Thursday, 06 May 2010


Ken Berwitz

Here is the WSJ story on Mr. Obama's views regarding illegal aliens...with my comments in blue:

May 5, 2010, 8:07 PM ET

Obama Gives a Shout-Out to Los Suns

By Aaron Zitner

President Barack Obama has endorsed one of the more inventive efforts to protest Arizonas new immigration law, taking note of special jerseys that the NBAs Phoenix Suns are wearing that call the team Los Suns. 

 I know that a lot of you would rather be watching tonights game the Spurs against `Los Suns, from Phoenix, the president told a crowd celebrating Cinco De Mayo at the White House on Wednesday evening.  Did I miss something?  Isnt the President of the United States supposed to uphold the laws of this country?  How is endorsing a show of support for illegal aliens part of that responsibility?

The Suns decided to wear the jerseys after Arizonas governor signed legislation aimed at reducing illegal immigration to the state. Suns owner Robert Sarver, reflecting the anger of many Hispanic and civil rights groups, called the law flawed and said the jerseys were meant to honor our Latino community and American diversity. This isnt exactly a great show of courage, folks.  Somehow I doubt that the Phoenix Suns, who play a schoolyard game for a living and earn huge amounts of money, are particularly affected by illegal immigration.  Phoenixs payroll this year was $74 million dollars.  Thirteen players got over a million dollars and four got over $10 million.  Not much competition from illegal aliens on the NBA hardwood, is there?  And not much worry that illegals will take their jobs. 

I know its hard, but maybe these ivory-towered NBA millionaires should look at things from the eyes of citizens who are shut out of jobs because of illegals, and taxpayers without 7 and 8 figure yearly incomes who foot the bill for the social services illegals are handed on a silver platter.

By the way, how in the world does it "honor our Latino community" to endorse illegality from within that community?  Would the Phoenix Suns also honor the Italian community because there is a mafia?  or the Muslim community because there is an al qaeda? 

The Arizona law makes it a crime to be present in the state without legal immigration status, and it requires police to question people suspected of being illegal immigrants about their status. Supporters say it is needed to better enforce immigration laws, but critics say it will single out Latinos for questioning on the basis of their language or skin color.  Brilliant.  Who the hell do you think is primarily coming across the border from Mexico, if not Mexicans.  The logic, therefore is that since Mexicans predominate as the illegals, law enforcement predominantly takes place among those Mexicans, and therefore is racist.  That is the equivalent of calling the laws in Scandinavian countries anti-White.  Who does the thinking for these people?  The Mad Hatter or the Queen of Hearts?

Obama had previously called the Arizona law misguided.  But he offered no proposals to prevent the illegals from coming here, did he?  In other words, he thinks being President means you make pronouncements, then just go about your business, maybe have a golf outing.  Heckuva job, Obamy.

On Wednesday, he said: We cant start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress. . . . . We cant divide the American people that way. Thats not the answer.   Hey, I have a great idea.  How about singling out people who are illegal, because they are illegal.  The Arizona law does not allow an ID check unless the person in question has already committed an act that puts him/her under suspicion.  Maybe Mr. Obama should read the law before mouthing off and demagoguing it.

Obama also said he wanted to begin work this year on a broad overhaul of immigration laws. Under an outline written by Democrats, such an overhaul would enhance security at the border and include a pathway to legal status or citizenship for many illegal immigrants.  Translation:  Dont worry, illegals.  I wont stop you.  Im going to make you US citizens so you can show your appreciation by voting for me and my fellow Democrats.  

Can they move up the 2012 election?  Please?


Ken Berwitz

Here is another installment of the continuing series, "why we fight radical Islam".  It comes to us from

Somali jihadists execute man "suspected of being a Christian"

The intrepid mujahedin, saving Somalia from 57-year-old teachers. "Al Shabaab Militants Execute Christian Leader in Somalia," from Compass Direct News, May 5:

NAIROBI, Kenya, May 5 (CDN) -- Islamic militants yesterday killed another leader of the underground church movement in Somalia, sources said.


Before he was fatally shot on Tuesday (May 4) in Xarardheere, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) from Jowhar, 57-year-old Yusuf Ali Nur had been on a list of people the Islamic extremist al Shabaab suspected of being Christian, sources who spoke on condition of anonymity told Compass. Al Shabaab, said to have links with al Qaeda, has vowed to rid Somalia of Christianity.


The militants fighting the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Mogadishu had been engaged in a two-hour battle with a rival rebel group, the Ahlu Sunna Waljamer, which had taken control of the Xarardheere area, before they came across Nur. Nur had lived in Xarardheere since leaving Jowhar in July 2009.


Eyewitnesses said that after al Shabaab took control of the area, they went from house to house looking for enemy fighters when they arrived at Nur's rented home at about 10:30 a.m. Sources said that upon finding Nur, one of the militants remarked, "Oh! This is Yusuf, whom we have been looking for," before they sprayed him with bullets at close range.


Nur is survived by his wife, whose name was withheld for security reasons, and three children, ages 11, 9 and 7.


This latest death comes after several execution-style murders of Somalis suspected of being members of a suppressed yet resilient underground faith movement in Somalia. A number of Christians have been beheaded by the radical Islamists out to topple the fledgling TFG and introduce a strict version of sharia (Islamic law). [...]


Nur, who had worked on a farm while in Jowhar, had long being monitored by al Shabaab, the sources said. After settling in Xarardheere, he became the head teacher of Ganane Primary School and also taught English. The al Shabaab militants object to the use of English, preferring Arabic, and even after relocating to Xarardheere Nur realized he was in danger of the militants finding him, sources said...

Radical Islam's goal is to force its religious intolerances on everyone else.  That means ending western civilization - not just as we know it, but in its entirety.

If we fight radical Islam we will either win or lose.  But if we do not fight radical Islam we will surely lose, because radical Islam will not stop fighting.  

And if that happens, western civilization will end.  And what will it be replaced with?   A "culture" that seeks out and murders people for, among many other reasons, the "crime" of believing in something other than Islam.

We play political games with this threat at our own peril.


Ken Berwitz

The cowards at Comedy Central - the ones who, just a couple of weeks ago censored use of the name Mohamed or any commentary about him, have announced a new show.

The show's name is JC.  Can you guess who they are mocking?  Are you at all surprised?

Here, excerpted from, is its sneering "comedic" story line:

As part of the network's upfront presentation to advertisers (full slate here), Comedy Central is set to announce "JC," a half-hour show about Christ wanting to escape the shadow of his "powerful but apathetic father" and live a regular life in New York City.

In the show, God is preoccupied with playing video games while Christ, "the ultimate fish out of water," tries to adjust to life in the big city.

"In general, comedy in purist form always makes some people uncomfortable," said Comedy Central's head of original programming Kent Alterman.

When asked if the show might draw some fire, especially coming on the heels of the network's decision to censor the Muslim faith's religious figure on "South Park," Alterman said its too early in the show's development to be concerned about such matters. 

Got that?  It's too early to be concerned about offending Christians.  But never too early to be concerned about offending Muslims. 

You know why, and I know why. 

These people are hypocrites, slimeballs and cowards.  End of story.


Ken Berwitz

Has the bluer-than-blue state of Massachusetts finally decided it has has enough?

The election of Scott Brown may have indicated as much, but it can certainly be argued that his election to complete Ted Kennedy's term was anecdotal in nature; a combination of great timing and a lousy Democratic candidate. 

Maybe that's so.  But, then again, maybe it isn't.

Read these excerpts from an Associated Press article by Steve LeBlanc and see where you come out:

Immigration suddenly a hot issue in Mass. Politics

By Steve LeBlanc

Associated Press Writer / May 2, 2010


BOSTONMassachusetts' most contentious border may be the one it shares with anti-tax New Hampshire, but that hasn't stopped the question of illegal immigration from catapulting to the front burner of state politics.


 In just the past several months, Massachusetts has seen Republican Scott Brown elected to the U.S. Senate in part by opposing driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick was forced to concede defeat on a bill to give undocumented students the same in-state tuition rates as legal residents.


Then this past week, the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts House came within a hair's breadth of passing a bill that would have required the state to use a new identification system to deny illegal immigrants access to taxpayer-funded benefits from public housing to food stamps.


The fact that the bill nearly passed on 75-82 vote just a year after it was easily defeated by a wider 40-118 vote shows how nervous some Democratic incumbent lawmakers have become in a year when the vastly outnumbered Republicans hope to gain ground.


The GOP also hopes to break the Democratic Party's lock on every statewide and congressional seat in Massachusetts, other than Brown's.


One of those Republicans running for Congress is state Rep. Jeffrey Perry, who authored the amendment. Perry is vying to fill the 10th congressional district seat left open after incumbent Democratic U.S. Rep. William Delahunt announced he would not seek re-election.


Perry said he's pushed the amendment because the state can't afford to spend money on illegal aliens, especially during a fiscal crisis when it's forced to cut spending on programs for legal residents.


The amendment would have required anyone seeking a benefit to be cleared by a federal database designed to weed out those in the country illegally. Those with falsified documents would have faced a $5,000 fine or year in jail.


"It's not one of those issues that goes away if you ignore it," said Perry, R-Sandwich. "It just gets worse."

The vote -- which came in the wake of the passage of Arizona's tough new immigration law -- immediately caught the attention of the two top candidates hoping to deny Patrick a second term.


Republican Charles Baker said he supports the amendment, which he said would have ensured only legal citizens and Massachusetts residents receive public benefits.


"As governor, I will continue to fully support Representative Perry's amendment and implement it through executive order if necessary," Baker said.


Independent candidate Tim Cahill, a former Democrat, also supports the proposal.


"We have to focus on providing benefits to U.S. citizens first and foremost," he said. "You can't reward illegal behavior because you just encourage more of it."


A spokesman for Patrick shied away from commenting directly on the amendment, but said the state already follows eligibility guidelines for federally funded programs and for many state-funded services where a Social Security number is required.


That serves as an appropriate check on legal status, said Patrick press secretary Juan Martinez.

"Massachusetts is home to a vibrant and diverse immigrant population," Martinez said. "Ultimately this is an issue in need of a federal solution."


Lawmakers who opposed Perry's amendment accused him and other supporters of political grandstanding.

Rep. Antonio Cabral said the state already has enforcement measures to make sure that those who don't qualify for public benefits are denied access.


He said Perry and other supporters of the amendment failed to offer evidence of fraud to back up their push for the new identification system.


"There are no statistics that there are any attempts by undocumented immigrants to game the system," said Cabral, D-New Bedford. "It's unfortunate that they need to try to attack people to gain politically."


The case has been taken up as a cause celebre among conservative talk show hosts in Boston, who also latched onto Perry's amendment.


That prompted one of the oddest exchanges of the immigration debate, when a producer for conservative talk radio host Michael Graham e-mailed Rep. David Torrisi, who voted against the amendment, to invite him onto the show.


"Michael Graham is an (expletive)," Torrisi, D-North Andover, e-mailed back. "He can go (expletive) himself for all I care."


Torrisi later said he regretted the profanity but not the intent of the e-mail.

It isn't hard to see why the people of this state might be upset.  They have a Governor who wants to hand illegal aliens special privileges, his administration whines that there are no statistics to prove illegal aliens are any kind of serious problem, and a Democratic majority which joins the Democratic Governor in aggressively fighting any way of preventing illegals from getting whatever they can out of the system.  Then, as icing on the cake, there is at least one Democratic congressperson whose reaction to a debate on the issue is to curse out the person asking to debate. 

At some point enough is enough, even for dyed-in-the-wool partisans.  Maybe Massachusetts, with a citzenry that is taxed more than just about any other state in the country and a Governor who wants to give away its limited resources to people who shouldn't be in the state, is finally there.

We'll see in November.


Ken Berwitz

Today, navy seal Matthew McCabe joined fellow seals Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe in being acquitted of all charges stemming from ahmed hashim abed, a terrorist murderer, who accused them of roughing him up after they risked their lives to capture him.

I consider this a terrible injustice. 

It is not an injustice because they were acquitted.  It is an injustice because McCabe, Huertas and Keefe had to endure even one minute of jeopardy based on an accusation by the terrorist murdering scumbag who made it.

abed was the "mastermind" of a grotesquely horrible event - the capturing of four USA security guards (non-military, by the way) in 2004.  They were tortured, mutilated and murdered.  Then their corpses were dragged through the street and at least two of them were hung from a bridge.

And abed's accusation; the entire basis for every charge against the navy seals?  His claim that, after he was captured, one of them punched him and split his lip.  No witnesses, just a terrorist scumbag's say-so.

That's it.  That is what they were accused of.   The poor wiwoo tewwowist said he got a spwit wippy. 

And from this unsubstantiated claim, the seals were charged as follows:

-Huertas:  dereliction of performance of duty, making a false official statement and impeding the investigation;

-Keefe:  dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

-McCabe:  dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Now, with McCabe's acquittal, they have been completely exonerated of all charges. 

Whoever thought this was worthy of a military trial needs a reversal of his lobotomy.  It is an outrage that any of these three heroes was ever on trial for anything.

So I congratulate Huertas, Keefe and McCabe.  And I hope that someone in the Navy, maybe even the commander in chief of all the armed forces, takes the time and effort to personally apologize to each of these heroes for what they were put through.

Zeke .... ..... WTF is wrong with our military leadership ? .... ..... Was there ANY basis for the charges, except a statement by the sand rat, who was following al Q'aida's manual to claim torture when captured ? ..... ..... .... Why are we trusting our national security to these same brass hats ? .... .... The Marines at Haidtha went through the same nonsense. .... .... And, despite being acquitted, their careers are over. (05/06/10)

Zeke Two Englishmen used almost the same words to illuminate this: .... .... ..... We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. - Winston Churchill .... .... ..... People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. - George Orwell ... ... .... ......... .......... ............ ........ Oh, and add the two border patrol guys who are now serving time for similar non-events. (05/07/10)

Ken Berwitz zeke - it is insane. As you know, I often end blogs by saying that we play political games with radical Islam at our own peril. And this is a classic example - one which is guaranteed to come back and hurt us. (05/06/10)


Ken Berwitz

Fox News calls itself "fair and balanced"

But keith olbermann likes to refer to it, sneeringly, as "Fixed News".

With this in mind, I thought you might be interested in seeing's latest compilation of guests on Countdown for the month of May.  Let's take a look and let's decide whether he himself is "fair and balanced" or "fixed":

April Countdown Guests: A Full Spectrum of Viewpoints--Everything from A to B

Another month of Olbermann spin, and once again we poured through the MSNBC transcripts and tallied up the guest breakdown for The Hour of Spin. The results will not surprise you:

Bathtub Boy 

Any questions?


Ken Berwitz

With apologies to (which I strongly urge you to go to every day), here is a commentary by one of its contributors, Lloyd Marcus, concerning illegal aliens.

I can't excerpt this, because there is nothing I can leave out:

May 06, 2010

Obama/Media vs. Arizona/America

By Lloyd Marcus


Folks, our country is in big trouble. What kind of man do we have in the White House? President Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Thus, since he attended such a renowned school, I can only conclude that Obama willfully and knowingly distorted/lied about the plight of Hispanic-Americans in Arizona and the state's immigration law when he said, "...but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed, ..."

Obama's statement simply is not true. The Arizona law goes into effect only after a subject has or is suspected of committing a crime. So, if a Hispanic person does not rob the ice cream shop, it is safe to say he and his child can enjoy their ice cream in peace.


And yet, our characterless president and the liberal mainstream media in solidarity with those who boldly and arrogantly break our laws are shamefully promoting lies about the Arizona immigration law. Why? To recruit future Democrat voters.


Obama and the liberal mainstream media apparently couldn't care less about the national racial tension and violence fueled by their irresponsible distortion of the Arizona law. This is the Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley Hoax all over again. Only this time, it is the President of the United States spreading lies and fueling the flames of racial hatred.


As I have stated on numerous occasions regarding other national issues, it is always all about Obama. His political agenda and him "looking good" trump national race relations and even the best interests of our country. Again, I say, dear Lord, what kind of man do we have in the White House?


As a black patriot of the Tea Party Movement, the liberal mainstream media practically strapped me down and waterboarded me, attempting to force me to confess seeing racist signs, which I never saw, at tea party rallies. Meanwhile, they are completely blind and silent about the outrageous, hate-filled, racist, traitorous, and violent signs on display at the anti-Arizona immigration law rallies.


Recently, the word of the month from Obama flacks in the liberal mainstream media was "sedition," which Webster defines as "the stirring up of discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the government in power." Obama's homeys in the media were aggressively attempting to make the "S"-word stick to tea party patriots, conservative commentators, and anyone who opposed Obama's agenda.


I am also struck by the breathtaking arrogance and entitlement mindset of the anti-Arizona immigration law protesters. The liberal mainstream media portrays illegal immigrants as humble peasants who are seeking a better life while hiding in the shadows, while in reality, those attending the rallies were angry, demanding, and some were even violent. Their attitude is "in your face, America! Yes, we are here illegally, and you had better give us what we want!"


Who do they think they are? What has inspired them to boldly ignore our laws? I submit that these illegals and their liberal supporters are emboldened by the usual suspects: the liberal mainstream media, the Democrats, and, outrageously, the President of the United States.


Obama received 96% of the black vote. A large percentage of those black voters were the product of decades of indoctrination by the liberal mainstream media and Democrats: America is racist, out to oppress you, and owes you. Now Democrats are employing their same tried-and-true tactics on illegals to birth a new crop of victim- and entitlement-minded Democrat voters.


These new potential Democrat voters already believe that America sucks. Notice the small number of American flags at their rallies verses the sea of U.S. flags at the tea parties. Many hate capitalism and are not interested in learning English. There is a huge difference between wanting to be an American and using America.


In New York harbor stands a lady with her arm raised to the sky. As ambassador for the American people, she warmly embraces all who legally seek to join our great national family.


Despite traitorous lies from an enemy within, race, color, and creed are irrelevant. All we require for the privilege and honor of becoming an American is a respect for our laws and a desire to contribute to this extraordinary experiment called America, the greatest nation on the planet. To all who feel this way, we say, "Welcome home!"


Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American

There is no additional commentary by me, because I don't know what could be added to what Mr, Marcus has said.


Ken Berwitz

If Rush Limbaugh was barred from buying part-ownership in an NFL team because he made comments that were considered by some people to be racially incendiary, how is it that keith olbermann, who viciously, offensively attacks people every day, is ok as a blogger for major league baseball?

Writer S. E. Cupp gives us the particulars, via excerpts from her latest column in the New York Daily News:

Starting in left field, Keith Olbermann: He's embraced by MLB and the NFL while Limbaugh was shunned

Wednesday, May 5th 2010, 4:00 AM

Nothing says "America" like our national pastime. For a few yawning hours, chronological time becomes primordial time, and within those walls of sacred stadiums, space becomes holy. And the Boys of Summer do what they've been doing for nearly two centuries. They play ball.

But over the years, nefarious characters have threatened to sully baseball's good name. Chick Gandil persuaded the Chicago White Sox to throw a few games back in 1919. Peter Edward Rose had a bit of a gambling problem. And, of course, there's everyone's favorite recovering opportunist - Jose Canseco, the Danny Bonaduce of baseball - and the long line of performance-enhancing abusers from Mark McGwire to you-know-who.

Now there's another menace lurking in the shadows of the dugout, someone so ugly, so vindictive, so polarizing that with every word he utters he is bastardizing whatever sanctity remains of the game.

His name is Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann accused then-President George W. Bush of being on a "Nazi kick" and foisting "fake threats" on a "frightened nation." He's called conservative commentator Michelle Malkin "a big, mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

He's said that Fox News was waging a "religious jihad" for its pro-life views. He's called Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

On his MSNBC show, "Countdown," his vitriolic brand of political commentary is epitomized by a "Worst Person in the World" segment, in which he viciously attacks some political or cultural arbiter he finds offensive. The target, quite often, is a conservative Christian.

So how is it that someone like Olbermann gets paid to partner up with Major League Baseball - and the National Football League, while he's at it, as a member of NBC's "Football Night in America" team - but a controversial conservative commentator like Rush Limbaugh can't even buy his way into the NFL?

Folks involved in ousting the conservative radio talk show host from his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams focused on a 2003 incident when Limbaugh suggested that the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed in the NFL.
For this, NFL players union head DeMaurice Smith accused Limbaugh of inciting discrimination and hatred. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said, "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL - absolutely not."

Meantime, Olbermann's misogyny, race-baiting and fear-mongering makes him a perfect voice for America's national pastime?

I would support Olbermann's right to buy a baseball team if he wanted - just as I did Limbaugh's. But why has MLB given him its imprimatur to speak for the game? And why has the NFL, which wouldn't touch Limbaugh with a 10-foot pole?

Unless Major League Baseball - which has fought mightily to recover its reputation and reconnect with everyday fans in recent years - wants to tarnish its storied reputation once more, it needs to realize that Olbermann and his extreme political views make him the "Worst Person in the World" for America's game.

The bottom line is pretty evident (and it's not like we haven't seen it before):  You are allowed to be as repulsively offensive as you want if you are coming from the left.  But if you are coming from the right, all it takes is one or two comments which might or might not actually be offensive.  That's more than enough for a swift "Yer outta here!"

So it goes.....

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!!