Wednesday, 27 January 2010


Ken Berwitz

President Obama (approximate wording):  There are people in my party that say we can't freeze spending because too many people are hurting.  I agree.  That is why the freeze won't take effect until next year.

Derisive laughter.

President Obama:  That's how budgeting works.

Louder derisive laughter.

Zeke ... .... Mr Obama has just created one million jobs .... shoveling this bull shit. (01/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

This is the topper - I'm calling on congress to continue down the road of earmark reform????????

Wasn't this the same President who vowed not to sign bills with any earmarks, and then allowed countless thousands  of them into legislation?  Were there not something like 6 thousand earmarks (that is NOT a typo) in the so-called "stimulus package" alone?

Sorry to say it, but Mr. Obama's speech is farcical.

And I think he just said "I" for the 2,482nd time.  So far.

Zeke ... ... How about no lobbyists in the government ? ... ... redstate [dot] com has a list of top officials who were lobbyists for SEIU, La Raza (give California back to Mexico), Goldman Sachs, NEA, a bankrupt telecom company (Global Crossing), etc, etc. ... ... ... ... Where was the Health Care Debate on CNN (promised 8 times when campaigning) (01/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

Could this have been more boneheaded?

James O'Keefe, to whom we owe a great deal of gratitude for exposing what a corrupt, fraudulent organization ACORN is, was arrested with three other men for trying to do something to or with U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu's office telephones - apparently to tap them and listen to the calls coming in and out of that office.

Here are the particulars, via excerpts from an article in the New Orlean's Times-Picayune:

ACORN 'gotcha' man arrested in attempt to tamper with Mary Landrieu's office phones

By David Hammer, The Times-Picayune

January 26, 2010, 6:23PM


Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. All four men were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator's offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents.

According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street on Monday about 11 a.m., dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu's 10th-floor office, O'Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.

When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affidavit, observed O'Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O'Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.

After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn't working. Flanagan did the same.

They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and Flanagan and Basel went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men's credentials. They said they left them in their vehicle.

The U.S. Marshal's Service apprehended all four men shortly thereafter.

Landrieu said: "This is a very unusual situation and somewhat unsettling for me and my staff. The individuals responsible have been charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purposes of committing a felony. I am as interested as everyone else about their motives and purpose, which I hope will become clear as the investigation moves forward."

On Tuesday at 4:40 p.m., O'Keefe, Dai and Basel were released from the jail and were waiting for a cab. Asked to comment, O'Keefe said only, "Veritas," which is Latin for "truth." O'Keefe's biography on the blog site says he works at, although that site does not appear to be functioning.

O'Keefe spent most of the time in the men's room off the jail's lobby, then hustled to the cab when it arrived. As he ran into the back seat, he called out, "The truth shall set me free." 

Robert Flanagan's attorney, J. Garrison Jordan, said he believes his client works for the Pelican Institute. Asked the motivation for the alleged wiretap plot, he said: "I think it was poor judgment. I don't think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime."

What was O'Keefe thinking?  Was he thinking?

At best this is a boneheaded stunt that backfired, made him look like an ass, and blew away a great deal of his personal credibility.

At worst, it is a felony that makes him a criminal and ends his credibility altogether - not to mention probably putting him in jail.

I will wait to hear what explanation, if any, he has for this inexcusable idiocy.  Maybe there is one..  But it better be a double doozy, because no matter how I think about this, I can't come up with a thing.

One other point:  No matter what happens here, ACORN is just as corrupt and fraudulent as he found them out to be.  One thing has nothing to do with the other.


Ken Berwitz

I heard keith olbermann's "quick comment" last night, in which he angrily (what other emotion does he show?) lectured us (how else does he talk?) that a majority of the people in Masschusetts are in favor of ObamaCare.  His exact words?  " polling there shows, they are upset because health care reform didn't go far enough" olbermann also tossed in his standard corporate hatred and racial innuendo - nothing new there.

I found his "analysis" (if you can call it that) fascinating, given that Brown ran explicitly against ObamaCare and even signed his name "Scott "41" Brown, to denote that he would be the 41st vote against cloture and would therefore sink it.

I don't know what poll olbermann was basing his contention on, (maybe he just lied to us - that would hardly be a first), but I suspect it might have been a generic poll that Massachusetts people want universal health care of some kind.  Well, they have it already, via state legislation, and either are unhappy with it, don't want to pay twice for what they already have or some combination thereof.  Any way you slice it, however, they did not want ObamaCare.

In stark contrast to olbermann's screed, I just read a very good analysis of why Scott Brown won - something that makes far too much sense to ever find its way onto olbermann's "countdown" show, let alone be part of a "special comment" - from Pehman Yousefzadeh, writing for I thought you might like to see it:

Why Did Martha Coakley Lose? And Why Did Scott Brown Win?

by Pejman Yousefzadeh

As I type this, Keith Olbermann is sputtering in fury, trying ever-so-desperately to spin Martha Coakleys loss to Scott Brown in Massachusetts, while issuing any insult he can possibly think of in the direction of Scott Brown, and the Republicans. But despite Olbermanns efforts to complicate the analysisand despite his inability to understand what he is trying to analyzethe explanation for the Scott Brown win and the Martha Coakley loss is quite simple.

For one thing, candidates matter. Scott Brown was a great one, and Martha Coakley was a terrible one. Brown smartly channeled discontent with the Obama/Democratic agenda, and used it to propel his campaign at Coakleys expense. He successfully got independents on his bandwagon, thus helping him overcome the Democratic registration advantage. His its the peoples seat comment in the debate with Martha Coakley was instrumental in helping him consolidate populist support, and he ran a campaign that was significantly more vigorous than the one run by Martha Coakley and the Democrats.

Speaking of Coakley, her decision to take a vacation from the campaign trail, while Brown got to define himself and her for the benefit of the voters, has to rank as one of the most disastrous ideas ever hatched in the midst of a campaign. Equally disastrous, of course, was her decision to take potshots at Scott Browns efforts to campaign at outdoor hockey games, her stated belief that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan, and her revelation that she thought Red Sox legend Curt Schilling was a Yankees player. It takes a startling amount of incompetence for a Massachusetts Democrat to lose a Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy, and by JFK himself, but Martha Coakley exhibited that incompetence in spades.

But it cannot be forgotten that ideology played a role in Scott Browns win as well. There was no disguising the fact that validation of the Obama/Democratic agenda was on the line in the Senate raceespecially the portion of the agenda dealing with health care reform. No one doubted that Martha Coakley would go to Washington and vote in favor of health care reform, if she were elected. And no one doubted that Scott Brown would go to Washington and sink health care reform as Massachusettss next Senator. In bluer-than-blue Massachusetts, Browns approach was validated over Coakleys. Whatever the amount of incompetence and bumbling Coakley exhibited, Massachusettss rejection of herand Barack Obamasdomestic policy vision constitutes an ideological, philosophical defeat for the Democratic party that transcends campaign competence, or the lack thereof.

Could the Democrats have won if they had run a competent campaign? Possibly. But it likely would have been a close victory, and Democrats still would have been startled by what would have been a significant protest against the Obama/Democratic agenda. Whatever one might say about the quality of the Coakley and Brown campaigns, the conclusion that the voters delivered a negative judgment on the Democratic platform is inescapable.

And now, Republicans have a roadmap to further electoral wins, one provided to them by Brown and by Bob McDonnell, the newly elected Governor of Virginia: Focus on economic issues, run positive and appealing candidates with positive and appealing campaigns, and dont be afraid to directly take on the White House and the Democratic establishment.

If this approach can pay dividends in Massachusetts, it can pay dividends elsewhere as well-including conservative House districts represented by Blue Dog Democrats.

Now that makes sense.  It is thoughtful, analytical and (unlike olbermann's rumpelstiltskinesque screed) reasoned. 

I don't agree 100% with Mr. Yousefzadeh (for example, I think he missed the impact of Coakley's statement that Catholics should probably stay away from emergency rooms).  But, taken as a whole, I think he has done a really good job.

I'll be making a point of reading this site, and this particular writer, in the future.

Zeke ... .... Did Scott Brown WIN the election, or did the DemoAgenda LOSE ? ... .... ... .... Was it a vote AGAINST the Bolshevik attempt to take over the reins of government by Obama's minions - paying off their supporters with 'stimulus' money, pushing through legislation in the middle of the night that not one senator had read? Legislation that would remake 1/6th of our economy and totally change health care. ... .... ... .... (01/27/10)


Ken Berwitz

First there was the speech in Copenhagen to get the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Then was the campaigning for the Governor's race in Virginia.  And the campaigning for the Governor's race in New Jersey.  And the campaigning for the Senate race in Massachusetts. 

Now there is this. 

From, in Kentucky:

President Barack Obama called Kentucky coach John Calipari to praise the program and to caution the top-ranked Wildcats.

The country's No. 1 college basketball fan thanked Calipari and his players Tuesday for helping to raise more than $1 million as part of the "Hoops for Haiti" telethon. Then Obama counseled them to keep their focus and not let their new position atop the polls go to their heads.

When President Obama offered his counsel yesterday, Kentucky had a perfect 19-0 record.

Last night Kentucky played South Carolina, a decent but not great team with an 11-8 record. 

Kentucky lost.

When you're hot, you're hot.  And when you're not, you're not.



Ken Berwitz

How narcissistic is President Obama?

Watch this video from a speech he made on January 22, and decide for yourself. 

Personally, it reminds me of Bette Midler's self-absorbed character from the movie "Beaches", when she says "But enough of me talking about myself.  What do YOU think of me?"


Ken Berwitz

President Obama's speech is not over yet.  But there has been a seminal moment.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, build nuclear plants and drill offshore.

Where did that come from?  Is he serious?  If so, where was he for the past year?

And what will his hard-left followers say about it tomorrow?



Ken Berwitz

I don't always agree with the Washington Post's editorial position.  But on this one we are 100% in agreement.  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I've put in bold print:

Hugo Chavez's presidential strikeout

Wednesday, January 27, 2010


VENEZUELAN STRONGMAN Hugo Chvez is having a bad month. He's been forced to devalue the currency and impose nationwide power cuts, steps that will worsen a serious recession and Latin America's highest inflation.

The U.S.-led humanitarian intervention in Haiti has undercut his propaganda about an evil American "empire." As his baseball-crazy country watches its annual championship series, a new slogan has gone viral: "Chvez -- You Struck Out."


So it should surprise no one that Mr. Chvez has taken new steps to tighten his authoritarian grip. On Sunday, without so much as a hint of due process, his government ordered cable systems to drop six television channels -- including RCTV, the country's oldest and long its most popular station. The alleged offense was failing to broadcast Mr. Chvez's live speeches -- of which there have been more than 140 in the past year alone, lasting up to seven hours each.


This is not the first attack on RCTV, which produces Venezuela's most popular entertainment programming as well as news programs with an opposition bent. In 2007, Mr. Chvez ordered the channel off the public airwaves, also without the due process nominally required by law. That action prompted the birth of a student movement that under the slogans of free speech and democracy helped defeat the caudillo's attempt to rewrite the constitution, and propelled opposition candidates to victory in Caracas and other major cities and states last year.


The students have returned to the streets of Caracas and at least four other cities this week, with violent results -- two were killed and dozens injured in the town of Merida in clashes with security forces and pro-regime thugs.

On Tuesday, Mr. Chvez's vice president and defense minister resigned, along with the environment minister. International criticism is raining down on his government, most of it considerably stronger than the milquetoast reaction of the State Department, which observed that "any time the government shuts down an independent network, that is an area of concern."


Mr. Chvez may calculate that all the turmoil is worth it. Later this year, an election for the National Assembly is due, and what is now a rubber-stamp body could fall into the hands of the opposition if the vote is free and fair. The currency devaluation will, at least, allow Mr. Chvez to spend far more in the domestic market in the coming months; the attack on RCTV will eliminate a major opposition platform. The student protests may provide a pretext to arrest key organizers, or even to declare an emergency and put off the elections.


If Mr. Chvez were a right-wing leader or an ally of the United States, Latin American governments and many Democrats in Congress would be mobilizing to stop his latest abuse of power, and to encourage peaceful and democratic opposition. But he is not, and they are mostly silent. The Obama administration, too, has done next to nothing to defend democracy or encourage the opposition in Venezuela. Now -- when Chvez's regime threatens to disintegrate into chaos and violence -- would be a good time to start.

 It is not often that I feel I could have written a Washington Post editorial.  But I could have written this one.  When it comes to hugo chavez, they understand perfectly.

The sooner Venezuela is rid of this thug, the better off it will be.  Let's hope that day is soon in coming.  Very soon.

free` From the article: The Obama administration, too, has done next to nothing to defend democracy or encourage the opposition in Venezuela. --- That is because obama is a leftist like hugo. (01/27/10)


Ken Berwitz

How many congresspeople are pro-Hamas?  And how many of them are Democrats?

Here's some insight for you, from Daniel Greenfield, a New York-based writer, who writes for Canada Free Press (where did you think this would come from?  The New York Times?):

Amerabia isn't as far away as we have thought

Hamas 54 Democratic Congressmen

 By Daniel Greenfield  Wednesday, January 27, 2010


Keith Ellison, widely hailed as Americas first Muslim congressman, could more accurately be described as CAIR and Hamas man in Congress. Congressman Ellison has been a regular presence at CAIR fundraisers

and at pro-Hamas rallies in the United States. As a former member of Farrakhans Nation of Islam, Ellison has enough anti-semitic and Islamist credentials to satisfy anyone, and had expressed openly anti-semitic beliefs in the past.


Since Ellison got his start with CAIR , his attempt to provide support for Hamas is completely unsurprising. Both Hamas and CAIR are projects of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also helped birth Al Queda. Organizations like CAIR do the same work in America that Hamas does in Israel. The difference is that CAIR does its work on a political level, while Hamas functions on both a political and a military level. Like CAIR, Ellison is careful to cloak his pro-Hamas agenda, which he does by mentioning that all violence is wrong and that Israelis probably shouldnt be shelledbut the thrust of his agenda is to force Israel to open its border with Hamas.


The entire Free Gaza movement is a Hamas propaganda project that allows it to demand that Israel open its borders, without actually using the P word, for peace, since Hamas doesnt even believe in phony peace negotiations. So Pro-Hamas activists, whether its former Saddam supporter, George Galloways Viva Palestina or their American flavors talk only about The People of Gaza, deemphasize Hamas and emphasize the supposed suffering within Gaza.


But the call for Israel to open its borders is nothing more than a way of making it easier for terrorists to strike. Ellisons letter buries its real agenda in paragraphs of prose about how everyone will be better off, except somehow Hamas, if Israel complies with their demand that Israel ease the movement of people in and out of Gaza. This of course is a fancy way of saying, Let my Suicide Bombers go.


None of this is up till now is shocking. But what Congressman Keith Ellison accomplished was to convince 53 other Democratic congressmen to join him in this venture. It is not particularly surprising to find the Houses most radical anti-Israel voices signing their names onto Ellisons letter. It would be inconceivable if a letter aiding Hamas did not carry the signatures of Barbara Lee, Jim Moran or Jim McDermott, who helped Ellison spearhead the whole campaign. It is essentially inconceivable that any letter circulated in congress opposing Israel would not get their signature.


Jim Moran had managed to blame even the Iraq War on the Jews and McDermott was actually named CAIRs Public Official of the Year. Neither is West Virginia Arab Congressman, Nick Rahall, who is the Democratic partys version of Darrel Issa, who is tied to CAIR as well, and previously voted against Israels right to defend itself. Rahall is also the top recipient of CAIR donations. The likes of Diane Watson or Pete Stark arent complete surprises either. Pete Stark has a history of being both anti-Israel and unstable. Neither is Carolyn Kilpatrick, who voted against Israels right to defend itself, and against condemning terrorist attacks on Israel. Kilpatrick, like virtually every Democrat on the list, is also tied to CAIR.


Then theres William Delahunt, who all but openly expressed the hope that a former Cheney aide would be targeted by Al Queda. John Conyers signing on to this while awaiting prison is no real shocker either. The man has all but endorsed Sharia law in America. Or John Dingell who like many Detroit politicians has gone whole hog with the Islamist Follow Traveler thing.


Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been waging her own private war on Israel, right down to issuing an imperial demand that Israeli Ambassador Oren attend the national conference of the far left anti-Israel group, J Street. McCollum famously belittled Hamas shelling of Israel as nothing more than a drug gangs drive by shooting and repeated the discredited white phosphorous smear. Again, no more surprising than Chaka Fattahs presence on the list.


Then theres Eric Massa, a former Republican turned turncoat Democrat, Massa has been consistently loudly anti-war and to the left. Like virtually every congressman on this list, hes pushed for a phony ceasefire, that would naturally be one sided. Considering his increasingly unhinged radicalism, and that he has an election coming up soon, Massa must be pretty confident that the nutroots can get him reelected.


It is of course no surprise that this list weighs heavily toward Minnesota and Michigan, where CAIR is strong. But it also includes twelve congressmen from California, 3 from New Jersey, 4 from New York and 6 from Massachusetts. These numbers are not mere statistics, they define the rising influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American politics, state by state.


And it is instructive to note how many of the congressmen and congresswomen on the list are funded by CAIR money. Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez, Betty McCollum, Lois Capps, Bill Pascrell, Elijah Cummings, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, John Dingell, James Moran, Nick Rahall, Andre Carson, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Jim McDermott are among the top receivers of CAIR money in congress.


Of the top 11 CAIR moneygetters in congress, Nick Rahall, James Moran, Darrel Issa, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Dingell, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Shelia Jackson Lee and Jim McDerrmott7 out of 11 signed on to Ellisons letter. That makes the Gaza letter a CAIR project. 5 on that list voted against condemning attacks on Israel.


And the letter is simply an opening shot as part of a broader campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood and its American proxies to attack Israel and promote its own Hamas wing. Its proxies cant openly come out for Hamas, not in the United States anyway. Not from members of congress. But they can work toward a common goal. With this letter, Hamass masters in the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated that they can use CAIR to gather 54 congressmen together to push its agenda. That is quite a leap for an organization that is the unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas terror  It also demonstrates that Amerabia isnt as far away as we have thought.

Take a good look at the names.  Other than Darrell Issa, every one of them is a Democrat.  Dozens and dozens of them.

I'm surprised Republican Ron Paul isn't mentioned, and assume he is right up there too.  That makes two Republicans.  Two

The rest?  Democrats.

That just might be something for Jews to remember on election day.  Speaking as one of them, I assure you it is for me.


Ken Berwitz

For weeks I have blogged about how Attorney General eric holder's past - he was a senior partner with Covington & Buling, a law firm which specialized in defending terrorists - is apparently bearing on his insane decision to put terrorists in civil courts, rather than treating them as the enemy combatants they are and putting them before military tribunals.

But I didn't realize that he is also stacking the Department of Justice with others who have taken the terrorists' side. 

Read this editorial from the New York Post and see for yourself:

Come clean, Mr. Holder

Last Updated: 2:16 AM, January 27, 2010

Posted: January 27, 2010


Whose side is the Justice Department on: America's -- or the terrorists'?


It's just insane that a lawyer who defended Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard -- and who sought constitutional rights for terrorists -- could be one of the Obama administration's top legal officials.


But there's Neal Katyal, occupying a top perch at the Justice Department as the principal deputy solicitor general.


Then there's Jennifer Daskal -- who just months ago was an anti-Guantanamo activist. Now she's in Justice's National Security Division -- working on detainee issues.


Talk about conflicts of interest.


All kinds of rules prohibit government employees from influencing policy to the benefit of their previous employers. If Katyal, Daskal and other conflicted Justice lawyers had worked for corporations, they'd almost certainly be subject to these regulations.


Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are hopping mad about the situation -- and rightly so. Months ago, Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Grassley asked Attorney General Eric Holder to disclose who in the administration had previously represented or agitated for alleged terrorists.


The AG's reply?


"I will consider that request."


Holder must be thinking long and hard -- because committee members have yet to receive a response.


Meanwhile, they've started asking other questions of Justice -- like who came up with the brilliant idea to Mirandize undie-bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, limiting the amount of intelligence he might provide about al Qaeda and future attacks.


With high-profile terror cases coming up -- like Abdulmutallab's, and the outrageous Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial in New York -- Americans need to know: Is our government putting in a good-faith effort when it comes to punishing the men who want to blow up our people?


The call to treat terrorists like civilians in court has been all Team Obama.


Which means the president and his administration also owe the American people an answer: Is the government's prosecutorial deck stacked in favor of the terrorists?


A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, tells The Post that the department will be responding to Sen. Grassley's request "very soon."


Will it be soon enough?


It's time for Holder and Justice to come clean.



How many are there?  How many more Katyals and Daskals have been planted in the DOJ?  How many more will be in the future?

Is it just that this administration is not serious about fighting terrorism?  Or is it that the administration is siding with the terrorists?  When a President appoints an Attorney General who, without explanation, gives terrorists civil trials with Miranda rights of silence, and puts people who defend and advocate for terrorists in positions of senior authority, that is a valid question.

Every day President Obama keeps eric holder in this position, is a day we are less safe.  holder is a national disgrace who endangers us all.

Fire him today.

Zeke ... .... ... .... Brings to mind the O.J. trial -- how JUSTICE can be perverted by PR in the courtroom. ... .... ... .... and this time, the prosecutor will lose because of ideology, not by incompetence. ... .... ... .... *sigh* ... .... ... .... Guess we'll just have to go after KSM in a Civil Trial, like the Goldman's did with O.J. ... ... .... What part of ... .... "Defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic" ... .... does Obama not understand in his oath of office? (01/27/10)

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!!