Saturday, 29 May 2010


Ken Berwitz

If there is one tried and true maxim in baseball, it is that when a team is not doing well, and the owner makes a point of giving its manager a "vote of confidence", that manager is almost certain to be tossed out on his ear.

Similarly, when a politician tells you he/she takes "full responsibility", you can bet that politician is doing no such thing.

Here, excerpted from Charles Hurt's piece in the New York Post, is President Obama taking "full responsibility" for the oil rig disaster:

It was yet another performance of the "full responsibility" flimflam.

In a rare appearance before his adoring fans in the press corps yesterday, President Obama repeatedly took "full responsibility" for the blundering efforts to clog up the geyser of crude oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico coating everything in sight.

At the same time, Obama repeatedly denied that his administration was complicit in allowing the catastrophe to happen in the first place, slow to realize the devastating nature of it, or ham-handed in the five-week effort to try to stem the toxic tide.

In other words, Obama -- as he often does -- took "full responsibility" for being awesome.

He took "full responsibility" for being, well, nearly perfect.

From the first day, Obama said it has been his "highest priority" and that his administration has been "singularly focused" on the leak.

"Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts," he sniffed.

Again and again, Obama disputed charges made by people on the ground that his administration has bollixed things up pretty badly.

Realizing that even his biggest, hand-picked fan club couldn't swallow what he was peddling, Obama came up with a question of his own that he was a little more comfortable answering.

"If the question is, are we doing everything perfectly out there, then the answer is 'No.' We could always do better," he said, bearing his trademark modesty.

Mr. Hurt ends his report by saying "It is the Obama way". 

Yep.  That it is.

Zeke ... .... I do not believe that Mr. Obama strapped on SCUBA gear, dove down 5,000 feet and sabotaged the oil well ... ... ... However, I DO believe that his administration has sabotaged efforts by the state of Louisiana to protect its shoreline and wetlands from the spilled oil. ... ... Even today, the federal EPA is blocking LA's plans to build sand bars to stop oil from washing ashore. ... ... You're doing a Heck of a Job, Barry. ... .... Containment booms sitting in storage, rather than being deployed in the Gulf. ... ... Barry spending more time on the Back Nine of the golf course than in a trip to Louisiana. .... .... Nothing like a little transparency, Barry .... and this is NOTHING like a Little Transparency. ... .... And a 3 hour Photo Op is NOT leadership. (05/29/10)


Ken Berwitz

How many articles have been written about the flood of illegal aliens who have streamed into the USA from Mexico?  Countless.  How many words have been written about this subject?  Millions.

Now:  How many articles have been written about what the flood of Mexican illegals tells us about Mexico?  How many words have you seen about that part of the story?

I will assume we agree that it is a dramatically lesser amount.  Like next to nothing.

But why?

Why are our wonderful "neutral" media, who are so eager to excoriate the USA - especially Arizona - for trying to treat illegals as illegals, so averse to writing about why they leave Mexico?

As of 2009, Mexico has a total population of about 111,000,000.  And the latest estimate is that something like 12 - 15 million Mexican nationals are in the USA illegally. 

In other words, 10 - 12% of Mexico's entire population would rather live illegally in the USA, often being paid substandard wages, with no union, no OSHA, no worker's comp, and always under the threat of being discovered and deported, then live legally, with full rights and privileges, in their homeland of Mexico.

Wouldn't you think this is an angle that someone would be writing about (other than me, of course, because I'm doing it)? 

Mexico is not a poor country.  It is blessed with enormous natural resources (gold, silver and oil among them), agriculture, industry and a huge tourist trade.  There is no reason whatsoever that Mexico cannot provide the promise of a decent existence to its own people.

No reason, that is, except massive government corruption at all levels, resulting in the lion's share of its bounty siphoned off and handed to a chosen few at the expense of everyone else.  Isn't that the most logical explanation?  Do you know another one?  If so, let me in on it, because I don't.

When do our media pay attention to this?  Investigate it?  Explain to us why 10 - 12% of Mexico's entire population illegally breaches our borders. 

When do they talk about the shame that is Mexico? 

They certainly have no problem attacking the country these millions and millions of Mexicans come running to, do they?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

free` Excellent commentary!!! (05/29/10)


Ken Berwitz

I have often written about Hillary Clinton's serial dishonesty, lack of any significant accomplishments (other than the ones handed to her on a silver platter by others) and general incompetence.

Here, courtesy of Gene Schwimmer at American Thinker, is the latest example:

May 28, 2010

Hillary: Brazil Growing Like Crazy

Gene Schwimmer


What's rapid economic growth to a Democrat?  Or truth?  Or fairness?  Hillary Clinton gave us pretty good indication of all three on May 27th, when she said:

The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] - whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms.


She then went on to cite Brazil as a paragon of economic growth - and taxation:

Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what - they're growing like crazy.


But, as with any "fact" a Clinton or an Obama apparatchik cites, you need to look it up for yourself.  Which I did.   Brazil's GDP grew 2.0% in the last quarter.  The average rates for 2007, 2008 and 2009 were 1.61%, 0.39% and 0.96%, respectively.


For those who may be wondering, our own GDP growth in the last quarter was 3.00%.  But I digress.  The point is:  Either (1) Hillary didn't know Brazil's actual growth rate; (2) she did know, but lied about it or (3) she knew and considers 3.00% GDP growth "growing like crazy."  Pick any one, two, or - this is the Obama administration, after all - all three.

Thomas Lifson adds:

Brazil's economy is benefitting from offshore oil exploration and development - the sort of thing Obama wants to stop in the wake of his failure to contain the Gulf oil spill by implementing the the existing plan. 

My only objection to Mr. Schwimmer's piece is that he expanded Hillary Clinton's dishonesty and/or incompetence to the overall Democratic Party. 

It is true that there are dishonest and incompetent Democrats (as well as honest and competent ones).  But the dishonesty and incompetency you just read about is Hillary Clinton's, period.  Hers alone.

That is our Secretary of State, folks.  Aren't you proud?

Zeke ........ .... The column appears to state that Ms Rodham is better qualified to be Secretary of Commerce than to be Secretary of State. ... ... She certainly has no skills in international matters. (05/29/10)


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

JERUSALEM Ships carrying 10,000 tons of supplies and hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists to blockaded Gaza were being held up near Cyprus on Saturday, as organizers tried to get nearly two dozen high-profile supporters on board.

The flotilla was to set sail toward Gaza on Saturday afternoon, in any event, and approach the territory on Sunday, about 24 hours behind schedule, said Greta Berlin, one of the activists.

A showdown with the Israeli navy appeared inevitable. Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, reiterated Saturday that the ships would be intercepted, denouncing the sea convoy as a provocation and violation of maritime laws. Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on Gaza after the Islamic militant Hamas seized the territory by force three years ago.

In Gaza, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said the flotilla signals the end of the blockade.

"If the ships reach Gaza, it's a victory for Gaza," Haniyeh told some 400 supporters after touring Gaza City's small fishing harbor, where several smaller vessels breaking the blockade have docked in the past. "If they are intercepted and terrorized by the Zionists, it will be a victory for Gaza, too, and they will move again in new ships to break the siege of Gaza."

Critics say the blockade has been counterproductive, failing to dislodge Hamas while deepening poverty in Gaza. There have been growing demands by the international community that Israel ease its grip or lift the closure altogether.

Since December 2008, Israel has not permitted boats carrying aid to reach Gaza.

What a fascinating article.  Too bad it left out a teensy weensy little factoid:  That hamas, which took control of Gaza by force (not that it matters, since a majority of its people supported hamas anyway), is a terrorist organization which does not recognize Israel, specifically states it will never do so, and is committed, in writing, to the destruction of Israel through jihad. 

So even though these particular ships may be filled with nothing but benign quality-of-life supplies, if Israel curtails its blockade the subsequent ships will carry the weaponry hamas needs to carry out its commitment.

Gee willikers, why would Israel blockade ships going to a friendly neighbor like that?

Sometimes the biggest lies are not the lies of commission (i.e. saying something that is untrue).  Sometimes they are the lies of omission, where everything that is said is true, but parts are left out which lead people to erroneous, misinformed conclusions.

Think this just might be a case in point?

Zeke ... ... The Israeli Navy needs to treat this mob with tenderness. Take them off the boats, pat them on the head, and give them milk and cookies .... Then drop them on Gaza's doorstep. ... ... The boats should be carefully stored in the desert, and promptly returned .... .... ... as soon as Gilad Shilat is returned. His is the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped in June, 2006, and other than a video tape and 3 letters, has not been heard from since. Hamas refused to even let the International Red Cross visit him --- a Geneva Convention requirement. (05/29/10)

free` Thanks to the criminal media most people don't know that Israel ships 1000s of tons of supplies to gaza. Could you imagine if during WWII we gave supplies to hitler and tojo? The world has gone crazy, when the victim [Israel] is portrayed as the bad guy. (05/30/10)


Ken Berwitz

I just watched about 3 minutes of MSNBC's morning show.  I do not know who the on-air personality was, but she did a story on Joe Sestak which included footage of Sestak (lamely) defending himself, and tossed off one sentence at the end about Republicans intending to pursue it -- not one second of any Republican's response to Sestak.

Then she did an interview with Christina Bellantoni, who was presented as being from Talking Points Memo.  Left unmentioned was the fact that TPM is a staunchly liberal/left web site.  It sends me its "talking points" every morning and, believe me, they ain't what you'd call middle of the road. 

Ms. Bellantoni was nice enough to tell us that she thought the Sestak controversy "bolstered" (her word) Mr. Sestak, because by turning down the job he showed he was an "outsider" (the fact that he is a two term congressperson in the majority party, which is about as inside as you can get?  Irrelevant'n'immaterial).

That, folks, is what passes for news analysis at MSNBC.  And it is an indication of how blatantly MSNBC (among others) will try to protect Joe Sestak.

Will it work?  The answer is that it has a shot.  A media that abetted Barack Obama's lies about his relationship with william ayers, which a lexisnexis search would have debunked in about one minute flat, will certainly abet Joe Sestak's BS about his job offer -- the one he himself told us about just three months ago.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

free` Not only was it a non-paying job that Bill Clinton supposedly offered Sestak, but it was a job that he was not eligible for. (05/29/10)

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!!