Monday, 21 June 2010


Ken Berwitz

It's pretty clear that President Obama is not what you'd call taken with the United Kingdom.  He insults and belittles the UK every chance he gets, whether it is unceremoniously dumping the Winston Churchill statue, or the amazingly lame gifts he gave to Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Brown, or the viciousness with which he has attacked the BP, the UK's biggest company and mainstay of British pensioners.

So the question becomes why.  Why does he seem to hate the UK so completely?

Well, here is a possible answer.  It comes to us from London's Daily Mail, via Phil Boehmke of

June 20, 2010

Obama's Grudge Against the British

Phil Boehmke

One of Barack Obama's first actions upon taking office was the unceremonious rejection of the Winston Churchill bust which had been loaned to our nation as a symbol of friendship and trust after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America. Subsequent actions by Mr. Obama have revealed a deep seated hostility towards our old and valued ally culminating in his un-presidential response to the BP oil spill.

In an exclusive interview with the UK Daily Mail Sarah Onyango, the woman Barack Obama calls Granny Sarah' gave some insight into her grandson's anti-British bias.

...Sitting under a mango tree in the garden of her modest home in Kogelo village, Kenya, surrounded by the family's chickens, cows and goat, she recalls telling Barack Obama his family history on his first visit to Kenya in 1988.


I narrated the whole story to Barack one evening to help him understand our family's past. He wasn't amused at all. He expressed quite a lot of concern about why the British had to punish his grandfather "on his own soil."


He said the whole act sounded barbaric. He wondered why the British never respected African culture. The arrest he said was outrageous.' Shockingly she adds: Generally, my grandson never believed the British do anything for a common good, rather than their selfish interests.'


Hussein Obama was a member of the Muslim Luo tribe and was involved in the bloody Mau Mau rebellion. As the cook for a British Officer, Hussein was a vaulable informant in the secret "oathing" movement which required an oath to murder white settlers as a condition of membership. Although records from the era have not survived, Hussein Obama is said to have been convicted for sedition and membership in an illegal terrorist organization and incarcerated in Kamiti prison.


Granny Sarah' told her grandson how his grandfather was beaten and tortured by the British to obtain information about the "oathing" movement and how they continued the daily beatings until he promised "never to rejoin any groups opposed to the white man's rule." Sarah also told Barack about how his grandfather's fellow prisoners were beaten to death with clubs.


Clearly Mr. Obama's anti-British feelings can be traced to the family stories related to him by his Granny Sarah.' It would appear as though Obama is using the office of President of the United States as means of exacting revenge against the British people for alleged actions committed 60 years ago by persons long since forgotten.

Remember what Democrats, and their media sycophants said about President Bush's action in Iraq?  Remember that it was supposed to be because saddam hussein tried to assassinate Bush's father - also a President of the United States?

Well, here is the counterpart possibility for Barack Obama blowing off one of the USA's most important allies.  Where are those media now?

Probably still busy trying to find out whether Sarah Palin had a boob job.  Heck, you have to keep things in their proper perspective, don't you?

free` Remember what Democrats, and their media sycophants said about President Bush's action in Iraq? Remember that it was supposed to be because saddam hussein tried to assassinate Bush's father - also a President of the United States? Ken, that is actually one of the reasons congress voted on, in a huge majority vote. Don't feel bad for not knowing that, because the media only reported on the WMD's. Very few people i know even bothered to read the entire resolution. H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq Authorizing use of military force in dealing with Iraq - In the 9th paragraph of the resolution it reads: Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; The left treated it as a joke, but democrat politicians didn't, they voted on it as being one of a dozen reasons for going to war. The media are to blame for most of the worlds ignorance on why the US went to war against Iraq. I hope your readers go to the link I posted and read the entire document. (06/21/10)


Ken Berwitz

Now that Hillary Clinton, with characteristic ineptitude, has spilled the beans and told us the Obama administration will mount a legal challenge to Arizona's anti-illegal (not anti-immigration) laws, let's take a look at how the people of the country feel.

Here is an excerpt from an article at, detailing the results of a recent poll on this subject:

56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Immigration Law


Friday, June 18, 2010


The Obama administration has reportedly decided to challenge Arizonas new immigration law in federal court, but a recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. voters oppose such a challenge.


Just 26% believe the Justice Department should challenge the legality of Arizonas law in court. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided in the survey conducted May 26 and 27.


Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizonas in their own state.


When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.


Arizona voters support the state's new immigration law more than ever, with 71% in favor of it.

What's that you say?  The poll is several weeks old and things could have changed?

Ok, fair enough.  This one is from the ABC News/Washington Post poll, completed June 10:

"A new law in Arizona would give police the power to ask people they've stopped to verify their residency status. Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law?"























Game, set, match.

The key issue now, is how many Democrats who fear voter reaction to the misbegotten, ridiculous position of supporting a federal government which a) clearly has no intention of securing our borders and b) is going to court to prevent the states from doing so, will spend the election season running from Barack Obama like Dracula from a wooden stake and a cross.

free` Ken it is even worse than that, take a look at the very first thing I saw today in the news. You have to see it to believe it. Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages (06/21/10)

Ken Berwitz I saw that video too. I'll be blogging about that later today (06/21/10)


Ken Berwitz

What a strange title.  It looks like the Obama administration is going to "protect" the "rights" of people who have absolutely, positively no right to be here in the first place.

That can't be, can it? 

But wait:  this is the Obama administration.  So......

Here is the text of a video-taped statement by Hilda Soles, our Labor Secretary, guaranteed to warm the cockles of any illegal's heart:

You work hard.  And you have the right to be paid fairly. 

Im U.S. Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.  And it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn.

Remember, every worker in this country has a right to be paid fairly.  Whether documented or not.

So call us.  It is free and confidential.  At 1 866 487 9243.  We can help.

What the hell is this?  Did we become a sanctuary country?

No wonder President Obama wants to sue Arizona for trying to stop illegals.  His administration is specifically giving them rights that they do not have.

Understand this clearly:  The Secretary of Labor is telling illegals that if they make their illegal status known to the federal government - which is in charge of enforcing immigration laws - not only won't they be deported, but the federal government is prepared to advocate on their behalf so that they can get the full benefits of citizenship they do not have any right to.

Please, please, move up the 2012 elections.  Im begging.

free` Maybe enough Americans will call this number [1 866 487 9243] that it will flood the system into crashing. Call now and let them know what you think about this issue. (06/21/10)


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from yesterday's Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about "America's addiction to oil." One member has blogged about it regularly.

Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background but it's in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.

The five other commissioners are experts in policy and management.

Why are President Obama's numbers down the tubes?  I'd like to think that things like this have something to do with it.


Ken Berwitz

Matt Lauer's teaser, just now, for The Today Show (paraphrased, not exactly verbatim):

"More on the oil spill disaster, and Tony Hayward's controversial decision to spend the weekend at a yacht race"

Not one word about President Obama spending his weekend at a baseball game and playing golf.

And you wonder why I rail about The Today Show?  Don't wonder.


UPDATE:  I just reviewed the entire segment on this subject.  It was 2:37 long, and had angry words from politicians of both parties (edited, so we don't know the full statements) and a citizen whose reaction appeared to have come after being told about Hayward by the interviewer. 

But absolutely not one word on President Obama spending his weekend watching baseball and playing golf.

In other words, The Today Show, via omission of half the story, gave a reason for its viewers to be infuriated at BP and Tony Hayward, while 100% shielding President Obama from any such reaction.

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


Ken Berwitz

Here's a stupid tax trick for you:  How do you lower tax revenues by raising taxes? 

The answer is:  You raise them so high that it induces people to seek out other ways of getting their cigarettes.

Cigarettes can be bought in conventional retail establishments all over New York State.  They can also be bought by Indian tribes which do not require taxes, and they can be bought illegally via smuggled-in cigarettes from states with far lower cigarette tax.

Common sense would tell just about anyone that, by raising taxes, thus creating a larger difference between the price at a conventional retail establishment versus Indian tribes or the black market, a greater number of people will seek out one of the latter two alternatives.

So what does David Paterson, the disgraced-and-should-have-resigned-months-ago Governor of New York State do?  He proposes a $1.60 raise in New York's already astronomical cigarette tax.  This is supposed to raise revenues, not lower them. 


Illustratively, if the Paterson tax is passed a pack of cigarettes in New York City would cost $5.85 in taxes alone.  That is before the cost of the cigarettes and any profit on the part of the retailer, which raises the total cost over $10,00 a pack!!!

I just googled "discount cigarettes, and the first couple of places I saw had Marlboro's at under $50 a carton, thus under $5.00 a pack.  I assume other major brands come in at about the same cost.

Does anyone in his/her right mind think that, other than a "nicotine emergency", consumers will be happy to pay more than double for their Marlboros, or Winstons, or Kools, or whatever, at the corner store? 

So, bottom-line, New York will lose tax money by raising taxes.  The higher they are, the more people will easily find other alternatives - all of which cut New York out of 100% of its hoped-for tax money.  Instead of getting some, they will get none.

Hey, I have an idea:  Instead of creating a misbegotten, counterproductive tax like this, why doesn't Governor Paterson come up with a way of taxing the cigarettes sold by Indian tribes? 

Raise those taxes by $1.60, so that they're still legally purchased cigarettes at less than conventional retail establishments, and New York might incease its tax revenues.  Which, of course, is precisely why it is not happening.

They never learn, do they?

free` Ken, at the end of this month it will be illegal to send cigs thru the mail. The PACT Act is a new law that prohibits shipment of cigarettes thru U.S. Mail starting June 30, 2010 and will effectively end the sale of cigarettes over the internet, by telephone, or by mail. June 25th will be the final day that we accept cigarette orders. This means that after June 25th, 2010, YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO BUY CIGARETTES ON THE INTERNET, OR OVER THE PHONE, OR BY MAIL, EVER AGAIN!! (06/21/10)

Ken Berwitz free - it will be done illegally, just as black market cigarettes are sold illegally. And the Indian tribe sales will go through the roof, not to mention out-of-state road trips to stock up. Make an item dramatically more expensive in one venue than it is in other venues, and people will find the other venues. Count on it. (06/21/10)


Ken Berwitz

The "stimulus package" that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% and create 3.5 - 4 million more jobs by the end of 2010 has instead resulted unemployment rise to about 10% and 4 million jobs lost.

The cash for clunkers fiasco cost more per car (about $24,000 each) than it would have cost to just give the participants new cars free.

A majority of the country already wants national health care repealed - and as they find out that they were lied to regarding the ability to keep existing coverage, that number will almost certainly go higher. 

The troop surges in  Afghanistan have been an abysmal failure (thank you mainstream media for barely reporting this news.  Did you hesitate for one second when it was Iraq and President Bush?)

And now this, excerpted from an Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration's flagship effort to help people in danger of losing their homes is falling flat.

More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out. That's more than the 27 percent who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes.

Last month alone, 150,000 borrowers left the program -- bringing the total to 436,000 who have exited since it began in March 2009.

Administration officials say borrowers will get help in other ways. But analysts fear the majority will still wind up in foreclosure.

A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.

The only things this administration seems to be succeeding at are putting us hopelessly in debt and making sure the border crossings are open for illegal aliens.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.


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!!