Sunday, 25 April 2010


Ken Berwitz

I don't like who and what Al Sharpton is.  But I have always given him credit for being intelligent and perceptive.

His latest stunt, however, is making me wonder.

Excerpted from the Associated Press:

The Rev. Al Sharpton says he will challenge Arizona's new immigration bill in court and on the streets.

Sharpton is joining Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation to announce a legal challenge to the bill. They say activists are also prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight the Arizona immigration bill.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill Friday. It requires police to question people about their immigration status including asking for identification if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

Has sharpton thought about whose jobs illegals are taking?  Who is hurt most by people who are willing to work for appreciably less than what it costs to hire legals, thus driving down salaries for entry level and manual labor work?

Maybe he ought to start.

Zeke ... .... Al "The Rev" Sharpton is purely a low-life street hustler. While quick to file lawsuits, he never follows through and actually brings them to trial. It costs peanuts to file a civil lawsuit, and Fat Al does it for the publicity. .... ... He is a crook, dishonest, and a racial arsonist. Quick to pour gasoline on volatile situations -- Freddy's Market in Harlem (7 people burned to death), Crown Heights, Tawana Brawley. .... .... Sharpton faded to irrelevant during the Giuliani administration simply because Rudy refused to have anything to say about him. .... Sharpton is the Paris Hilton of race mongering --- he's famous for being a loudmouth. (04/25/10)

Ray I'm with Zeke. He is all about Al. (04/26/10)


Ken Berwitz

Boob-baiting is not restricted to the general run of gullible people.  Some times it has elements of niche marketing.

As a case in point, read this, from Philip Klein's blog, which can be found at

Weiner Joins Schumer in Criticizing Obama's Israel Policy

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer made waves yesterday, when he blasted the Obama administration for its "counter-productive" Israel policy that he said "has to stop."

Today, fellow New York Democrat Anthony Weiner echoed this criticism, saying:

Israel is our closest ally in the region, yet they continue to receive more criticism than deserved and less support than is required.

Instead of continuing to lash out publicly at our closest ally, the Obama Administration should be listening to what Senator Schumer says. Schumer is right, and the White House is wrong on Israel.

This is supposed to impress me?  Yeah, ok.  Right.  Sure.

What these two politicians - wait, let me emphasize that word more fittingly - POLITICIANS - are doing, is blatantly pandering, primarily to their Jewish constituents, by pretending that they have found a reason to break with Barack Obama on behalf of Israel.

What neither is telling those constituents, however, is that they, like anyone else with a functioning mind, knew there was a problem with Obama and Israel long before he was elected. 

-Barack Obama spent 18 years in the Trinity United Church of Christ in south-side Chicago, with  "reverend" jeremiah wright, who insulted, belittled and condemned Israel every chance he got.  But Obama remained a member.

-In 2007, wright made career anti-Semite/Israel hater louis farrakhan the church's "man of the year" and wrote, in the Church newsletter, that farrakhan "epitomized greatness".  But Obama remained a member. 

And now, as the mid-term elections approach, Schumer and Weiner are acting as if they have suddenly discovered that Barack Obama has an Israel problem?   As if they didn't know it all the time? 

What unbelievable frauds they are.  And how little they think of the people they're trying to sell this to.

Simply stated, Schumer and Weiner are telling their constituents - especially their Jewish constituents - that they either are a bunch of gullible idiots who can be boob-baited into buying this ripe pile of BS, or they are so completely and unconditionally liberal-left that it won't matter whether it is BS because, against all logic and common sense, they will come up with some half-baked rationale to believe it anyway.

How sad that, for at least some of these constituents, Schumer and Weiner are 100% right.


Ken Berwitz

Here's a shocker for you:  ObamaCare isn't going to save money, it's going to cost money.  Tons of it.

Read this excerpt from an article in Friday's New York Times - a paper which did everything it could to facilitate passage of this fraudulent "cost saving" legislation - and see for yourself:

A government analysis of the new health care law says it will not slow the overall growth of health spending because the expansion of insurance and services to 34 million people will offset cost reductions in Medicare and other programs.


The study, by the chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, provides a detailed, rigorous analysis of the law.

In signing the measure last month, President Obama said it would bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.

But Mr. Foster said, Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion, or nine-tenths of 1 percent, compared with the amounts that would otherwise be spent from 2010 to 2019.

Did you have any doubt?  Could anyone in his/her right mind believe that adding over 30 million people, including a disproportionate percent who cannot pay and/or are at high health risk, would lower the cost - or even keep it anywhere near where it otherwise would be?

Well, Mr. Obama and his flying monkeys fooled us once on the "stimulus package" that stimulated our unemployment from 8% up to 10%.  And he's fooled us again on health care.

Can he do it again before the mid-term elections?  Just how big a bunch of suckers are we?

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

free` The federal government released a new report on the cost of Obamacare and the results are troubling. The report comes from actuaries from Medicare and Medicaid. Medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose employer-based coverage. Millions will be left without insurance. And millions more will be may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law. Read the whole thing here: (04/25/10)


Ken Berwitz

Technically, the Korean war never ended.  Technically there is a tenuous, grim truce in effect and no final agreement has been reached.  But realistically the north and south have not been engaged in a hot war for 57 years.

Is that about to change?

Excerpted from an article in the Wall Street Journal:

SEOULSouth Korea's top military official said Sunday that a torpedo likely exploded under the South Korean patrol boat that sank a month ago near the maritime border with North Korea, bringing Seoul closer to declaring it was attacked by the North and hastening a delicate decision about what to do next.

The finding puts South Korea and its ally the U.S. in a bind in confronting the nuclear-armed totalitarian state. Seoul faces several constraints in penalizing Pyongyang, starting with the prospect that a military response could escalate into a war that very few here want.

It's nice that "very few here want" war.  But what if the South determines to their certainty that North Korea sank one of its military craft?  Can anyone guarantee there won't be a war then?

And what will we do about it?  What can we do about it?  Which countries will take up with which side?  Will it spread beyond the Korean peninsula?  Will nuclear weapons be used?

I hope President Obama and his people have thought long and hard about this.  Every possible scenario.  Because, not to be a scare merchant, but Korea literally could put the world in danger of nuclear conflict.

If ever there was a front burner issue - at least until we are satisfied the north and south can settle things relatively peacably - this is it.


Ken Berwitz

There is an old saying about why dogs lick their, er, private parts.  The answer is "because they can".

I sometimes (well, more than sometimes) think that is why those courageous paradigms of social commentary at places like Comedy Central and various talk shows - not to mention a host of other media - are so happy to bash Christianity and Judaism (or, more specifically anything that the state of Israel does).  They can.  They can crap all over Christians and Israelis, then sleep like a baby that night.

Ever wonder why they don't do the same when it comes to Islam?  I'm pretty sure you already know the answer but, if not, read this excerpt from Jamie Griswold's piece at and I'm sure you'll get it:

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."

Producers of South Park said Thursday that Comedy Central removed a speech about intimidation and fear from their show after a radical Muslim group warned that they could be killed for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

The group said it wasn't threatening South Park producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone, but it included a gruesome picture of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004, and said the producers could meet the same fate. The website posted the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office and the California production studio where South Park is made

The answer - again, I assume most readers already know this, but I'm posting it pro forma - is that they are very brave when it comes to religions and places which present no threat to them.  But they cower under a bush when it comes to anyone who might actually do something about it.

And South Park is far from the only example.  Heck, it's far from the only example even on Comedy Central.

Look, I'm not sure about what Ms. Norris is doing.  I don't much care for disrespect of the kind she has proposed. 

But I do hope she doesn't suffer for it.  And I applaud her for having a far larger set of what dogs lick than the people at South Park (did you hear of them fighting to keep the Islamic material on their show?), The Daily Show, and a raft of others.


Ken Berwitz

I am trying to excerpt my sources of information these days.  But I have to make an exception here, given that the Washington Examiner ( editorial on President Obama's (massive) credibility problem is so short and fact-filled that I can't find anything to eliminate.   

Here it is (the bold print is mine):

Obama's credibility crisis

Examiner Editorial
April 25, 2010

Hard on the heels of that shocking Pew Research Center survey finding that four out of five Americans don't trust government comes a blitz of new revelations about the Obama administration that amount to a full-fledged credibility crisis. The latest disclosures are especially damaging because they concern President Obama's possible misrepresentation of his relationships with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and convicted felon Tony Rezko, his administration's misleading statements about Obamacare costs, and questions about improper manipulation of government-owned General Motors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Blagojevich revelations were no less serious for being accidental. Blagojevich's defense attorneys filed a federal court motion to subpoena Obama concerning charges that the former governor tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat formerly occupied by the chief executive. Improper formatting of the heavily redacted public version of the motion contained evidence that Obama spoke to Blagojevich about the Senate appointment a week before telling White House reporters that he had not done so. The document also revealed that federal prosecutors are withholding from Blagojevich's attorneys documents describing what Obama told investigators about conversations with Rezko on the appointment or his financial ties to the Chicago developer who was one of his key fundraisers.

On Obamacare, the president and his appointees said repeatedly over the last year that it would reduce government health care spending. Yet now comes Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services secretary, confessing that "We don't know how much it's going to cost." Why is Sebelius only now saying this when her own department just made public a report obviously months in preparation that projected government health care costs overall will go up, not down? That same HHS report also said Obamacare's Medicare cuts could put 15 percent of all hospitals out of business, making treatment harder to get and more expensive, especially for seniors.

Finally, General Motors claimed in national advertisements this week that it repaid its Troubled Asset Relief Program loans, plus interest, five years early. But the TARP inspector general said GM used other TARP funds to repay its original TARP loans, so the ads were fundamentally dishonest. Recall here that White House adviser Carol Browner told GM and other automakers to "write nothing down" about their dealings last year with administration officials on fuel economy standards. So it seems entirely appropriate to ask if GM's repayment claims were "suggested" by somebody in the Obama White House. That would be the same White House that is also now suspected of improperly influencing the SEC to file fraud charges against Goldman Sachs just as Congress debates Obama's financial reform proposal. As the Obama administration will learn, plummeting public trust eats away at the fundamental credibility of government and undermines its ability to carry out even its most basic duties.

What a cesspool of dishonesty this administration is. 

But the only people we have to blame are ourselves.  We elected this unqualified, unethical dishonest Chicago machine politician.  And we gave him the huge Democratic majorities in both houses which enable him to do what he is doing.

Have we wised up enough to start changing this awful situation?  Right now the polls say yes.  But a) polls can be wrong and b) in any event it is a long, long time from April to November.

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Zeke ... ... GM is kiting checks. .... .... Or, alternatively, paying off current loans by putting them on a different credit card.... .... .... Gub'mint Motors has not been able to sell the Hummer brand (or any of the others they have dropped). .... ... So far, all we see is downsizing. ... ... IMHO, Toyota will bounce back, Hundai, Honda, Nissan, etc will continue to erode the US market share. ... ... Nothing that the Obama administration has tried or proposed is new .... income redistribution has been tried in many other countries, and it never results in a growth economy. Bolstering favored industries with subsidies winds up being incredibly expensive for each job. .... Adding layers of nonproductive bureaucrats merely increases the cost of government, which acts as an anchor to economic growth. ... ... (04/25/10)

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!!