Wednesday, 28 April 2010


Ken Berwitz

We just got a DNC email, sent under the name of  New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (not "Bob" as he signed it - he's no friend of mine). 

It is titled "absurd", and starts with this sentence:

One Republican frontrunner opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I would love to call him out as a liar on this claim.  But I can only go part way. 

The "frontrunner" Mr. Menendez is referring to, ron paul is not a "frontrunner" of anything.  The fact that in a recent poll he runs about even with Barack Obama doesn't mean he has any chance of winning the Republican nomination for President, any more than he came anywhere near close in 2008.  All it means is that Obama is in an especially weakened state.  Menendez's claim, to use his own word, is "absurd".

But the problem is that Menendez' claim regarding ron paul and the 1964 Civil Rights Act is correct.  It must be, because ron paul voted against extending the act -- the one and only Republican who did so. 

ron paul may be a hero to a segment of misguided Republicans and libertarians, along with some elements of the Tea Partiers. 

Unfortunately, however, he is also a hero to White supremacist and nazi groups, like stormfront - for a good many more reasons than his vote on extending the Civil Rights Act.  That makes him a sack of putrefied excrement to me. 

paul is a serious problem for the Republican Party.


Ken Berwitz

A riddle for you:  Why would a huge financial giant like Goldman Sachs, which has benefitted so richly from the economic downturn, come out in favor of the regulations that would be created by an administration it gives a ton of campaign money to (73% of Goldman Sachs donations went to Democrats last year)?

While you're thinking about that, here is the blog from describing Goldman Sachs' agreement with the Obama administration - along with the first 7 comments made by its readers:

Blankfein supports financial reform legislation

By Vicki Needham - 04/27/10 06:45 PM ET

A financial regulatory reform bill has at least one supporter outside of Congressional Democrats, Lloyd Blankfein, the head of investment bank Goldman Sachs. 

"I'm generally supportive," Blankfein told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. 

Wall Street will benefit from the bill because it will make the market safer, Blankfein said.

"The biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself," he said. "The biggest risk is risk financial institutions have with each other."

American consumers also would benefit from better regulations, he said. 

Blankfein said he didn't know all the bill's details and couldn't speak to provisions that affect community and consumer banks and mortgage originators because they are "remote" to our experience.  



Geee, this is s shocker. No corruption or incest here is there?

BY DaveT on 04/27/2010 at 20:02



BY GonJoss on 04/27/2010 at 20:05


Of course he is backing the bill. He is nuts deep in the pocket of Obama and his agenda. Follow the moneyhow much does he and his firm stand to make in kickbacks for backing what is essentially the nationalizing of Wall Street? Bend over America, you are about to take it in the pooper AGAIN

BY Civilunrestnow on 04/27/2010 at 20:06


I am shocked! Lmao

BY GOLDNSQUID on 04/27/2010 at 20:07


More importantly, the Gangsters at Golden Slacks will benefit from the guarantee of the U.S. government, wich is implicit in this legislation. Who has benefitted more from bailouts and government interference than Golden Slacks, for whom their confederate gangsters in the U.S. Treasury Department drove their chief competitor (Lehman Bros.) out of business.

BY Diogenes on 04/27/2010 at 20:09


If the CEO of Goldman Sachs, the "vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity," is for it, I'm agin' it. The dirty secret of regulation is that large companies tend to love it: Its burdens drive out the little-guy competitors, who can't afford compliance as well as the big guys.

BY Thomas on 04/27/2010 at 20:10


Of course he does, He had dinner at least 4 times at the White House.

BY Khandoor on 04/27/2010 at 20:12


The left hand knocks you to the groundand the right hand lifts you upfor a price. Wall Street is now in Chicago.

BY Spalding on 04/27/2010 at 20:13

Got that?  Blankfein generally supports the bill, which he does not know all the details of.  Why would he do that, unless he had a reason to believe that all that campaign $$$ flowing from his company to the Obama administration would take care of the matter?

Gee, I'm sorry.  I've just answered the riddle.

free` Zeke .... .... The above comment is mine (.... slapping fingers) (04/28/10)------ Sure it is. ;) (04/28/10)

Zeke .... .... The above comment is mine (.... slapping fingers) (04/28/10)

(Anon) The real reason is that Lloyd Blankfein (head of Goldman Sachs) is a member of the UAW. .... His support of Obama is payback for the taxpayers buying GM to preserve UAW pensions, wage agreements. .... .... .... .... The fact that Goldman, Sachs got out of the financial crash completely in tact (with the AIG bailout compensating Goldman for security losses) is a coincidence. .... ..... ..... Like the song about Pretty Boy Floyd goes: "Some rob you with a Six-Gun; some with a Fountain Pen". (04/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

To watch, listen to and read our wonderful "neutral" media's reaction to the new Arizona law regarding illegal aliens, you would swear that it gives the police carte blanche to walk up to anyone on the street and demand to see papers - like a scene right out of a WWII movie.

Well here, courtesy of an excerpt from Byron York's excellent article in the Washington Examiner, is what the law actually says.  The bold print is mine:

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Ok.  Now you know the real story. 

But God help you if you bring it up in a discussion with someone who "knows" that Arizona police can randomly pick on Mexicans at will.  Prepare to be called every name in the book.


Ken Berwitz

How does Arizona feel about Governor Jan Brewer since she signed that seriously tough new illegal alien legislation? 

From the usually solid-left Talking Points Memo (www.talkingpoints

Though the new immigration law she signed has led to criticism of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) around the world, a new poll from Rasmussen taken since the bill was signed shows that many people in her state are nothing but appreciative.

Brewer's job approval rating stands at 56% in the poll, a huge bounce from the last Rasmussen poll taken two weeks ago. That poll showed Brewer with a 40% approval rating.

Previous polling shows Brewer's approval rating well below the new Rasmussen numbers. The TPM Poll Average (including the new Rasmussen poll) shows Brewer with an approval rating of 46.3% and a disapproval rating of 43.4.

Now you know.

Oh, by the way, when TPM claims there is "criticism of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R)..." (note how quick they are to tell you Ms. Brewer's party affiliation), it neglects to mention that the criticism is mostly from politicians and activist groups.   As this poll shows, the people feel very different about it.

Musta been an accidental oversight.

And if you think this is just one pop poll from Arizona, how about the polling done for that liberal/left bastion the New York Times earlier this month (April 5 - 12)?  Here are the two key questions, and respondents' answers to them:

-"Should LEGAL immigration into the United States be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?"  51% say it should be kept at its present level or increased, and 41% say it should be decreased. 


-What about ILLEGAL immigration? How serious a problem do you think the issue of ILLEGAL immigration is for the country right now: very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious?"  83% say it is a very or somewhat serious problem, and 15% say it is not too or not at all serious.

Do you think those 83% have been happy with the federal government doing nothing about such a serious problem?  Do you think they are unhappy that one of the states hit hardest by the flood of illegal aliens couldn't wait any longer and did something at the state level?


I rest my case.

free` If only my state California had the politicians that would protect us like Arizona's politicians have moved to protect there citizens. (04/28/10)


Ken Berwitz

How's this for a classic mistake?



The picture is supposed to be of Barack Obama.  But that, to say the least, is not him.

By the way, there is no truth to the rumor that before becoming a Black Muslim, Malcolm X's name was Malcolm Ecks.



Ken Berwitz

I am trying to post only excerpts from other people's blogs these days.  But this one is going to be posted verbatim**. 

Here is Michelle Malkin's latest column, which details how Mexico treats non-citizen visitors (not just illegals).  It is fully referenced, and is a textbook lesson in the hypocrisy that permeates this issue :

How Mexico treats illegal aliens
by Michelle Malkin


Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement. But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in Nazi-zona last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.


The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset the equilibrium of the national demographics. Hows that for racial and ethnic profiling?


If outsiders do not enhance the countrys economic or national interests or are not found to be physically or mentally healthy, they are not welcome. Neither are those who show contempt against national sovereignty or security. They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.


Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obamas illegal alien aunt a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).


Law enforcement officials at all levels by national mandate must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.


Ready to show your papers? Mexicos National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexicos Ley General de Poblacin (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. Theres been no public clamor for comprehensive immigration reform in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.


Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators Smash the State, and holding signs that proclaimed No human is illegal and We have rights.

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).


As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexicos southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didnt respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.


Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.


Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Heres the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:



Do not - repeat, do not - expect to see anything about this in our wonderful "neutral" media.  

If this clearly demonstrates to you just how one-sided our media have been in reporting the illegal alien issue - right down to its ignoring the violent protests against this law - something they would never ignore if it were, say, Tea Partiers - then congratulations.  You know one helluva lot more about the subject than most people. 

But don't expect to be given credit for your expanded knowledge if you discuss illegal aliens with them.  Expect, instead, to be dismissed as the ignorant one.  Because, more often than not, that is what will happen. 

Trust me, I've been there.


**In fairness to Ms. Malkin, I urge you to go to her web site,, and read all of her material.


Ken Berwitz

What, if anything, can liberate the huge liberal/left/Democrat segment of the Jewish population? 

What if anything, can get them to realize what suckers they are being played for by a President who clearly sees them as little other than a bunch of moneybags, and joins his party in an increasingly anti-Israel posture (almost 4 in 10 Democrats refused to sign a letter expressing support for Israel just last month)?  

Paul Mirengoff of thinks that a couple of relatively high-visibility Jewish critics might be a liberating factor, as seen in this excerpt from his latest blog:

President Obama's stridently anti-Israel policies have drawn criticism from some of his key Jewish political allies. Among the most prominent are Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Anthony Weiner.

Such criticism poses a serious threat to Obama's popularity among American Jews. Most mainstream Jews would rather silently suffer Obama's shabby, and dangerous, treatment of Israel than risk deviating from liberal orthodoxy. But once liberal giants like Schumer refuse to suffer silently, liberal Jews can feel free to criticize Obama without feeling that they have betrayed liberalism. The result could be quite liberating.

Is Paul right?  Is criticism by Charles Schumer and Anthony Weiner enough to wake up, to unmesmerize, a significant number of Jews within this segment?

Personally, I doubt it.  I think the Democratic Party's operative strategy is that it doesn't have to worry about Jews (or, for that matter, Blacks) because it owns them, lock stock and barrel.  And because this strategy has worked for a long time, it may very well continue to work.

But there's the argument.  You make your own call.

free` An ethnic group that mostly votes D is the hispanic/latino group, but it doesn't make sense, because they're traditionally a conservative people. Other than immigration [legal not illegal] i can't see any other position they would agree with the D's on. (04/28/10)

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!!