Friday, 09 July 2010


Ken Berwitz

My previous blog speculated that someone must have slipped President Obama an LSD hit, because he's claiming that our down-the-crapper economy is absolutely headed in the right direction.

But he ain't the only one.

Here, via an excerpt from John Fund's Wall Street Journal blog, is Nancy Pelosi telling us about how popular ObamaCare is:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seeing things. The Hill, a newspaper covering Congress, reports that she has "seized on new polls that suggest healthcare overhaul's popularity is rising, and is urging members of Congress to use this week's recess to tout the new law."

Ms. Pelosi's may be counting a phantom army of health care supporters. While she cites a Kaiser Family Foundation survey from last month that found 48% of respondents viewed ObamaCare favorably, other polls tell a different story. Rasmussen Reports found 60% of likely voters in this fall's election still back repeal of the bill. A new survey by pollster Whit Ayers for the GOP group Resurgent Republic found voters back repeal by 53% to 41%, even when juxtaposed against a strong populist message that "we should stand up to the insurance companies, not give in to them."

Most ominous for Democrats is that independents -- the swing vote in elections -- remain highly skeptical of health care reform, favoring repeal by a 52% to 39% margin. Vulnerable Democrats might want to consider the source before relying on Ms. Pelosi's advice to campaign on ObamaCare.

Let me say about Ms. Pelosi what I said about Mr. Obama:  I have to wonder if someone slipped LSD into her morning coffee.  What else could have caused her to make so ridiculous a comment?  (What's that you say?  Maybe she's just a lying politician who cynically hopes that voters are dumb enough to believe the pile of mung she is shoveling at them?  Ok, that's possible too).

We can debate whether this fraudulent idiocy is hallucinegin-induced, intentionally dishonest or both.  But either way it remains fraudulent and idiotic. 

Or, put another way, it's business as usual in Pelosiville.


Ken Berwitz

Is the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) an unconstitutional breach of states' rights?  At least one federal judge thinks so, and has done something about it.

The following is excerpted from Michael Levenson's article at (the Boston Globe):

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

July 8, 2010 06:55 PM

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff


A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.


Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal governments long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.


"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."


Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.


But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states, Tauro wrote. That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal governments long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.

What do you think of Judge Tauro's ruling? 

Personally, I'm no lawyer.  But, to my un-legal mind, he is 100% correct.  Marriage law is a state issue, not a federal issue.  That is very clearly established in the 10th Amendment, which says:

 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". 

Since there is nothing in the constitution about what is or is not a legal marriage, it seems to me that this is a slam-dunk ruling which even people who are repulsed by gay marriage would have to concede.

Please note that my opinion has nothing at all to do with my position on gay marriage itself; only that it is a states' rights issue.

But since you asked (I assume you'd be asking), please note that I fully support the concept of gay marriage with all the rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage.  

I know there are people who feel that the word marriage connotes one man and one woman only.  I agree that this is how the word has been defined, at least until recently.  But that is only because homosexual couples, until recently, weren't legally allowed to have any version of what we call marriage.  

If two men or two women can become life partners, why wouldn't that be marriage, no more or less than when heterosexual couples become life partners?  Meanings of words change and expand all the time. 

But if it makes those folks happy to have the word "marriage" reserved for one man/one woman and some other word or phrase for two man or two woman unions, as long as the rights and privileges are identical that wouldn't particularly bother me. 

One other thing - and it is a very important one.  If Judge Tauro's ruling is correct because of the 10th amendment, when do we start correcting all the other federal rulings that ignore that amendment?  There are a bunch of them - one being abortion law. 

I wonder how many of the folks cheering the Tauro ruling will try to pretend it ends at gay marriage?


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Michael O'Brien's piece at

Its absolutely clear the U.S. economy is heading in the right direction, President Barack Obama said Thursday, amid fears that the economy had faltered.

Obama made his case during a visit to Missouri that his administrations efforts, particularly through its signature $787 billion stimulus package, had staved off a second Great Depression and put the country on the path toward economic recovery. 

But what is absolutely clear is that we are headed in the right direction and that the surest way out of these storms weve been in is to keep moving forward, not back, the president said in prepared remarks set for delivery at Smith Electric Vehicles in Kansas City, Mo. 

I read this and wondered if someone slipped LSD into Mr. Obama's morning coffee.  What else could have caused him to make so ridiculous a comment?  (What's that you say?  Maybe he's just a lying politician who cynically hopes that voters are dumb enough to believe the pile of mung he is shoveling at them?  Ok, that's possible too).

For the umpteenth time:  Since the so-called "stimulus package" was signed into law on February 17th of last year, unemployment has jumped up, as much as 25% over where it was before the legislation was passed, and millions of jobs have been lost.  All this, for the "privilege" of taking on a crushing debt burden that will haunt our children and grandchildren.

And Barack Obama thinks "what is absolutely clear is that we are headed in the right direction"?????

Please, someone. Point us in the wrong direction.  And while you're at it, is there any way to move up the 2012 elections? 


Ken Berwitz

As our economy continues to float in a sea of joblessness and unprecedented deficits, I thought you might be interested to know how our neighbors up north are doing.

Here is your answer, excerpted from an Associated Press article.  The bold print is mine:

TORONTO Canada's economy continues to outshine other advanced countries as the unemployment rate unexpectedly dipped below 8 percent for the first time in a year and half.


Statistics Canada said Friday the country added a higher-than-expected 93,000 jobs in June and said the unemployment rate dropped to 7.9 percent.


Economists had expected a more modest 15,000 to 20,000 job increase and that the rate would remain at 8.1 percent. It's the second biggest gain ever recorded by the agency in terms of the number of jobs and comes after Canada added a record 108,700 jobs in April and 24,700 in May.


The government said the new jobs were evenly split between full-time and part-time positions.


In less than a year Canada has made up nearly all the jobs lost during the recession.


"We've replaced those jobs already. It is quite something how we are rebounding," said Dawn Desjardins, assistant chief economist at Royal Bank.


Canada entered the global downturn in the last three months of 2008 and withstood the global economic crisis better than most developed countries. There was no mortgage meltdown or subprime lending crisis in Canada where the financial sector is dominated by five large banks.

Look at those jobs numbers!

Canada has about 1/10th the population we have.  So the 226,400 new Canadian jobs in the past three months would translate into 2,264,000 new jobs in the USA. Do you recall an additional 2, 264,000 jobs materializing in the past three months, or anything like it?  

Comparatively speaking, we are right next door to Canada and we are in the same global economy that Canada is in.  So how come the Canadian economy is rebounding and ours remains down the crapper.

Think it has anything to do with the policies of our current leadership?

Or, put another way, after a year and a half of Obama, and 16 months of his so-called "stimulus package" if you are going to invoke George Bush, don't bother.  You're wasting your breath.

Ironic, isn't it?  We talk about Canadians coming to the USA for our health care.  Maybe they can wave across the highway divider, to the USA citizens who will be going to Canada to find jobs.


Ken Berwitz

Quick:  Who is thes sweet, sexy blonde in this high school yearbook picture? 

HAH, I knew you'd never get it!

And what does she look like today?

Like this:

Image: Rachel Maddow, MSNBC Anchors 

By now, I expect you know that the person in question is MSNBC host and proud lesbian, Rachel Maddow.

If you look very, very closely, you may notice a slight, nearly imperceptible change in her appearance......


Ken Berwitz

Charles Bolden is the President Obama-selected administrator of NASA - the National Aeronautic and Space Administration.

I'll bet you think that means his purpose is to advance issues related to aeronautics and space.  But you would be wrong.  This is the Obama administration and, under cover from our wonderful "neutral" media (more on this in a moment) he is doing anything but.

On July 4th I blogged about what Mr. Bolden says President Obama "charged me with three things":

-"He wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math,

-he wanted me to expand our international relationships,

-and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world, and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering."

Does that in any way, shape, manner or form look like what the administrator of NASA is supposed to be doing?  Could this be more inane and insane?

Suppose this were President Bush, and the NASA administrator he selected said he was charged with finding a way to "reach out to the Christian world, and engage much more with dominantly Christian nations, to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering"?

Do you doubt that mainstream media would be reporting this?  Do you doubt that they would be making a major issue of it?  Do you doubt that there would be howls of protest and ridicule for a President who thinks NASA is some kind of feel-good therapy venue for the countries, and culture, he favors above the others?

But how did those same media handle Bolden's comments - which, by the way, were made on al-jazeera. osama bin laden's network of choice when he wants his tapes to be publicized, and were prefaced by Bolden telling the interviewer how "excited" he was to be on that cable network?  (If you want to see the interview, click here.  The parts I've shown you occur right at the beginning.)

On July 7th, three days later, Byron York of the Washington Examiner used Lexis Nexis to see how much coverage this was given.  Here is what he found:

  Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

  Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

  Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

  Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

  Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

In other words, the most widely seen and read media venues in this country did not report it.  I don't mean they underreported it, I mean they did not report it at all. 

If you read the New York Times and watch the network news (pick a network, any network) to get the news, you are completely, 100% unaware that this even happened..

Asking again:  Would there have been no coverage at all if it were President Bush's NASA administrator, and he went on a Christian cable network to say that his primary charge was to make Christian nations feel good about their contributions? 

You know the answer as well as I do.

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.  That seems to be the motto of our media, as they continue to protect their annointed one, Saint Barack. 


Ken Berwitz

A couple of weeks ago our wonderful "neutral" media excoriated BP's CEO for attending a yacht race while oil was flowing out of that deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico.  Those same media barely mentioned that, during the same weekend Mr. Hayward was watching the yacht race, President Obama went to a baseball game and shot a round of golf.

You would think that engaging in such a blatant double-standard might embarrass these people into at least a little more balanced coverage, in the future, wouldn't you?

Well, as we speak, President Obama is running around the country doing fundraising for Democrats.  Robin Carnahan in Missouri, Harry Reid in Nevada (at a rally in Las Vegas, that place he publicly disdained last year, remember?), Barbara Boxer in California, etc.

Isn't that well still belching oil into the Gulf of Mexico?

Where are the condemnations of President Obama for spending his time on raking in $$$ while the Gulf is being polluted, the shoreline is being damaged, maybe irreparably, and a way of life for millions of people is being decimated?

And they wonder why people call them biased? 

free` "And they wonder why people call them biased?" I don't think they wonder, they are just happy to have the people without the internet that don't know any better. (07/10/10)

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!!