Tuesday, 15 June 2010


Ken Berwitz

I don't have a staff and can't monitor everyone all the time.  But I did try to notice how NBC handled congressperson Bobby Ray "Bob" Etheridge's assault on the two young men who asked him if he fully supported President Obama's agenda. (I have heard since that they are Dartmouth students who work for the Dartmouth Review, a conservative publication - but I don't know that for sure)

-NBC's Evening News:  No mention of it whatsoever

-MSNBC's Hardball:  Chris Matthews, the increasingly (and unintentionally) comical host of Hardball, introduced his segment on the incident this way:  "Next: ginning up a skirmish. Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina was ambushed by a group of unknown activists last week, and didn't like it much."  In other words, asking Etheridge's position on the Obama agenda as he passed them on the street was "ginning up a skirmish".  Using that logic - remember, the sum total of their action was asking a question as Etheridge walked by - there are 1,000 skirmishes "ginned up" on congresspeople every day.  How many has Matthews personally "ginned up" in his career?;

-MSNBC's Morning Joe:  Joe Scarborough, who has morphed from moderate Republican to upper west side Democrat in no time flat, said the students "harassed" Etheridge (they were standing in one spot - not following Etheridge.  As he walked by they greeted him and one of them asked him one generic political question);

-NBC's Today Show:  The Today Show mentioned it as a news item and told its viewers that Etheridge had apologized for his actions during "a confrontation with two men asking him questions" - not that the physical attack was 100% by Etheridge or that only one generic political question was asked.

To remind you:  Here is the entire dialogue that prompted Etheridge's physical attack: 

"Hi congressman"  "How are you?"  "Do you fully support the Obama agenda?"

In case you have any doubt at all, I am posting the video below.  Watch it and see that the two "videographers" were not following Etheridge, harassing him or intruding on his space.  The greetings, and question, were voiced as he walked by them.


Compare what you just saw/heard to how it was "reported" above.  What you have is a classic example of what happens when a supposedly credible network rejects news coverage in favor of disseminating propaganda.

Can NBC sink any lower?


Ken Berwitz

Is it a lewd act if an adult woman gets drunk and forces a 13 year old boy to touch her breast, maybe even suggests they have sex (though they don't, and she claims she is too drunk to remember making the offer)? Yep. 

Would you sentence her to life imprisonment for it, with no possibility of parole for at least 10 years?  No, of course not. 

But that is exactly what happened in Twin Falls, Nevada.  Read the excerpt from this article and see for yourself.  Please pay special attention to the parts I've put in bold print:

ELKO, Nev. A Twin Falls woman convicted of forcing a 13-year-old boy to touch her breasts was sentenced Monday to life in prison.

Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 in November after a week-long trial in Elko County, Nev., District Judge Mike Memeos courtroom.

With the conviction, Taylor faced a mandatory life sentence, and Memeo set parole eligibility after 10 years, the minimum sentence. If released on parole she must register as a sex offender and will be under lifetime supervision.

The district attorneys office did not offer a plea agreement in the case, said public defender Alina Kilpatrick, who argued the sentence is unconstitutional and doesnt fit the crime.

The jury was not allowed to know the potential sentence in this case and the Legislature doesnt know the facts, she said, alluding to the minimum sentence set by the Legislature in Nevada Revised Statute.

Kilpatrick said despite the parole eligibility after 10 years, there should be no mistake that its a life sentence for Taylor.

She is getting a greater penalty for having a boy touch her breast than if she killed him, she said.

After he sentenced her, Memeo said he was bound by state statute to impose the life sentence, but said he isnt sure why the prosecution chose to charge her under that statute.

District Attorney Gary Woodbury could not be reached for comment.

Taylor, who lived in Jackpot, Nev., at the time of the crime, kissed a friends child, forced him to touch her breast and asked him to have sex with her in February 2008.

Taylor claimed she was intoxicated and doesnt remember what happened that night. She told jurors she roughhoused with the boy, but didnt force him to touch her inappropriately.

The DA's office didn't offer a plea bargain?  The jury wasn't allowed to know what their guilty verdict would mean?  She could have been charged under a different statute but that wasn't done, and there is no explanation of why?

Ms. Taylor's sentence cries out for appeal and reversal.  Being drunk and acting lewdly in this manner deserves a suspended sentence or maybe 30 days in the cooler.  To put her away for life - a sentence even murderers do not get - is literally insane.

Let's hope the people who can do something about this travesty get their backsides in gear.  Immediately.

And let's hope they do something significant about the DA and his people.  A few mandatory career changes wouldn't trouble me a bit.


Ken Berwitz

Would you compare an accident that killed 11 people, damaged part of the country's environment and severely hurt part of the economy, to an intentional attack that killed 3,000 people, terrorized the whole country, caused massive property damage and sent the entire economy into a tailspin for over a year?

No?  You think the comparison is idiotic bordering on insane? 

Then I suggest you have a word with President Obama. 

Excerpted from London's Daily Mail (among many other sources):

British families of 9/11 victims described Barack Obama as cruel yesterday for comparing the terrorist outrage to the BP oil spill.


The U.S. president said there were echoes between the Gulf of Mexico disaster and the Al Qaeda suicide attacks which killed 2,995 people, including 67 Britons.


He said that just as the events of September 11, 2001, had profoundly shaped our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy, so the oil disaster would shape thinking on the environment and energy for years to come.

There you have it.  The use of  9/11 as a cheap political vehicle for pushing environmental and energy legislation, which is what Mr. Obama's speech tonight will be all about.  As Rahm Emanuel says, "never let a serious crisis go to waste". 

In fairness, Mr. Emanuel did not add "And make sure it is serious to the max by performing as incompetently as you can for almost two months".  Who said Barack Obama can't act on his own?

Can we move the 2012 election up?  Please?


Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest news on a scandal that mainstream media have decided to bury.  Eric Holder's racist decision to vacate charges against racist "Black Panther" thugs in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election.

Here is yesterday's devastating editorial from the Washington Times.  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I've put in bold print:

EDITORIAL: Pro-Black Panther prejudice

Justice Department implements a racial double standard


8:08 p.m., Monday, June 14, 2010

The foundation is crumbling from the Justice Department's stonewall on the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case. What's becoming visible is a serious corrosion in the whole edifice of the Civil Rights Division in the Obama-Holder Justice Department.

The edifice shook on Friday when a key lawyer in the case notified the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that he is now available to testify. The lawyer, J. Christian Adams, had been ordered by his Justice Department superiors, quite improperly, to ignore a subpoena by the commission. Mr. Adams instead resigned from the department effective two weeks ago, largely in honorable protest over its handling of the Black Panther case. His attorney e-mailed the commission on Friday, "Mr. Adams wants to relieve any obligation he has under the subpoena." Mr. Adams' testimony surely will shed light on how the unreasonable decision was made.

Readers will remember that the case involved two New Black Panther Party members - one a local Democratic Party official and poll watcher - who used racial epithets and threats while standing at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day, 2008. One Panther brandished a nightstick like a weapon. After the case effectively had been won, political appointees of President Obama's dismissed or reduced all charges or sanctions against the defendants, and then they stonewalled multiple inquiries about the case from Congress, the media and the Civil Rights Commission.

The stonewall's mortar further disintegrated when the June 21 issue of the Weekly Standard, published on Sunday, featured a lengthy, explosive expose on the Black Panther case by Commentary magazine contributing editor Jennifer Rubin. Confirming and expanding on months of reporting by The Washington Times, Ms. Rubin provides at least five nuggets of information that are damaging to the official story line peddled by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Obama White House.

First, Ms. Rubin reports that Steven H. Rosenbaum, the acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, who spearheaded the decision to drop the case, was repeatedly unfamiliar with case details even as he ordered it to be dismissed. Second, Mr. Rosenbaum repeatedly based his arguments for dropping the case on the idea that First Amendment speech protections somehow excused the Black Panthers' threats. Yet during May 14 testimony to the Civil Rights Commission, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez repeatedly, exasperatingly, dodged questions about whether First Amendment concerns prompted the cases' dismissals, effectively suggesting that the position could not be defended.

Third, Ms. Rubin reports that Mr. Holder was briefed personally on the decision to drop the case, a fact that seemingly contradicts earlier Justice Department statements. Fourth, the Justice Department's own internal investigation into the strange handling of the case has itself been a sham. Even though the Office of Professional Responsibility was assigned to the case in July, it did not bother to interview the original trial team until a few days before Mr. Adams left the department.

Finally, Ms. Rubin's reporting confirms that much of Justice's Civil Rights Division rejects "the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants" for any reason. In short, a double standard exists in which only whites and Asians can be guilty of illegal discrimination but never be its victims, while blacks can only be victims but never charged as perpetrators.

This is a dangerous notion and un-American notion. If Americans of different races cannot receive equal justice from the Justice Department, there is no real justice.

I've said it before and it bears repeating now.  There are people in positions of power within the Obama administration, who have decided that racism begins and ends at White-on Black. Black-on-White racism doesn't count.

That makes them racists.  And since eric holder is one of them, it means that racism is in control at the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Washington Times, for the editorial. 

Thank you Jennifer Rubin for your superb report on this scandal (which you can read by clicking here).

And shame beyond belief on most of our media for willfully burying it.


Ken Berwitz

After two months of nothing, desperation sets in.

Here are two examples:

From Florida, via www.destinlog.com:

DESTIN Okaloosa County isnt taking oil spill orders any more.

County commissioners voted unanimously to give their emergency management team the power to take whatever action it deems necessary to prevent oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill from entering Choctawhatchee Bay through the East Pass.

That means the team, led by Public Safety Director Dino Villani, can take whatever action it sees fit to protect the pass without having its plans approved by state or federal authorities.

Commission chairman Wayne Harris said he and his fellow commissioners made their unanimous decision knowing full well they could be prosecuted for it.

We made the decision legislatively to break the laws if necessary. We will do whatever it takes to protect our countys waterways and were prepared to go to jail to do it, he said.

From Louisiana, via www.abcnews.com:


Eight weeks into the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of the Mexico, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has told the National Guard that there's no time left to wait for BP, so they're taking matters into their own hands.

In Fort Jackson, La., Jindal has ordered the Guard to start building barrier walls right in the middle of the ocean. The barriers, built nine miles off shore, are intended to keep the oil from reaching the coast by filling the gaps between barrier islands.

Why are they doing this?  Because the people who are supposed to, aren't.  That's why.

Maybe President Obama can touch on this tonight.  Maybe he can explain why the folks in Destin, Florida are so desperate that they will break the law and take matters into their own hands, because it is the only way to protect their coastline.  And why the Governor of Louisiana is acting with equal desperation.  

Maybe he can stop bashing BP long enough to acknowledge that he is the President, this is his responsibility too, and his leadership and effectiveness have been woefully inadequate.

Warning:  don't hold your breath waiting for that part of Mr. Obama's speech.

free` obama better not talk about the oil spill tonight in his address to the nation. The reason I say that is, he is scheduled to meet with the board of directors of BP for the first time tomorrow. He would have to have some fricken nerve to schedule an address to the nation before he has even met with the people in charge at BP. (06/15/10)


Ken Berwitz

From www.angelfire.com:


Obama is a victim of Bush's failed Promises


Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nations most inspiring political campaigns, the election of Americas first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they dont see it as self imposed. Its all George Bushs fault.

George Bush, who doesnt have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obamas promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obamas promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obamas promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obamas promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obamas promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obamas promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with Americas most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obamas promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obamas promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obamas promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obamas promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obamas promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, its all George Bushs fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasnt still in charge, all of President Obamas problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didnt have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

 If only George Bush wasnt still in charge, wed have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay  immigration reform is not President Obamas fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. Its all George Bushs fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the presidents attorney general, to hold terrorists trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last months election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing the Ted Kennedy seat, President Obama said that Browns victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts  was George Bushs fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bushs fault.

If only George Bush wasnt still in charge of the oil spill cleanup in the gulf.

The bad call by umpire Jim Joyce that cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Darn that Bush!!


Crappy popcorn due to discontinuance of coconut oil at movie theaters. Has to be be Bush's fault.


It is Bush's fault that members of the Obama administration offered jobs to democrat party members to keep them from running for office. They only did that on advice from Bush.


He was on the "grassy knoll", the source of the lingering odor outside the Oval Office bathroom and he invented the Chia-Obama.


My HP All-In-One printer isn't compatible with Windows 7. Thank you George Bush.


Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?



Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something anything?


Ken Berwitz

From deep inside the "you can't make this stuff up" file, we get the following AP report:


This photo provided by the Ada County Sheriffs Department shows Joy Cassidy. Authorities say the Boise woman arrested, Sunday, June 13, 2010, after pouring mayonnaise in the Ada County library's book drop box is a person of interest in at least 10 other condiment-related crimes. (AP Photo/Ada County Sheriffs Department

Cops bust woman, 74, for pouring mayo in book drop


BOISE, Idaho -- Police in Idaho think they might have solved a yearlong condiment crime spree. Authorities said a 74-year-old Boise woman arrested after pouring mayonnaise in the Ada County library's book drop box is a person of interest in at least 10 other condiment-related crimes.

Joy L. Cassidy was picked up Sunday at the library, moments after police say she pulled through the outside drive-through and dumped a jar of mayo in the box designated for reading materials.

Cassidy was released from jail and faces a misdemeanor charge of malicious injury to property.

Boise police say Cassidy is under investigation for other cases of vandalism that started in May 2009. Library employees have reported finding books in the drop box covered in corn syrup and ketchup.



Hmm, a serial condiment offender.  If she poured the stuff over Cheerios and Corn Flakes, would that make her a condiment cereal offender too?

Lucky she didn't pour the ketchup and mayo together.  They could have declared it french dressing and tried her under international law.

I dare you to come up with worse jokes than those. 


Ken Berwitz

The speech was a bomb.

There was no serious discussion of the lack of presidential performance -- and if ever a President needed to be honest and self-effacing, this was the time.  Polling data indicate that a large majority of the country feels he is not handling the oil disaster well.  By not acknowledging them he comes across as arrogant, distant and without humility.

There was no explanation of why other countries' technologies, offered throughout the entire two months, have been turned down flat.  Are things going so well that we don't need them? 

Mostly the speech was an opportunity to do a blue-sky dog and pony show about how wonderful renewable energy is and how we should be aggressively developing it (which I happen to agree with).  But there was no acknowledgement that now, and for the near future, we have absolutely no choice but to rely on oil.  

Instead, there is a 6 month moratorium on drilling, which further devastates the economies of states on the gulf.  Does this make sense?  If there is a multi-car pileup on the interstate do we ban traffic for 6 months?

And the last several minutes of Mr. Obama's speech was a religious sideshow that, if it had come from President Bush, would have commentators throughout the media calling him a religious nut and worse.  I wonder if they'll say that about Obama.

Finally, all you need to know about how poor this speech was, ironically (and surprisingly) came from, of all people, keith olbermann, who said: 

"I thought it was a great speech, if you'd been on another planet for the last 57 days".

I don't say this very often, but you got that right, keith.


Ken Berwitz

A few thoughts about Alvin Greene, the Democratic Party's nominee (at least as of now) to run against US Senate incumbent Jim DeMint:

-Could Greene's "campaign" (I put that in quotes since he doesn't seem to have run one) been a setup of some kind to embarrass Democrats and assure DeMint's re-election?  Yes it could have. 

No one ever heard of this guy, he did not run a campaign.  He had no staff.  And it defies logic that an out-of-work man who claimed to have no money last year (that's how he got a public defender after being arrested on obscenity charges) somehow came into possession of $10,400 dollars, which he then used for filing fees. 

If you were broke and suddenly acquired $10,400, would you pay off some of your debts?  Buy food?  Clothing?  Pay rent?  Or would you spend it all on filing fees to run in a senate primary?  It just doesn't compute.

But, that said, I do not know how Greene got that money.  And if he was a plant, I do not know who planted him. 

Let's talk real:  Jim  DeMint would be a virtual shoo-in for re-election regardless of who won the Democratic primary.  The only way Vic Rawl, the guy Democrats expected as their candidate, could win is if Democrats were wildly ahead of Republicans this year and poised to win everything that wasn't tied down.  But the exact opposite is true:  all indications are that Republicans will clean Democrats' clocks in November.  Rawl is would be dead meat.  So why would Republicans concoct an Alvin Greene incident, and give Democrats a chance to scream that there was foul play? 

Frankly, Greene's candidacy gives Democrats a lot more than Republicans.  Either way, they are almost certain to lose to DeMint, but now they can posture as aggrieved parties and maybe get some sympathy votes they would not have otherwise had.  

-Could the voting machines have been faulty?  Sure, that's possible.  But no one has produced any evidence that they were.

-Could Greene have won because neither candidate was well known and he was first on the ballot?  A lot of commentary, including Democratic sources in South Carolina, says that is exactly what happened.  If so, it is some pathetic commentary on how Democratic primary voters made their choice.

-Could Greene have won because he is Black and South Carolina has a very high percentage of Black Democratic promary voters?  Sure.  Do you doubt that there are Blacks who selected Greene because "I don't know either of these guys, so I'll vote for the one who looks like me"?

Bottom line:  Any of those things might have happened.  And none of them might have happened.  We just plain do not know.  What we know is that, with all the hooting and hollering. no one has produced any evidence that would negate the primary result. 

Unless such evidence turns up, the Democratic nominee is, and should be, Alvin Greene.

free` This blog post seems like a good place to point you towards a news story I just saw. Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election - PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election (06/15/10)

free` Ken Wrote: "If you were broke and suddenly acquired $10,400, would you pay off some of your debts? Buy food? Clothing? Pay rent? Or would you spend it all on filing fees to run in a senate primary? It just doesn't compute." ----- I saw an interview where he said that the $10,400 was from his personal savings that he had earned while in the military. (06/15/10)

Ken Berwitz Assuming he is telling the truth, it still is $10,400 in personal assets and he's still unemployed. Does it make any sense at all that he would clean out every cent he had to pay filing fees for a US senate race? That is bizarre and then some. (06/15/10)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!