Saturday, 01 May 2010


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says President Barack Obama won't be heading to the Gulf Coast in the next few days. But press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the possibility of a later presidential visit to assess the spreading oil spill.

Obama is stepping up his personal involvement as the magnitude of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico grows by the day.

What would our media have said if it were President Bush?  What did our media say when it was President Bush, after he decided not to land Air Force One in Louisiana during the hurricane Katrina disaster because it would divert resources and impede emergency activities? 

What would President Obama's plane impede?  Would it anger the oil slick?  Make it move faster?

But look at the bright side.  Mr. Obama "is stepping up his personal involvement."  And it's only a week and a half after the explosion.

I'm sure that if President Bush waited a week and a half  before stepping up his involvement in Katrina, the press would have hailed him for his great level of concern....


UPDATE:   From The Atlantic, we have news that President Obama just figured out the country now realizes he has been AWOL on the oil spill:

President Obama plans to visit the catastrophe zone off Lousiana's coast within the next 48 hours as SecDef Gates mobilizes the Lousiana National Guard and WH convenes a principal-level homeland security response meeting. Republicans begin to question speed of Obama's response. Hannity: "They did nothing for nine days."  ...

Heckuva job, Obamy...

Zeke ... .... You're doing a Heck of a Job, Barry ! ... (05/01/10)


Ken Berwitz

I am posting this largely because it is going to be all over the internet anyway and I don't want anyone to think I'm ignoring it.

From the National Enquirer:

PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a
limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit. 

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds.  Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

A top DC source told The ENQUIRER exclusively that the driver's account had been independently corroborated by
investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

The ENQUIRER has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided. 

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."


Personally I don't see Obama as a sex cheat.  But, then again, I didn't even begin to imagine it about Tiger Woods either.  So who knows?

In any case, let me say that I care about 1000 times more about Mr. Obama's performance in the oval office than in any hotel room. 

I hope you feel the same.

Janet Montgomery Obama was too busy screwing his campaign worker to worry about a little thing like the oil spill in the Gulf (05/01/10)


Ken Berwitz

Do Democrats get $$$ and other forms of support from "special interests"?  Read the following excerpts from John Hinderake's piece at and you tell me:

Who's "Special"?

May 1, 2010 Posted by John at 9:43 AM

Guess who's backing Harry Reid in his uphill battle for re-election? The pharmaceutical industry, which is grateful for Reid's efforts in passing Obamacare. At the Examiner, Tim Carney points out the sheer dishonesty of President Obama's constant nonsense about "standing up to the special interests":

Remember when President Obama thanked Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate for "standing up to the special interests?" If you don't, go watch this video, just the first 25 seconds is enough to get the idea. And remember that Obama said that same sort of thing a dozen times.

Then watch this video..

You catch that part at the end, where the ad for Harry Reid, facing the toughest reelection of his life, was paid for by PhRMA -- the drug lobby.

[T]his Reid ad brings into focus the magnitude of the President's mendacity:

Obama thanks the Reid for "standing up to the special interests" by passing the bill. Then the single biggest industry lobby also thanks Reid for passing the bill, with a big-money TV ad.

This episode should be enough to make every discerning person ignore the President every time he claims to be taking on "special interests."

We've had liars in the White House before, sadly. But have we ever had a President with Barack Obama's cynical and careless disregard for truth? I'm not sure that we have.

The next time you hear President Obama or Harry Reid or their righteous pals lecture us about not kowtowing to "special interests", remember what you just read here.

What liars they are.


Ken Berwitz

What do you get when you appease an Islamic radical who writes his hatred in graffiti where everyone can see it - and remorselessly admits to doing so?

Well, the UK is going to find out.

Excerpted from an article in The Telegraph:

Muslim walks free as court told Osama bin Laden graffiti 'not religiously motivated'

A Muslim who desecrated a war memorial with graffiti glorifying Osama bin Laden and predicting world domination for Islam walked free from court after prosecutors decided his crime was not racially or religiously motivated.


By John Bingham

Graffiti  on the plinth of the memorial in Burton upon Trent

Tohseef Shah sprayed the words 'Islam will dominate the world' , 'Osama is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' on the plinth of the memorial in Burton upon Trent Photo: CASCADE

Tohseef Shah, 21, was given a conditional discharge for criminal damage to the monument in Burton upon Trent, Staffs, after officials said that there was not enough evidence to bring more serious charges.

The towns magistrates court heard that he had shown no remorse over the incident while his defence solicitor insisted that he was not an extremist but just an ordinary guy.

Armed forces veterans described the outcome of the case as an insult to the memory of those who died serving for their country.

Magistrates heard how Shah sprayed the words Islam will dominate the world Osama is on his way and Kill Gordon Brown across the plinth of the towns war memorial on December 10 last year.

He was given a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay 500 compensation to the council as well as 85 costs.

But the court heard how he was not charged with more serious offences, which would have enabled a harsher sentence, because the CPSs Counter Terrorism Division in London decided there was not enough evidence to suggest that he had been religiously or racially motivated.

The CPS specialist unit was sent the pictures, as well as his mobile phone records, to see if there was a racially or religiously motivated connotation.

It was decided there was not enough evidence to prove this, and they decided it was politically motivated.

It has caused great offence to the community.

Mumtaz Chaudry, defending, insisted: He said: This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his familys beliefs or his cultural beliefs.

"He is just an ordinary guy It was uncalled for, but we make mistakes.

Great move.  Look the other way and pretend the words "Islam will dominate the world. Osama is on his way" have no religious significance.

Are these people out of their minds?  Or just so scared-silly of Islamic radicals that they are willing to lie to the public and to themselves?

You get what you pay for in this world.  And it seems to me the UK has decided to pay a pretty steep price.


Ken Berwitz

Here, from an unlikely source - today's New York Times lead editorial - is a partially honest appraisal of the Obama administration's handling of the Louisiana oil disaster. 

Following are the key excerpts.  The bold print is mine:

Unanswered Questions on the Spill

Published: April 30, 2010


President Obama has ordered a freeze on new offshore drilling leases as well as a thorough review into what is almost sure to be the worst oil spill in this countrys history exceeding in size and environmental damage the calamitous Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.


There are many avenues to pursue. Here are two: the oil companys response, and Mr. Obamas. The company, BP, seems to have been slow to ask for help, and, on Friday, both federal and state officials accused it of not moving aggressively or swiftly enough. Yet the administration should not have waited, and should have intervened much more quickly on its own initiative.


A White House as politically attuned as this one should have been conscious of two obvious historical lessons. One was the Exxon Valdez, where a late and lame response by both industry and the federal government all but destroyed one of the countrys richest fishing grounds and ended up costing billions of dollars. The other was President George W. Bushs hapless response to Hurricane Katrina.


Now we have another disaster in more or less the same neck of the woods, and it takes the administration more than a week to really get moving.


The timetable is damning. The blowout occurred on April 20. In short order, fire broke out on the rig, taking 11 lives, the rig collapsed and oil began leaking at a rate of 40,000 gallons a day. BP tried but failed to plug the well. Even so, BP appears to have remained confident that it could handle the situation with private resources (as did the administration) until Wednesday night, when, at a hastily called news conference, the Coast Guard quintupled its estimate of the leak to 5,000 barrels, or more than 200,000 gallons a day.


Only then did the administration move into high gear.

Surprising, isn't it, that the Times has acknowledged how poor Obama & Co.'s response was?  Frankly, given its years-long love affair with Mr. Obama, this leads me to believe the administration's performance has been even worse than the Times is saying.


That said, however, my one major difficulty with this editorial is the gratuitous tossing-in of how "hapless" President Bush was with Katrina.  What was the point of that? 


I've spent years telling people - who, more often than not, don't want to hear it because they "know" differently - that President Bush's performance, while certainly flawed, was far better than our wonderful "neutral" media made it out to be. 


Forgotten (or just not known because it was buried by the media), for example, is the fact that Mr. Bush declared a state of emergency for many of the areas hit by Katrina TWO DAYS BEFORE LANDFALL.  He also ordered the Coast Guard into action in the area it was expected to hit.  Contrary to popular ignorance, Mr. Bush acted in a decisive and timely manner. 


In other words, the Bush administration made it crystal-clear that Katrina was a potential major-league disaster.  The people at risk were made 100% aware of this.


What President Bush didn't have was any similar mobilization or serious preparation by the either the Mayor of New Orleans (Ray Nagin) or the Governor of Louisiana (Kathleen Blanco).  These are the people who, at least on paper, were supposed to be the first lines of defense against Katrina, not the federal government.


Nagin's contribution was to hole up in a luxury hotel and start blaming everyone else.  Blanco's was to get on TV, cry, and tell everyone to pray. 


Bush and FEMA, therefore, weren't just left with the heavy lifting, they were left with just about all the lifting.


I could go on about this, but I think you get the idea.


Anyway, despite the Bush toss-in, I commend the Times for having enough honesty to talk about the Obama administration's deficiencies here. 


Maybe it will shame a few other media to talk about them as well.

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!!