Friday, 04 June 2010


Ken Berwitz

Just because you look like a used scumbag doesn't mean you have to talk like one.

That advice is for helen thomas, who had this to say about Israel and its Jews at, of all places, a Jewish Heritage Celebration:

At the White House Jewish Heritage celebration of May 27th

Reporter:  Any comments on Israel?  Were asking everybody today

helen thomas:  Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.  (Laughs)  Remember these people are occupied and its their land.  Its not Germans its not Poland.

Reporter:  So where should they go, what should they do?

helen thomas:  Go home. 

Reporter:  Weres their home?

helen thomas:  Poland, Germany

Reporter:  So they should go back to Poland and Germany?

helen thomas:  And America, and everywhere else

What a nice lady.  Go to a Jewish celebration and tell a reporter they should send those Jews back to where they were exterminated. 

How could she say that?  Hey, it's easy.  In helen thomas's world, all Jews came to Israel from Europe.  None of them lived on that land prior to World War II.  The Jewish presence there for thousands of years didn't exist.  The old testament?  It was mistaken.  And the million or so Jewish refugees who fled to Israel from the Arab countries that chased them out in the late 40's were really from Mars. 

Besides, "it's palestinian Arabs' land.  No Jew owns land there, no Jew has any claim there.  It should be free of all Jews. The nazi word for that is "judenrein".  I'm  sure helen knows the term very well.

Would it be fair to say that helen thomas is a disgusting, anti-Semitic sack of shit?  Probably not -- she is not owed that kind of respect.

If Barack Obama has any moral compass at all, he will tell her employer to send someone else to the press briefings.  Immediately. 

Let thomas spend the rest of her days running a hitler fan club, or some similar activity she'd be sure to enjoy.

free` obama had his picture taken with her and was all smiles after she said that. (06/05/10)

Concerned Journalist Helen Thomas's comments regarding Israel show her true colors. She is a disgrace as a journalist for her untrue lies about Israel and her Anti-Semitic disgusting comments. (06/05/10)


Ken Berwitz

Posted without comment (it doesn't need one):

Keep America Safe's chairman, Liz Cheney, has released the following statement regarding the Obama administration's handling of the flotilla incident:

Yesterday, President Obama said the Israeli action to stop the flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip was tragic.

What is truly tragic is that President Obama is perpetuating Israels enemies version of events.

The Israeli government has imposed a blockade around Gaza because Hamas remains committed to Israels destruction, refusing to recognize Israels right to exist and using territory under their control to launch attacks against Israeli civilians.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza, in order to prevent the re-arming of Hamas, is in full compliance with international law.

Had the Turkish flotilla truly been interested in providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, they would have accepted the Israeli offer to off-load their supplies peacefully at the Israeli port of Haifa for transport into Gaza.

President Obama is contributing to the isolation of Israel, and sending a clear signal to the Turkish-Syrian-Iranian axis that their methods for ostracizing Israel will succeed, and will be met by no resistance from America.

There is no middle ground here. Either the United States stands with the people of Israel in the war against radical Islamic terrorism or we are providing encouragement to Israels enemiesand our own.

Keep America Safe calls on President Obama to reverse his present course and support the state of Israel immediately and unequivocally.

free` Anyone who has the internet knew obama was anti-Israel before he was elected. Why should anyone expect him to change his views? (06/04/10)


Ken Berwitz

The Obama people, and a great many of their suckups in the media, are trying to convince us that there is some kind of job recovery.

But it is a lie.  Let me prove it to you.

Here are the latest data, complete with an explanation, excerpted from an article at  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I've put in bold print:

Job creation by private companies grew at the slowest pace since the start of the year, as a wave of census hiring lifted payrolls by 431,000 in May.


The unemployment rate dipped to 9.7 percent as people gave up searching for work.


The Labor Department's new employment snapshot released Friday suggested that outside of the burst of hiring of temporary census workers by the federal government many private employers are wary of bulking up their work forces.


That indicates the economic recovery may not bring relief fast enough for millions of Americans who are unemployed.


Virtually all the job creation in May came from the hiring of 411,000 census workers. Such hiring peaked in May and will begin tailing off in June. By contrast, hiring by private employers, the backbone of the economy, slowed sharply.


They added just 41,000 jobs, down from 218,000 in April and the fewest since January.

And that's not all.  There is overt fraud involved even with the census jobs.  Evidently, they are being greatly inflated by continually firing and rehiring census workers - but reporting each firing/rehiring as a new job.

Excerpted from John Crudele's column in the New York Post:

You know the old saying: "Everyone loves a charade." Well, it seems that the Census Bureau may be playing games.


Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.


The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.

Below, I have a couple more readers who worked for Census 2010 and have tales to tell.


But first, this much we know.


Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.


Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.


One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I've been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)


Here's a note from a Census worker -- this one from Manhattan:


"John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.


"I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.


"I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.


"A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.


"Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M."


And here's another:


"John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) just like Ms. Naomi Cohn from your article.

"I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.


"In short, we had a "checkers checking checkers" quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).


"I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.


"On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was 'terminated.' She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.


"I did get two days' pay and I am sure the 'late people' got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. I am totally convinced that the Census work could be very easily done by the US Postal Service.


"When I was trying to look for an address or had a question about a building, I would ask the postman on the beat. They knew the history of the route and can expand in detail who moved in or out etc. I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full.

"I am not surprised that you can't get any answers from Census staff; I found there were very few people who knew the big picture. M.G."

What frauds.  What liars. 

How can you believe a thing anyone in this administration tells you?

free` I have been concerned about the census since the white house announced they were going to take it over. The media pretty much ignored it but it is the first time the executive branch has taken control of the report. If you use acorn as your measure of what they are going to do with this years census report, you will understand why I say that I am concerned. (06/04/10)


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from the Associated Press this morning:

WASHINGTON The White House says President Barack Obama was unaware one of his top advisers suggested job opportunities to a potential Colorado Senate candidate in hopes of persuading him not to run.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama did not know ahead of time that White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina would speak to former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff about international development jobs. Romanoff is challenging Sen. Michael Bennet.

Romanoff and the White House both have said there was no job offer.

Excerpted from the Denver Post yesterday:

U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff said publicly for the first time Wednesday that a White House deputy discussed three specific jobs that "might be available" if Romanoff dropped a primary challenge to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet.


Romanoff, responding to increased pressure from national media and Republicans attacking the Obama White House, released an e-mail sent to him Sept. 11, 2009, by administration deputy chief of staff Jim Messina describing two possible jobs with the U.S. Agency for International Development, affiliated with the State Department, and one with the U.S. Trade Development Agency.


In a phone call last September, just before Romanoff publicly announced a challenge for Bennet's seat, Messina

"suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one," Romanoff's statement said.


After getting the e-mail with the job descriptions, Romanoff said, "I left him a voice mail informing him that I would not change course. I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then."

We're supposed to believe that President Obama did not know one of his top advisors was offering Andrew Romanoff the bribe of an important position in the Obama administration if he would drop out of the senate race in Colorado.  

Just as we are supposed to believe one of the half dozen or so different stories concerning a similar bribe offer to Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania.

Liars.  All of them.


UPDATE:  Unless I missed a passing reference to it, the Today Show has not mentioned this story to its viewers (we are almost an hour in.).  Not one word about it.  People who rely on Today for news, therefore, do not know the story even exists.

Then they wonder why people call them biased....

free` You have to look closely at what they are saying. first: "Obama did not know ahead of time that White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina would speak to former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff" He isn't saying he doesn't know about the job offer, he is saying he didn't know Messina would be the one to speak to him. -- Second: "I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then." Notice the added qualifier, "since then" at the end of his statement. You have to really look closely at every word they say and not just take for granted they meant anything other than exactly what they have said. (06/04/10)


Ken Berwitz

Former President Bush says he would waterboard the 9/11 mastermind again if it would save lives.  I have a feeling that most people would enthusiastically second the emotion. 

But some of us very clearly do not.  Which, not surprisingly, leads us straight to keith olbermann.

Let's start with Mr. Bush's exact words, which come to us via

(June 3) -- Former President George W. Bush says he has no regrets that the mastermind of 9/11 was waterboarded while under interrogation, and he would allow it again "to save lives."

Bush made the comment in a speech Wednesday to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush said. "I'd do it again to save lives."

Now let's see how olbermann reacted. 

-He started by claiming that "Former President Bush, last night, confessed to committing a war crime". 

I don't know about you, but when I hear the term "confession", I think of someone ruefully admitting to doing something he/she considered wrong.  President Bush did no such thing.  In fact, he did not consider it a war crime at all, since his justice department's opinion was that the waterboarding, as applied to khalid sheikh mohammed, did not meet the legal definition of torture. 

President Obama's people say it is torture, and Mr. Obama says he would not do it.  But Mr. Obama was not the President during khalid sheikh mohammed's interrogation so we'll never know for sure, will we?  Personally, I prefer to believe that if Barack Obama thought waterboarding a terrorist would save lives, he would not hesitate for even one second to ok it.   How about you?

-olbermann then informed us that, by stating he would waterboard mohammed again to save lives, President Bush has given us a "subconscious hint that he knew it was useless the first time". 

You may, at this point, be saying "Wha??????"   Well, you're right of course.  olbermann's presumption is that by stating he would do it again to save lives President Bush is somehow suggesting that he didn't think it saved any lives in the first place.  Does anyone, even olbermann, believe that's what Bush thinks?

-olbermann then went on to blather out a bunch of additional material, some of which was true, some of which was exaggerated or presumed, and (true to form) some of which was blatantly untrue. 

Case in point:  the claim - often stated by other media people as well as olbermann, that khalid sheikh mohammed was waterboarded 183 individual times.  Reality check:  mohammed himself told the red cross that it was only about 8 - 10 times.  Here is the verbatim passage from the Red Cross report:

 "The suffocation procedure was applied [to Abu Zubaydah] during five sessions of ill-treatment ... in 2002. During each session, apart from one, the suffocation technique was applied once or twice; on one occasion it was applied three times."

The way olbermann and his fellow stooges got to 183, was by counting a guesstimate of the total number of individual "pours" during each waterboarding session.  That is equivalent to you pouring a cup of coffee, finishing the cup in 10 sips, and then claiming you had coffee 10 times.  Could this be more dishonest?

olbermann went on to other ridiculous comments in his segment, but I think this should be enough to give you a clear idea of just how dishonest it was -- and how dishonest he was in reporting it.

Not that this is anything new, of course.  olbermann spent years ending his "Countdown show by saying _________days since President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq".  

In point of fact, President Bush declared no such thing.  He made a speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner proclaiming "mission accomplished" - which a) Bush did not ask to have put up and b) in any event was entirely factual, in terms of the US army defeating the Iraqi army. 

Let me repeat, so there is no mistake about it:  President Bush did not say, or imply, "mission accomplished".  When olbermann claimed he did, at the end of every one of his broadcasts for years, he was lying. 

Want proof?  Ok.  Just click here and read the speech.  See for yourself.  You won't find "mission accomplished" in it.  But you will find these comments:

-The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

-Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger.

-The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

-The war on terror is not over...

Does any of that read as "mission accomplished" to you?

Simply stated, keith olbermann is full of BS.


Ken Berwitz

In fairness to the originating web sites, I mostly try not to post other people's work verbatim.  I usually provide excerpts and a link

But, with apologies to the Washington Post, I feel compelled to post Charles Krauthammer's latest column, titled "Those Troublesome Jews", word for word:

Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010


The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.


But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.


In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.


Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.


Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.


Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?


But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.


(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.


Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.


But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.


Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.


(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.


The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.


(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.


But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.  

Thank you Mr. Krauthammer.  Thank you for laying this out so clearly.

Now:  is President Obama going to stand with Israel?  So far, the answer is no.

Does he even give a damn if Israel is decimated?  So far the answer is indeterminate.

And are the 78% of US Jews who voted for this President, most of whom presumably support Israel, still trying to rationalize his actions?  Sadly, the answer is probably yes.

If so, what fools they are.  If this doesn't wake them up they're beyond hope.

free` What data do you have that shows the majority of American Jews support Israel? Do you think there are more conservative Jews or liberal Jews in America? From everything I have read and seen American Jews do not support Israel. Anyway this will be the last time I address your assumption, I promise. ;) (06/04/10)


Ken Berwitz

From the editorial page of the Washington Times.  Please pay special attention to the part I've put in bold print:

President Obama hyped Friday's job-report numbers, claiming a slight drop in the unemployment rate as evidence that things were "moving in the right direction." The numbers hardly represent good news as Mr. Obama continues to ignore the creeping indications that his debt-fueled economic policies are hurling the country toward a historic collapse.

Non-farm payrolls grew by 431,000 jobs, but more than 90 percent of the increase was from temporary Census Bureau hires; these people can expect to rejoin the ranks of the unemployed when the counting is finished. Private-sector job growth accounted for just 41,000 jobs, far below the expected 190,000. The drop in the unemployment rate from 9.9 percent to 9.7 percent looks good on the surface, but it occurred mainly because 322,000 people gave up their job search and exited the labor force.

Those lucky enough to land a position aren't necessarily happy. In Mr. Obama's economy, more than 40 percent of workers have low-paying service-oriented "burger flipper" jobs as the underemployment rate soars. Last week, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. touted the success of the 2009 stimulus package, saying it would create 700,000 to 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2010. But that was a significant downgrade from the 4 million jobs Mr. Obama had promised last year, and it does not account for the 2.6 million jobs already lost. Because "stimulus" jobs are created through government deficit spending, Mr. Biden's "progress" is as illusory as trying to pay off a home mortgage with a credit card.

On Friday, the president proclaimed that "the economy is getting stronger by the day." The math suggests otherwise. Under his policies, government debt is accumulating at three times the rate it did under President George W. Bush, who was no budget hawk. Annual deficits are around 90 percent of gross domestic product and rising. This year, the U.S. government will issue 45 percent of the world's new debt - in other words, almost as much new debt as the rest of the world's governments combined.

Home foreclosures also hit a record high in Mr. Obama's first year in office, and they are set to break more records in his second year. First-quarter 2010 foreclosures were 35 percent over the first quarter of 2009. Foreclosures in March 2010 were the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began reporting those data in January 2005. Personal bankruptcy filings in 2009 were up 32 percent over 2008, and 6,673 people filed per day in May 2010, 10 percent above filings a year earlier.

Hours after Mr. Obama's optimistic speech, the broad stock indexes were all down more than 3 percent. Since April 26, the Dow has dropped 10 percent, giving up all its gains since October 2009. Last month was the worst May for the Dow since 1940. With Mr. Obama in his 18th month in office, the White House can no longer credibly blame these dismal numbers on his predecessors. President Reagan's attempt to get out of the Carter recession was called "voodoo economics" - but it worked. Mr. Obama's economic plan, by contrast, is leaving the country debt-ridden, underemployed and awaiting foreclosure.

After a year and a half of little competence but much finger pointing at everyone else, maybe it is time for Mr. Obama to start facing the failure of his policies, especially his economic policies.

If the poll numbers are any indication, by doing so he will be catching up to a great many of his erstwhile supporters.

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!!