Sunday, 28 March 2010


Ken Berwitz

About the 3,486th time I've read something that either suggests or specifically states that to disagree with President Obama's policies is to be a racist, I start to wonder if, just maybe, it might be a strategy to shut his critics up.  Just maybe.

Here are the latest examples (and, believe me, there are plenty of others to choose from):

Charles Blow in the New York Times:

A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bills most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. Its enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Colbert King in the Washington Post:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school's first


Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School in 1957.


Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.

Frank Rich in the New York Times:

The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Ad nauseam.  This is what they are selling. Their logic appears to be:

"When you are losing on facts and public opinion is way against you with an election coming up?  Tell 'em they're racists, homophobes, misogynists and anything else you can think of.  Make 'em think that only bad people disagree with the administration. 


"Stereotype them every way you know how.  Just like the kkk stereotypes Blacks and the nazi party stereotypes Jews.  Hey, it's worked before, hasn't it?"

Well, here's hoping it doesn't work this time. 




UPDATE:  I was just watching Meet The Press and the leftward writer (and plagiarist, let's never forget), Doris Kearns Goodwin connected being against ObamaCare with racism and angry Whites - while Jon Meacham, the editor of increasingly hard-left Newsweek, nodded agreement. 


I rest my case.

Zeke ... .... This is descending to 3rd grade sand-box taunts : .... "You are a pooh-pooh-head !" .... .... an ad hominem attack. The logic is so lacking ... .... "if'n y'all is agin us, you is the devil". .... ... ...... (03/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

In late May, 76 congresspeople supposedly signed a letter urging President Obama to consider the level of risk Israel is under while formulating his policies toward Iran.  Here is what I wrote about it at that time:


Ken Berwitz

Over a week ago, it was reported that 76 US senators and 195 house members signed a letter to President Obama strongly urging him to recognize the level of risk Israel is under as he formulates his policy on Iran.

The senate sponsors of this letter were Chris Dodd, Arlen Spector, Johnny Isakson and John Thune.  That's four

Why, after all this time, have no media outlets I can find reported who the other 72 senators are - and, more to the point, which 24 senators would not sign that letter?  Why have no media outlets reported who the majority of house members not signing this letter are?

Why is this information being withheld?  Is it because the non-signers are disproportionately Democratic and media, as an entity, don't want us to know because it could affect some people's view of the party?  Is it some other reason?  What reason?

When does this stop being a secret?.

To this day I have never seen a list of who did and did not sign the letter.

Now, today we have this, which comes to us (among many other places) from Ed Morrissey at

327 House members tell Obama to make U-turn on US-Israeli relations

posted at 10:00 am on March 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama talks a lot about the spirit of bipartisanship.  Now hes had a chance to see it for himself, thanks to a series of diplomatic fumbles between the White House and Israel, usually one of Americas closest allies.  More than three-quarters of the US House of Representatives signed a letter expressing dismay over the direction of the alliance, warning that the highly publicized tensions arent helping Americas interests:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will continue discussions with his senior ministers in the coming days, looking for a way out of the crisis with the US. He received some badly needed support on Friday from 327 congressmen, who signed a letter expressing concern that the highly publicized tensions in US-Israeli ties will not advance the interests of either state.

Meanwhile, in Washington, [327] congressmen three-quarters of the House of Representatives signed a bipartisan letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing solid support for Israel and the expectation that differences between Jerusalem and Washington will be smoothed over quickly and in private.

We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension, the letter read. A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.

We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the US and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.

The letter stated that the USs unswerving commitment to Israels security has been essential in forging previous Israeli-Arab peace agreements, both because it convinced those who sought Israels destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.

The letters lead signatories were Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD).  The letter had only circulated for three days last week before garnering 327 signatures, probably the most bipartisan effort seen on Capitol Hill in this session of Congress.  It provides a measure of just how far out of the mainstream the Obama administration has gotten on relations with Israel.

There are currently 431 house members from the two parties:  253 Democrats and 178 Republicans.  That leaves over 100 who did not sign. 

Who are they?  Why is it that, though I look high and low, I cannot find a list of the signers/non-signers.

My strong suspicion is the same as it was for the letter last May:  That, given where the anti-Israel sentiment is, the vast majority of non-signers are Democrats and that this information is being withheld from us. 

I will wait to see if a list of names is published.  Based on last year, I doubt it will be.

This stinks.

Zeke .... .... .... It ain't that sunny .... .... the letter to Mr. Obama from congress got 216 House votes and 28 Senate votes. ..... .... ..... That letter called for crippling sanctions against Iran .... (and no bowing, no stupid ipod or DVD gifts .... j/k). .............. ....... .... A totally different letter was written to Sec of State H Clinton ... which asked for a reaffirmation of the strong close times between Israel and the US. ... that letter got the vote counts you mention, 327/49. For the texts of each of the two pairs of letters, and also for the ROLL CALL count of ayes .... (03/28/10)

free` We can be sure of one Republican that didn't sign, dennis kucinich (03/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

I know you've never heard of The Euphoria Notch before, because I just invented the term.  It is the (usually short) period of time after a politician and/or a political party has a major victory of some kind.  Positive reaction jumps upward....and then, usually (though not always) trickles back down.

Here, from, is every poll taken about the health care legislation since President Obama signed it into law:







No Opinion

Washington Post


1000 A





CBS News


649 A







1552 RV





USA Today/Gallup


1005 A







1000 A











Euphoria notch?  What euphoria notch.  Look at those last three polls.  If it existed at all, it lasted all of one day.  This is not what you'd call good news for Democrats. 

No wonder they are so desperately trying to tell you you're a racist, homophobe, misogynist, anti-Semite, etc. etc. ete. if you are against ObamaCare.  What else have they got?

Will it work?  We'll see.  But if I were betting, I'd bet on a resounding no.


Ken Berwitz

What happens if a company dares to state that ObamaCare will raise its costs?

Does the administration respectfully disagree?  Does it ask why so that it can reconsider parts of the legislation?

Or does it immediately open an inquisition aimed at the company making such a statement?

Here is your answer, courtesy of Bloomberg, via

AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs

March 27, 2010, 7:28 PM EDT

By Viola Gienger


March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.


Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.


The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern, Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.


AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, is among employers that have announced plans to book costs related to the health- care law signed this week by President Barack Obama. The 10- year, $940-billion legislation is intended to cover 32 million uninsured Americans and provide benefits such as restricting premiums and ending the practice of denying coverage for pre- existing conditions.


Dallas-based AT&T said in a regulatory filing yesterday it would record $1 billion of costs, the most of any U.S. company so far.


AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.


Tax Burden


As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company, the carrier said in the filing.


New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note shortly after the law was signed that the tax will make a drug subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.


Moline, Illinois-based Deere, the worlds largest maker of farm machinery, said on March 25 that the new health-care law would increase its expenses by $150 million this fiscal year.


Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, the worlds largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, expects to record a charge of about $100 million in the first quarter of 2010, reflecting new tax liabilities on retiree drug benefits.


No Charge at GE


General Electric Co., the worlds biggest maker of jet engines, power-plant turbines and locomotives, said today it doesnt anticipate taking a charge tied to the health-care law.


GE, of Fairfield, Connecticut, doesnt see any material effect from the law, spokeswoman Anne Eisele said today.

Waxman and Stupak said the Congressional Budget Office had reported that average premium costs per person would decrease as much as 3 percent by 2016 for companies insuring more than 50 employees. They also cited what they said was a November estimate by the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers, of reduced health-insurance cost trends.


The lawmakers asked the companies to provide documents to the committee supporting their planned charges by April 9.

There's your answer.

Now please note the paragraph I've put in bold print:  Whose concerns?  The operatives in the administration's war room?  Whose independent analyses?  The only one I've seen that looks positive for ObamaCare is from the Congressional Budget Office, which bases its estimates on the assumptions provided by this administration, which means it's a stacked deck from the word "go".

Don't overlook the fact that one of the companies making this claim is Caterpillar, which Mr. Obama featured and heralded to sell his "stimulus package" last year.  Now there's a honeymoon that is definitely over.

And the fact that GE says everything is hunky-dory?  Isn't this the same GE which stands to make billions and billions on the administration's environmental policy; the same GE that, as parent company of NBC, loaded the MSNBC network with hard left hosts who have done little but spout the Obama line on policies, while sneering out condemnations at everything and anything that Republicans say?  Now there's a honeymoon that is not over.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.


Ken Berwitz

Did you know that troop casualties are up dramatically in Afghanistan?  That there are twice the number of fatalities compared to last year, and injuries - often horrible mutilations - suffered by our troops are through the roof?

Did our wonderful "neutral" media tell you about this?  Are you seeing and/or reading feature after feature decrying the troop surge there and what it is doing to our military?  Or the fact that the taliban, at least so far, doesn't seem to be weakening as a result of it?

Well, it's not as if this kind of information is unavailable to the news outlets you rely on.  Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

US troop deaths double in Afghanistan


Mar 27, 12:46 PM (ET)



KABUL (AP) - The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban's momentum.

Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.

"We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

In total, 57 U.S. troops were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by The Associated Press. At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March, an average of about 0.8 per day, compared to 13, or 0.4 per day, a year ago.

Where are our media?  Where are the questions about why we have a troop surge in a place where, other than two or three "cities" (one look at them would explain why I put that word in quotes) there is no territory to secure, just desolation and caves overseen by warlords who answer only to whoever pays them the most or who they fear the most.

When President Bush agreed to a troop surge in Iraq - which, unlike Afghanistan, is a real country with real cities and real assets that can be secured - we never heard the end of it.  In fact, one of the most vocal critics was then-Senator Barack Obama, who assured us not only that would it fail, but that it would make things even worse than they were. 

But how did it turn out?  It turned out that Mr. Bush was right about okaying the troop surge and Mr. Obama was dead wrong. 

So now, as our casualties mount and the taliban remains strong enough to inflict them, I ask again:  Where are our media?

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

Zeke .... .... .... Afghanistan is a VERY different place than Iraq ... .... .... Much more primitive .... ... The world's worst terrain to fight in .... A culture of opposing foreign domination ... .... A fatalistic view of life (It is the will of Allah) ... .... a time-view that spans decades .... .... deceit in dealings --- tribes switching sides in the middle of a battle was a regular occurrence ... Afghanistan is not a country -- it is a collection of tribes that share a flag. (03/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama appears perfectly willing to live with a nuclear Iran.

But can Israel, which Iran boasts it will "wipe of the face of the earth", do the same?

From today's Jerusalem Post (the bold print is mine):

'Obama resigned to nuclear Iran'

28/03/2010 05:31

Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton expressed concern Sunday that Washington was coming to terms with a nuclear Iran.

I very much worry the Obama administration is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, that's why there's this extraordinary pressure on Israel not to attack in Iran, Bolton told Army Radio.

The former envoy claimed that this pressure was the focus of last week's meetings in Washington between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhau and US officials, including President Barack Obama.

Bolton said that the Obama administration had embraced the view, prevalent in Europe, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to the resolution of all other conflicts throughout the Middle East, including the Iranian conflict.

He added that the rift in US-Israel relations stemmed from a fundamental difference in the understanding of the Middle East and Israel's role in the Middle East, and is not really about east Jerusalem at all.

Bolton said that the treatment Netanyahu received during his visit "should tell the people of Israel how difficult it's going to be dealing with Washington for the next couple of years."

On Saturday, meanwhile, The New York Times reported that international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies suspect that Teheran is preparing to build more sites in defiance of United Nations demands.


 According to the report, half a year after the revelation of a secret Iranian nuclear enrichment site northeast of Qom the UN inspectors assigned to monitor Irans nuclear program are now searching for evidence of two such sites, prompted by Israeli assessments as well as by recent comments by a top Iranian official that drew little attention in the West.

The paper said that the inspectors were looking into a mystery about the whereabouts of recently manufactured uranium enrichment equipment.

In an interview with the Iranian Student News Agency, the official, Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Irans Atomic Energy Organization, said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had ordered work to begin soon on two new plants. The plants, he said, will be built inside mountains, presumably to protect them from attacks.

God willing, Mr. Salehi was quoted as saying, we may start the construction of two new enrichment sites in the Iranian new year, which began March 21.


One European official noted to the Times that while we have some evidence, Irans heavy restrictions on where inspectors can travel and the existence of numerous tunneling projects were making the detection of any new enrichment plants especially difficult.

The paper went on to quote American officials as saying that Israel had "pressed the case" with their American counterparts that evidence points to what one senior administration official called Qom lookalikes. 

The revelation that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, now believe that there may be two new sites comes at a crucial moment in the White Houses attempts to impose tough new sanctions against Iran, the Times report added

Don't you love that threat to "impose tough new sanctions against Iran"?  What did the tough old sanctions do, other than give ahmadinejad and the mullahs a good belly laugh.

The Obama administration is playing with fire here.  The UN will not do anything to prevent Iran from its goals, any more than it did anything to stop the genocide in Darfur or to prevent its own troops from raping young girls in the Congo, and other places where they are sent.  The UN is morally, spiritually and ethically dead - and has been for a long time.

That leaves the USA.  If we also decline to do anything, or we do things that are clearly not going to work, what choices do we leave Israel?

And who will we blame if Israel acts to prevent its own annihilation?  Benjamin Netanyahu?  Last week's star of "Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner"?

I don't think so.

Zeke .... .... The scary part is: 1) Iran is NOT deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ... which was the basis of detente during the Cold War .... ..... 2) The US economy is in long term decline, and Europe is leading the way. Social programs and coddling those 'on the dole' has sapped potentially productive adults .... .... 3) Red China is on the ascendancy, scientifically, economically, diplomatically and militarily. They are securing long term contracts for raw materials in Australia, Africa, Latin America, and are drilling for oil in the Caribbean. .... .... .... (03/28/10)

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!!