Wednesday, 12 May 2010


Ken Berwitz

If ever there were a role model for Governors, Jan Brewer is it.

First she signs a serious bill to address Arizona's huge illegal alien problem, which has been utterly ignored by Washington.  And now this, which comes to us from Andy Barr at

Arizona bans 'ethnic studies'
By: Andy Barr
May 12, 2010 09:00 AM EDT

Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a law banning the states schools from teaching ethnic studies classes.

Brewer signed the bill Tuesday that targets Chicano studies programs currently being taught in Tucson schools.

Proponents of the bill argue that the classes are designed only for students of a particular race and promote ethnic solidarity over community integration.

Public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people, the text of the bill reads.

The law prohibits the teaching of any classes that promote the overthrow of the United States government, resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

Neither the governor nor the bills supporters have identified examples where a Chicano studies class has advocated the overthrow of the federal government, and the bills opponents in the state have expressed outrage over what they see as a law that unfairly targets Hispanics.

Brewers signature banning ethnic studies classes comes nearly six weeks after she signed a controversial immigration law that has prompted boycott calls.

How many other Governors would have the guts and courage to do this?  How many other Governors would risk the hatred, the inevitable death threats and the tidal wave of media opprobrium to, in essence, say "Enough is enough.  This is the United States of America.  We're not going to create a second nation within this state through our public schools".

Congratulations to Jan Brewer.  And now let's see how many other states' Governors have the guts and courage to follow her lead.


Ken Berwitz

Any day you get rid of a corrupt scumbag like alan mollohan (D-WVA) is a good day.

You'd never know it from the lack of coverage on this morning's Today Show, of course.  Nor will a big deal be made of it by the network news tonight (I say that not because I can tell the future, but because I can learn from the past).  

I have written about alan mollohan several times.  But CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), a decidedly leftwing enterprise by the way, has described the mollohan's corruption and ethical improprieties far more completely.  Its writeup is too long to post on this blog, so just click here and you will be linked to CREW's web site, where you can read all about it.

To alan mollohan, I say goodbye, good riddance, and I'm sorry that charles rangel and jim mcdermott, among others, are not joining you. 

Be sure to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


Ken Berwitz

As the battle rages over Arizona's new laws, I thought it might be useful to remind readers of the day to day effect the flood of illegal aliens has on Arizonans. 

This blog was written on December 16, 2007, almost 2 1/2 years ago:


Ken Berwitz

I was going to write a relatively extensive opinion about the battle of legal business enterprise and illegal aliens in Phoenix.  But it occurred to me that the best way to do it is to just add the words which remind you of their illegal status where appropriate.  That tells the story better.

I will now post an article from the December 9 edition of The Arizona Republic.  You'll see where I've added those words and how they put things in perspective :

Outside Phoenix store, border debate rages on

Emotional protests at local battleground mirror national fight

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 9, 2007 12:00 AM

On East Thomas Road in Phoenix, the national shouting match over immigration unfolds week by week in a neighborhood that has changed in the same ways Arizona has.

Sheriff's deputies patrol the parking lot at M.D. Pruitt's Home Furnishings each Saturday, ensuring that no day laborers (who are here illegally ) trespass on the property. Day-labor advocates mount protests nearby, blaring Mexican folk music while children (of the illegals) dressed in traditional garb (traditional to Mexico, not the United States) dance on the sidewalk.

Pruitt's opened 57 years ago, but only recently did day laborers (who are here illegally ) gather in large numbers to seek work on the sidewalks and parking lots of nearby businesses. The subdivisions that stretch back from Thomas Road have seen more and more Hispanic families (who are here illegally ) arrive, changing the character of the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the country's roiling debate over (illegal) immigration continues unabated.

A compromise that would have given illegal immigrants a way to become citizens fell apart in Congress earlier this year amid angry protests.

Since then, the battle has only grown angrier. Citizens furious over government inaction have called for the border to be sealed and for more illegal immigrants to be deported. The battle lines have been drawn.

In Phoenix, those lines lead straight to 35th Street and Thomas, where the owners of a family furniture store say they struggle to understand how such a divisive battle ever erupted in front of their showroom.

After weeks of keeping his distance, Phoenix's mayor now says he's prepared to enter the fray. He wants to sit down with the Pruitt's owners and the (illegal) laborers' spokesman to develop a solution to the escalating conflict.

But until a compromise is reached, some involved in the protests worry the conflict could boil over into violence.
For a time, the jornaleros (who are here illegally) congregated mostly at the new Home Depot. When Home Depot cracked down on the (illegal) laborers in 2005, they moved closer to Pruitt's.

In an interview Friday, Michael Sensing said the laborers (who are here illegally) frequently used the Pruitt's parking lot as a place to find work.

They would approach Pruitt's customers in their vehicles. Female customers shopping alone complained about feeling intimidated by the laborers (who are here illegally),  Sensing said.

When Sensing hired off-duty police to patrol his lot, laborer advocate (for people who have no legal right to be here)  Salvador Reza began staging weekly protests, accusing the Sensings of harassment. Reza insists that no day laborers (who are here illegally) trespassed at Pruitt's.

Gordon's staff worked with the Sensings and with Reza to broker a truce. On Dec. 6 of last year, after negotiations between the men, Pruitt's agreed to stop hiring the police patrols. In return, Reza agreed to work with the laborers (who are here illegally) to keep them off Thomas and pledged to help create a day-labor center.

For a while, the truce worked. But for a variety of reasons, which remain in dispute, the day-labor center never materialized.

This spring, the day laborers (who are here illegally) returned to Thomas Road, numbering around 140 a day, according to a log Sensing keeps. Although they stayed off Pruitt's property, they were close enough that the Sensings were concerned that past problems would re-emerge.

When Phoenix refused to send off-duty officers to the site, the Sensings turned to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Sensing said his father asked Arpaio only to patrol the area and enforce no-trespassing laws. But during the Sheriff's Office's first weekend on patrol, deputies arrested six illegal immigrants.

Reza felt the truce had been broken and resumed his protests (on behalf of people with no legal right to be here ). The Sensings hired off-duty sheriff's deputies, and since then they have worked only when Reza and his followers are protesting, Sensing said.

If Reza would stop protesting, Sensing said, he would happily stop hiring the deputies. Reza said Sensing has to quit hiring the deputies first.

After all, each deputy costs the Sensings $30 an hour,and with the housing-market slump and the hundreds of protesters outside Pruitt's each Saturday, the furniture business hasn't exactly been booming.

What really keeps Michael Sensing up at night, he said, is the thought that people may think of his family as racists.

"Even walking through the store, going out to lunch or dinner, if I'm passing someone who's Hispanic, I'm thinking, do they think I'm racist?" said Sensing, whose staff is about 55 percent Hispanic. "It's really sad. We feel like we've been a good part of this community."

The article continues, but you get the idea.

I keep wondering what "rights" people who are here illegally have.  And in particular, given the subject matter of this story, what rights they have to trespass on private property. 

If illegals have that right, they have one that legals don't have (in actuality, there are many places around the USA where illegals have rights that legals don't have.  They are treated as some kind of an elevated, protected species).

What I wonder about even more, is when the country of Mexico is blamed for this situation.  Mexico is a rich country with millions of people perfectly willing to work, who cannot get any work or support their families.  Why is that? 

What is MEXICO doing about it?  Why is the USA Mexico's safety valve?  There isn't enough gold ore, and silver ore, and tourist trade, and industry and agriculture there to support its people?  Where are the benefits of these assets going?

Now those are a few questions we should all want an answer to.  Especially the people who are here illegally.

Again:  that was December of 2007.  And the Democratic Party, which is so up in arms about Arizona's new laws, was then - as now - in control of both houses of congress. 

What did they do about illegals in all that time?  Nothing.

So Arizona, under siege from an estimated half million illegals and cognizant of the fact that a Democratic congress would not do a thing to help them, wrote seriously tough state laws. 

The Democrats' answer?  "We need comprehensive immigration reform" -- an amorphous blob of a non-answer that doesn't tell anyone a thing about what the party would or wouldn't do and gives no timetable for what would or wouldn't be done.  A classic personification of "Meet me at no special place and I'll be there at no particular time."

How can any reasonable person blame Arizona for finally giving up on congress and pushing forward on its own? 

And how can any reasonable person not blame the feckless, whining crybabies in congress for Arizona concluding that it had no other choice?

Zeke ... .... .... Damn Racists ! ... Them Ill Eagles have a right to swamp onto any place that is too weak to repel .. (was it 140 ? ) squatters, vagrants and bums ... .... How did Home Depot make things too tough for the Ill Eagles to mob THEIR parking lot. ... ... Now they are trying it on the next most vulnerable sucker ... use their property and harass their customers. .... .... .... Of course, we had no better support of CITIZEN'S RIGHTS from Johnny McCain, Georgie W. Bushy, B.J. Clinton, G H W Bush #41, and Ronnie Reagan signed off on the amnesty for what turned out to be 3 or 4 times the number of Ill Eagles originally estimated. .... .... .... (05/12/10)

Zeke ... ... Is this a solution: ... ... I was speaking to a Canadian farmer. ... ... He hires a crew of 20 seasonal workers who happen to be Caribbean residents. ... ... The Canadian government requires him to have on deposit their return airline tickets and to prepay their health care insurance. ... ... When the season is over, he has to submit proof they returned. He's used the same crew for 20 years. ... ... ... .... Seems to be a better system than letting unknown individuals sneak into border states ... ... (05/12/10)


Ken Berwitz

The more we know about Barack Obama's background - even as our "knowledge" is severely hampered by his, and our wonderful "neutral" media's, determination to keep us in the dark - the more suspicious it becomes.

Here is an excerpt from Jerome Corsi's article at World Net Daily, which discusses a discrepancy in his social security number which seems to show that it could not be his original number:

NEW YORK Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

"Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office," the Social Security website explains. "The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number."

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president's history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

"I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don't live, but there's usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state," Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

"Yes," he replied. "In the case of President Obama, I really don't know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii."

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama's were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," Daniels maintained. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

"Never," Daniels said. "It's against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued."

Daniels said she is "staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama's use of this Social Security number is fraudulent."

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson's affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, "it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence."

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

"I doubt this is President Obama's originally issued Social Security number," she told WND. "Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii."

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama's inauguration., a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

"It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins," she insisted. "Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime."

How can a man change his social security number?  The answer is that he can't.  So how could this be Mr. Obama's original number?  Did someone move Honolulu to Connecticut in 1961?

And, much more importantly, why would a person change his social security number?  What would we learn from the original number that he doesn't want us to know?

Again we find that the more we learn about Barack Obama, the more suspicious we should be about who and what he actually is.

When do the media in this country decide to investigate?  Apparently never.  They are too busy cooking up rationales for the Times Square bomber and explanations of why a nominee with no judicial or litigation experience and no paper trail is somehow qualified to sit on the US Supreme Court.

free` when i am forced to give my SS # to a Dr. or hospital i always change one of the numbers. I can't see any reason why they need my SS #. I am very careful about whom i give my real SS # to and so should you be. (05/12/10)

Ken Berwitz Which he keeps with his passport and transcripts from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard.... (05/12/10)

Zeke .... .... How could there be an issue with Obama's Social Security No. ? It's written on the back of his birth certificate. (05/12/10)

Kishor Bramus,Thanks for this nice plugin.One thing you sohuld really talk about in the documentation is to tell people to check the path is correct for the images.I usually organize my wesites as:root/index.phproot/js/progressBarFiles.jsroot/js/images/bramus/imagefiles.pngI spent an hour trying to figure why the images were not showing until I realized, the script was looking in:localhost/website/images/bramus/image.pnginstead of going to:localhost/website/js/images/bramus/image.pngHope these helps some people. Great script though. (07/20/12)


Ken Berwitz

Harry Reid, yesterday:

"One of my favorite Supreme Court Justices in recent years has been Sandra Day OConnor, not because shes a Republican, but because she was a good judge. I think one reason she was a good judge is she had no judicial experience,"

Reality:  Sandra Day O'Connor was a Superior Court Judge from 1975 to 1979.  She then graduated to the Arizona Court of Appeals and served there until 1981 when Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court.

But I don't blame Mr. Reid for - again - not knowing what the eff he is talking about.  How do you blame someone for a chronic condition?

free` He has head up his a.. syndrome. (05/12/10)


Ken Berwitz

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are still operating at an enormous loss, and costing tax payers in the tens of billions of dollars a year by giving out subprime mortgages the way grampa gives out candy to little jimmy and susie.

So Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) decided to try stanching this tidal wave of lost money by proposing a relatively simple requirement for potential mortgage holders - that they pay at least 5% down. 

Here is what happened, courtesy of excerpts from Ed Carson's article for Investors Business Daily:

The Senate today rejected a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to impose a minimum 5% down payment for virtually all home mortgages. The amendment to the broader financial regulatory overhaul bill, which failed 42-57, would have required income verification and an assessment of borrowers ability to repay as well.

Corkers proposal also would have stripped out a provision that required financial firms securitizing loans to keep a 5% portfolio risk.

Democrats then passed their own amendment imposing some underwriting standards, but no minimum down payment.

Regarding Corkers bill, Democrats argued that a 5% down payment would hurt minorities and the poor.

But if you cant scrape together a 5% payment, maybe you should remain a renter.

It wasnt that long ago that a 20% down payment was standard and 10% was deemed risky. A sizeable down payment gives homeowners a strong incentive to make their payments and gives them a cushion against home prices fluctuations. Now 5% is too restrictive?

Great question, Ed.  Maybe the Democratic majority would like to explain why 5%, which would give us at least a hope that the mortgagee is solvent enough not to default, is too much to ask.

And what kind of answer is it to claim this would hurt minorities and the poor? 

-Minority or otherwise, you have to produce enough money to pay the mortage on that home.  The percentages do not have a color restriction on them;  if you don't have even $7,500 to put down on a $150,000 house, how will you pay the mortage on that house, let alone the electric bill, the taxes, etc. etc. etc?

-And the poor will be hurt?  The poor?  By definition "the poor" will not be able to pay the home mortgage.  If they could, they wouldn't be poor.  So why would they be handed mortgages in the first place?

Anyone who thinks the Democratic Party is in any way serious about addressing the wholesale issuance of subprime mortgages, which was so instrumental in getting us into our current financial mess, should think long and hard about what they did to the Corker proposal today.

At least they won't be able to say they didn't know better.

free` At least they won't be able to say they didn't know better. LOL, yes they will, just like they said it with the collapse of the economy. They were told for many years this was going to happen but they [dems] blocked every reform proposal of fannie and freddie. Maybe if we had an honest media your statement would true, but we don't have an honest media. (05/12/10)

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!!