Friday, 25 June 2010


Ken Berwitz

Did you know that a letter was circulated in the senate and the house, affirming support for Israel after the "flotilla fraud"?

Here is the senate version of this letter (Noel Sheppard of writes that the house version is very similar):

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations.  The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so.

Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and a vibrant democracy.  Israel is also a partner to the United States on military and intelligence issues in this critical region.  That is why it is our national interest to support Israel at a moment when Israel faces multiple threats from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the current regime in IranIsraels opponents have developed clever diplomatic and tactical ploys to challenge its international standing, whether the effort to isolate Israel at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference or the recent effort to breach the naval blockade around Gaza.

We fully support Israels right to self-defense.  In response to thousands of rocket attacks on Israel from Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Israel took steps to prevent items which could be used to support these attacks from reaching GazaIsraels naval blockade, which is legal under international law, allows Israel to keep dangerous goods from entering Gaza by sea.  The intent of the measures is to protect Israel, while allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Late last month when Israel learned that groups operating in Turkey wanted to challenge its blockade of Gaza, Israel made every effort to ensure that the humanitarian aid reached Gaza without needlessly precipitating a confrontation.  Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six ships challenging the blockade.  However, video footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass. They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted. 

We are deeply concerned about the IHHs role in this incident and have additional questions about Turkey and any connections to Hamas.   The IHH is a member of a group of Muslim charities, the Union of Good, which was designated by the US Treasury Department as a terrorist organization.  The Union of Good was created by, and strongly supports Hamas, which has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department.  We recommend that your administration consider whether the IHH should be put on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, after an examination by the intelligence community, the State Department, and the Treasury Department.

We commend the action you took to prevent the adoption of an unfair United Nations Security Council resolution, which would have represented a rush to judgment by the international community.  We also deplore the actions of the United Nations Human Rights Council which, once again, singled out IsraelIsrael has announced its intention to promptly carry out a thorough investigation of this incident and has the right to determine how its investigation is conducted.  In the meantime, we ask you to stand firm in the future at the United Nations Security Council and to use your veto power, if necessary, to prevent any similar biased or one-sided resolutions from passing.

Finally, we believe that this incident should not derail the current proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We hope that these talks will move quickly to direct negotiations and ultimately, to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict

If you have not seen this letter, there is a good reason.  According to Noel Sheppard's blog, other than "LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the states.  No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press".

Can you come up with any reasonable explanation for why news about a letter on a controversial subject, signed by most members of both parties in both houses of congress, has been buried by the media?   There's only one I can think of and, frankly, it is pretty ugly.

Now:  We know that a vast majority of both houses signed the letters.  What we don't know is which individual congresspeople did and did not sign them.  It seems that whenever something like this happens, our media - if they report the existence of the letters at all, that is - somehow fail to provide this information.

But here's something we do know:  the last time a letter of support for Israel was circulated in the house, just a few months ago, a total of 98 members would not sign it:  91 Democrats and 7 Republicans. 

I fully expect that this new letter has just about the same party relativity.

Yet a very large majority of Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel, continue to vote Democratic election after election, like mind-numbed robots.  This, despite the Democratic Party becoming more and more openly anti Israel. 

Based on my own experience among family and friends, a good many do so second-naturedly, without ever seriously considering the alternatives.  No matter what the Democratic Party says or does, they have always found a "reason", however strained, to continue voting that way. 

And, by withholding information like this, our wonderful "neutral" media maximize the prospects that they will continue to do so like clockwork.

Hey, maybe we found that explanation we were looking for.....


Ken Berwitz

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), yesterday, on the floor of the house of representatives.  The bold print is mine:

Were giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people and theyre not minorities and theyre not defective and theyre not all the things youd like to insinuate that these programs are about these are average, good American people

What if that comment were made by a Republican?  How big would the uproar be?  How loud would the calls be this morning for him to resign in disgrace?

So, keeping in mind that Paul Kanjorski is a Democrat, do you think any of that is going to happen? 

If so, I'll take your bet.  I can use the money.

free` He either misspoke or was taken out of context, only R's can be racists silly. (06/25/10)


Ken Berwitz

It's those damn right wing fanatics, they're the violent ones.  Those tea-partying, conservative-voting crazies.  Everyone knows that, we read it in the papers and see it on TV all the time, don't we?

Excerpted from an article today at

New Orleans--While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administrations moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.

I just bet there will be feature stories about this on MSNBC tonight, one after the next........


Ken Berwitz

Has Representative Alan Grayson, the embarrassment from Orlando, Florida, funded a group of fraudulent candidates in an effort to win re-election for himself and other Democrats?

The evidence is strong - seemingly incontrovertible - that Grayson has created sham "opponents", whose real job is to split Republican/conservative votes, thus giving him a winning plurality. 

Here is the beginning of a very long - but immensely worthwhile - expos of this sordid mess, from

Grayson Paid Company Formed By Fla. Tea Party Candidate

Payments Boost GOP Claims That Grayson Wants To Split Conservative Votes

Tony Pipitone

POSTED: Monday, June 21, 2010

UPDATED: 11:05 am EDT June 22, 2010

ORLANDO, Fla. -- U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's campaign has paid nearly $20,000 to a corporation created by a Florida Tea Party candidate, with help from that party's top consultant, lending support to Republicans' claims that Grayson is funneling some of his $30-plus million fortune toward a party that is running a candidate against him in the general election.

VIDEO: Tony Pipitone's Report

Grayson's motivation, Republicans say is to support a "sham" party whose candidate will siphon away conservative votes from the eventual Republican nominee in November, boosting Grayson's chances of re-election.

A Local 6 investigation has found Graysons campaign spent $19,898 with Public Opinion Strategies Inc., a company formed by Victoria Torres, a Florida Tea Party candidate for a state House of Representatives seat in Pinellas County. Torres has said she created the company in December 2008 with the help of the Florida Tea Partys public relations consultant, Doug Guetzloe.

Guetzloe and his attorney, Frederic B. ONeal, who created the Florida Tea Party last year, are being sued by Republican tea party movement activists who claim the pair created the Florida Tea Party to hijack the tea party movement for their own gains (and) profits.

The owners of Public Opinion Strategies -- the people who stand to benefit financially from the multimillionaire Graysons campaign money -- are not revealed in public records.

The only corporate director listed in state records is the Florida Tea Party candidate Victoria Torres, who swore in court papers in April that she has no cash, no income, no potential income, no stock and no possible asset from any corporation.

I strongly urge you to click on the link I have provided and read every word.  It is devastating.

Also, please note when this information was made public.  FOUR DAYS AGO.  The only reason I know about it is that, in reading through right wing and left wing web sites, I just saw it at, Otherwise, I wouldn't have any inkling at all that this story existed.

Why?  Because our wonderful "neutral" media did not pick up this story and report it.  That's why.  How disgraceful.  How pathetic.

The bottom line:  If any of this is true, Alan Grayson should resign forthwith. 

But this is Alan Grayson, the guy who said that the Republican health care plan is that you just die (yes, he really said that).  So you have to know this man has absolutely no capacity for humility or shame, thus he's not going anywhere.

The only way Grayson leaves is if the voters in his district have wised up to his act -- which is why he would have done something like this in the first place.

free` Is what he did illegal? (06/25/10)


Ken Berwitz

Today's hands-down winner comes to us from Democrat County Supervisor Peggy West, at a board hearing in Milwaukee to decide whether the city should boycott Arizona over its new immigration laws:

If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border

Hey don't blame poor Peggy.  It is a perfectly understandable mistake.  After all, we're only talking about a tiny sliver of Arizona's western border --- and the entire southern border, of, oh, about 300 or so miles.  

Obviously Ms. West is very stressed out from all that intensive map reading.  My advice would be for her to drive across the Wisconsin border to Hawaii, for some much-needed R & R.

Make sure you have a full tank, Peg.


Ken Berwitz

Remember that poor innocent teenage boy who was shot dead by a border patrol guard earlier this month?  Remember his distraught mother telling us what a good boy he was, what a fine student, etc. etc. yada yada yada?  Remember the angry protest from Mexican officials, right up to President felipe calderon, that a border guard would dare to shoot at a group of young men?  After all, they were only illegally breaching the border and throwing rocks at the guards which could injure or kill them.

Well here is an interesting postscript to that story, excerpted from an Associated Press article  published today:

EL PASO, Texas (AP) -- A 15-year-old Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers, according to federal arrest records reviewed by The Associated Press.


The records show Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka had been arrested at least four times since 2008 and twice in the same week in February 2009 on suspicion of smuggling illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Hernandez was repeatedly arrested along the U.S. side of the border near downtown El Paso, not far from where he was killed, but was never charged with a crime by federal prosecutors.


A Border Patrol agent shot and killed Hernandez June 7 while trying to arrest illegal immigrants crossing the muddy bed of the Rio Grande. Some witnesses said a group of people on the Mexican side were throwing rocks at the agents. Agents are generally permitted to use lethal force against rock throwers.

Hmmmm.  Maybe young Mr. Hernandez wasn't quite ready for beatification after all.

But if you're waiting for some kind of explanation from the mother of this 15 year old career criminal, or an apology from President calderon, you can kiss it goodbye.  There won't be any.

The only good that has come of this is that there are a lot of U.S. border guards who understand what it's like to be an Israeli soldier.


Ken Berwitz

She has never been a judge.  She has never performed as a lawyer.  Thousands of documents relating to her opinions on matters that might come up before the Supreme Court are being withheld by the Obama administration.  The latest poll shows that more voters oppose her than support her as a Supreme Court nominee.

And now this, excerpted from an article at

Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn't Kosher to Serve on Supreme Court
Friday, June 25, 2010

By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
( Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is not kosher -- meaning she is not fit to serve on the court -- according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That's the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying "Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court -- or any court."
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this. 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no good reason for Elena Kagan to be handed a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which, given the history of this administration and its lopsidedly Democratic congress, makes it virtually certain that there will be no serious demand for her to withdraw as the nominee, and almost as certain that she will be confirmed.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.


Ken Berwitz

I want to add a little more to yesterday's blog about land in Arizona that is either specifically or tacitly closed because drug and human traffickers are operating freely within it.

Yes, during the Bush administration a minuscule (3,500 acre) parcel of land within the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge, right on the Mexican border, was closed to U.S. citizens.  But, to address this problem, President Bush ok'ed construction of a 12 foot fence there, which has dramatically lessened the number of illegal crossings ever since.

That sounds like a pretty logical progression, doesn't it?  A problem is identified, addressed and largely solved.

Now, let's compare George Bush's performance with Barack Obama's. 

There is an expanse of land, vastly larger than the 3,500 acre parcel President Bush addressed, which US citizens are being warned not to travel through.  It is within the Sonora Desert National Monument area - something like 80 miles inland from the Mexican border - and apparently has become a safe haven for drug cartels and people who smuggle human beings into our country. 

The Obama administration's entire reaction so far has been the promise of an inadequate number of troops to address the situation (3,000 were asked for, only 1,200 were promised) which, Arizona was told, would arrive in two weeks.

But it is now over a month and no troops have been sent.

In other words, President Obama is doing nothing about this. Not a thing.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

Is Barack Obama ceding land to drug pushers and human traffickers, so that they can operate freely within our borders?  You tell me.

So the next time you read, or hear, someone telling you that Bush closed the land to U.S. citizens, you will know the real story - which is:

 a) In 2006, Bush acted decisively to resolve the problem.

b) Today, the land area in question is in a different place, well within our borders, and is vastly larger than the 3,500 acres of border land closed under Bush.

c) President Obama is not doing a thing about it.

I can't prove it, but it seems very clear that President Obama is "punishing" Arizona for its new laws, passed in an attempt to secure the border with Mexico.  If so, this is despicable and then some. 

Arizona passed those laws only because the federal government under President Obama is not doing a thing to protect the border.  Not big things, not small things.  Nothing at all.  It is leaving Arizona to deal with an estimated HALF MILLION ILLEGALS who are taking jobs, sucking social services dry and are the primary cause of Arizona's massive jump in crime - especially drug trafficking.

If the federal government is abdicating its reponsibility to protect the border, what is the state supposed to do?  Put out a welcome mat and provide a list of intersections in Phoenix and Tucson with little kiosks for them to sell the drugs?

You might, at this point, be asking where our wonderful "neutral" media are on this.  Why are they not screaming at the top of their collective lungs for the Obama administration to protect our sovereignty and protect the citizens of this country?

Is it conceivable that some - maybe quite a few - journalists are ok with the USA ignoring its own border and allowing unlimited access to illegals (including criminals and terrorists let's remember)?   Do you have a more logical explanation?  If so , tell me.  Please.

And where is congress on this?  Where are the howls of protest and the demands that this administration DO something?

Oh, sorry.  I forgot.  Both houses of congress are dominated by Democrats.  So that is not about to happen.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough,.

And that goes double for 2012.

free` Can't the governor call up her states national guard and deploy them? (06/25/10)

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!!