessity of bending their knees." Soon afterward, when Nancy Reagan greeted Queen Elizabeth II behind closed doors, her press secretary acknowledged that Mrs. Reagan had bowed her head but insisted, "It was definitely not a curtsy."

With the imperial visit last week, official Washington was clearly determined to show that it knew well what courtesies should be showered on the 175th inheritor of the most formal throne on earth.

Guests invited to a white-tie state dinner at the White House (a Clinton Administration first) were instructed to address the Emperor as "Your Majesty," not "Your Highness" or, worse, "King." And in what one Administration aide called "some emperor thing," an Army general was cautioned that he should not address the Emperor Akihito at all as he escorted him to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

But the "thou need not bow" commandment from the State Departments protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable.

"It was not a bow-bow, if you know what I mean," said Ambassador Molly Raiser, the chief of protocol.

White House officials described Mr. Clintons tilt as something of an improvisation. Because Emperor Akihito broke with tradition in turn to raise his glass at the state dinner, some even said Mr. Clinton had managed something of a breakthrough.

"Presidents dont bow, and Emperors dont toast," one official said. "So this was a little bit like the cultures meeting each other halfway."

Funny, but we havent noticed any similar castigations of Mr. Obama in the pages of the New York Times.

But that was then and this is now.


Ken Berwitz

Paul Mirengoff of has written a superb piece about what a complete mess the Obama administration has made in the Middle East, and how they are now desperately hoping that former President Clinton can make it better:

Nature abhors a vacuum

  Share Post   Print

November 15, 2009 Posted by Paul at 9:18 PM

Bill Clinton is in Jerusalem trying to clean up behind President Obama and Hillary, whose strident anti-settlement policy has blown up in their face. Clinton's comments are significant only because they show what a shambles the administration's Middle East policy has become. Obama and his Secretary of State have managed to alienate the Israeli government by virtue of their initial hard line on settlements, and to place the leader of the Palestinian Authority in an untenable position by virtue of their retreat from that initial hard line. So now, it is left to an ex-president to play statesman and try to patch things up.

As to Clinton's comments themselves, they are largely inane. To the Palestinians, Clinton argued that, although America wanted Israel to freeze settlement activity, Israel's refusal to comply should not stop the two sides from talking. But the Palestinians depend on the U.S. to beat up the Israelis until they make concessions; this is their understanding of the "peace process." The fact that, this time, the Israelis were able to beat up Obama until he changed his position has persuaded the Palestinians that the "peace process" isn't proceeding to their satisfaction. Thus, they are acting reasonably in refusing to participate. Indeed, the PA would lose all credibility if it shrugged its shoulders at Obama's defeat on the settlement issue, as Clinton is urging it to do.

Clinton also told the Palestinians that by refusing to talk with Israel, they risk irking the international community, which might then blame them for the stalled peace process. But the international community is never irked by the Palestinians for long. And it's not in the international community's DNA to blame the Palestinians for problems with the "peace process." If you're the "victim," you're the victim for all purposes.

To the Israelis, Clinton warned that It is only a matter of time before Hamas is capable of putting a GPS system on the rockets it continues to launch from Gaza against Israel's southern border. Given this "trajectory of technology," Clinton said that Israel needs to make peace and has the "partners" it needs to get this done. But Hamas is not one of those partners, and it's the group that may soon be putting the GPS system on the rockets.

Clinton also instructed the Israelis "not [to] think that President Obama is your enemy." He explained that "no American president can serve in good conscience and not be committed to the security of Israel." But an American president might well believe, in good conscience or not, that Israel should "take risks for peace." And Israelis might reasonably conclude that such a president is not sufficiently committed to the security of Israel, especially if they believe that there is no peace to be had.

President Obama declines to speak like a U.S. president, often preferring to take on the mantle of mediator of the world's grievances against the U.S. -- grievances to which he is generally quite sympathetic. As long as this continues, I would expect to be hearing more from Bill Clinton. Nature abhors a vacuum.


Just curious:  If the Democrats are the party of the donkey, how come since Barack Obama became President we keep having to clean up after the elephant act?


Ken Berwitz

Is German the national language of the United States of America?

The answer, of course is that it is not.

Thank you, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for listening to your Generals, consulting with your military experts and making key decisions in a timely manner. 

To President Barack Obama:  It is now almost three months since the commanding General that your administration put in Afghanistan made his recommendations.  Would you please do what FDR would have done.  What would he have done? I'll answer in three words.


It's what Presidents are supposed to do.  Why not give it a try? 


Ken Berwitz

Did you know that, according to, 5 of the 17 best selling books of 2009 were written by conservative authors?

They are:

-Liberty & Tyranny:  A Conservative Manifesto, by Mark Levin (#2);

-Glenn Beck's Common Sense:  The Case Against an Out-Of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine (#3);

-Going Rogue:  An American Life, by Sarah Palin (#15 - entirely on pre-sale, since the book is not available until tomorrow);

-Arguing With Idiots:  How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, by Glenn Beck (#16)

-Culture of Corruption:  Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, by Michelle Malkin (#17).

What does this mean?  You tell me.

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!!