Thursday, 15 July 2010


Ken Berwitz

Here is the Washington Times' devastating editorial on eric holder, our racist Attorney General, and how he has turned our Department of Justice into a racist enterprise.  Read it and weep for our country:

EDITORIAL: Racialist Justice

Attorney General Holder's lawyers won't protect whites


6:32 p.m., Thursday, July 15, 2010


Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says he doesn't know whether a terrorist can face the death penalty if he or she were to plead guilty to a military commission. (CBS via Associated Press)


By now, the default judgment about the Barack Obama-Eric H. Holder Jr. Justice Department is that it discriminates intentionally on the basis of race. By the precise definition used in the American Heritage dictionary, the department is racialist.


The Justice Department hasn't seriously contested the accusation of racialism. Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department's Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators. Mr. Adams cited an incident from November in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes openly stated it was departmental policy not to enforce parts of the federal motor-voter law that involve cleaning up dead and ineligible voters from poll registries. Another former department attorney, Nicole S. Marrone, has written that Ms. Fernandes previously discussed that law in explicitly racial terms.


To such a specific allegation of lawlessness, the Justice Department's response has been dead silence. No specific denial of the accusation. No statement that the department would not tolerate such lawlessness. No investigation. And when The Washington Times asked directly on Monday about the Fernandes statement, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler responded with boilerplate that neither affirmed nor denied the statement.


As in the voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party - a case developed by Mr. Adams but dropped by the Obama-Holder crew - a failure to contest a charge is to be taken as an admission of the charge. It leads to a default judgment.


Now Mr. Adams says the Justice Department failed Monday to take a simple step that would have disallowed a proposed voting change that was intended to disenfranchise white voters in Noxubee County, Miss. Instead, the department made a flurry of court filings Mr. Adams characterizes as "a strategic feint that allows it to avoid the core issue of equal enforcement" and that is "the most contorted, most expensive way possible to [protect voters.] ... [T]he real motive is to avoid expanding Section 5 to protect a white or Asian victimized minority."


The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. "He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates," Mr. Adams explained. "He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters."


Mr. Brown spearheaded a request for a voting-practice change to approve the same practices - under cover of law - that he previously had done illegally. The Justice Department did not object. Instead, it issued a "no determination" letter that, according to Mr. Adams, effectively leaves the issue open for another day.


The Black Panther and Mississippi cases are hardly isolated instances. In North Carolina (voting), Texas (race-based admissions) and Connecticut (race-based promotions of firefighters), the Obama-Holder Justice Department advocated racial preferences or results predicated by race. Department officials reportedly have espoused biases in favor of minorities in open meetings.


Mr. Holder called America a "nation of cowards" on racial issues and has said black solidarity should bind black prosecutors and criminals together. These are not signs of equal justice. They are signs of a racial spoils system that's lawless and dangerous.

Please keep in mind that all this is being done under the aegis of President Barack Obama, who has had exactly nothing to say about the racism that appears to be rampant in holder's Department of Justice.  Not one word.  Not even a denial.  Just arrogant silence.

What does that say about Mr. Obama?  You draw your own conclusions.  But I don't know how they could be anything but ugly.


Ken Berwitz

Remember that claim by then-candidate Barack Obama that President Bush had terribly damaged our foreign relations, and his promise that an Obama presidency would reverse the situation and materially improve things?

From Fox News:

Europe Warns Obama: This Relationship Is Not Working

Published July 15, 2010


Europes disappointment with Persident Barack Obamas presidency was laid bare Thursday as the EUs most senior figure called for a dramatic effort to revive transatlantic relations.


The President of the European Commission said the new era at the White House was in danger of becoming a missed opportunity for Europe.


Jos Manuel Barroso said the EU-U.S. relationship was not living up to its potential. The criticism follows a series of fundamental disagreements on how to deal with the economic crisis, climate change and trade reform.

The feelings of a deepening rift are mutual. Senior U.S. figures said Obama could never live up to Europes sky-high expectations.


Barroso revealed his frustrations with Washington during a wideranging interview in which he also admitted that the euro had acted like a sleeping pill, luring some countries to the edge of economic disaster with an illusion of prosperity.


It has been a fractious few months for EU-U.S. relations, culminating in a fundamental clash of ideas at the G20 summit between Europes austerity strategy for ending the economic crisis and Obamas call to maintain fiscal stimulus.

Add this to Mr. Obama's increasingly voluminous pile of broken promises.  But never forget why it is happening.

The fault is ours.  We elected a Chicago machine politician who is eminently unqualified for the presidency;  who is in about 100 miles over his head.  And we compounded our mistake by handing him a lopsided congressional majority, willing to second just about everything he proposes. 

In this world, you usually get what you pay for.  And, oh baby, are we paying.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012.


Ken Berwitz

Take a good look at the name:  Hassan Nemazee.  Does he remind you of Norman Hsu?

If you don't know who these people are, or have only the vaguest recollection of their names, I don't blame you.  Because our wonderful "neutral" media, which spent months giving Jack Abramoff lead-story status, virtually buried their scandalous activities. 

 Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

NEW YORK A wealthy Manhattan investment banker who was once a top fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton and other big-name Democrats has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for bank fraud.

Hassan Nemazee (hah-SAHN' nah-MAH'-zee) was sentenced Thursday in federal court in Manhattan.

He had reached a plea deal in March. He has admitted to three counts of bank fraud and one count of wire fraud.

Norman Hsu is currently serving a three year sentence, with a number of additional charges still pending.  I doubt you will see him on the street very soon.

And Hassan Nemazee, as you just read, has been sentenced to 12 years in jail

So why are these two scoundrels virtually unknown, while Jack Abramoff became a metaphor for political corruption?

Well, Jack Abramoff primarily raised money for Republicans.  Norman Hsu and Hassan Nemazee exclusively raised money for Democrats.  I'd say you can find the answer right there. 

Thank you, mainstream media, for showing us - again, for the umpteenth time - how "professional" and "balanced" journalism in this country is. 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.....

free` I call them way more than just biased, at a minimum it is fraud. When you toss in the secret/private website JournoList it shows that it is a conspiracy. (07/15/10)


Ken Berwitz

The decision by Barack Obama to answer Arizona's new law regarding illegal aliens with condemnation, and a lawsuit instituted by Attorney Generay eric holder, his house sock-puppet, is a political catastrophe.

Virtually every poll has shown that most people support the Arizona law.  That, by itself, would be bad enough for Mr. Obama.

But the main political reason for going after Arizona - the Obama administration's apparent belief that it will boom up its standing among Latinos - not only is not happening (at least so far), but appears to be backfiring; i.e. it is having the opposite effect.

From John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:

Hispanic Support for Obama Has Declined Since Arizona Immigration Law Passed

BY John McCormack

July 14, 2010 2:42 PM


More evidence that Obama's lawsuit against Arizona is a disaster for Democrats: CBS is out with a new poll that shows 57% of Americans think Arizona's immigration law is "about right" and 17% think it "doesn't go far enough."

On the other hand, White House officials have argued that Obama's aggressive actions against Arizona will help boost Hispanic support:


White House advisers are said to be concerned that Obama's declining numbers among Latinos could spell trouble in key states in 2010 and 2012. And Harry Reid needs big Latino support to get reelected.


Immigration reform -- the best way to boost Latino support -- may not move this year. And so, in embracing the effort to overturn the law, the White House appears to be opting to speak to Latinos and other base voters on this contentious issue.


But according to a new poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, it doesn't seem like the lawsuit against Arizona is helping Obama much. Though Hispanic support for the president ticked up slightly from last month--from 59 percent to 63 percent--Hispanic approval of Obama is now lower than it was in polls conducted prior to the passage of Arizona's immigration law in late April. PPP's mid-April poll showed that 74 percent of Hispanics supported Obama, and PPP's March poll showed 65 percent supported Obama.

Now that's what I call a negative daily double: 

-President Obama and his administration have angered a majority of voters by reacting to the flood of illegals across our borders;  not with a serious attempt to prevent illegal immigration but with a lawsuit against the state that is doing something about it. 

-And, as an extra-added attraction, the Latino voters Mr. Obama thought he would impress by doing this are, so far, not any more supportive of him than they were before;  maybe even less supportive.

My attitude about this?  Good!  What a well-deserved result!

Given Mr. Obama's clear attitude that it is ok for the United States to have unsecure borders and for illegals to cross those borders at will, he has brought this down on himself.  If the political result is catastrophic for the President and his administration, therefore, he has no one to blame but the man in the mirror.


Ken Berwitz

When it wasn't close to election time, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House, President Obama publicly humiliated him.  No state dinner, no photo op, and a point at which Mr. Netanyahu was left to cool his heels for an hour or two while Mr. Obama went to dinner with his family. 

This, from the same man who literally bowed down obsequiously to a Saudi Prince.

But now we are about four months out from the midterm elections and President Obama needs Jewish money and Jewish votes.  So, during Prime Minister Netanyahu's most recent trip to the United States he was treated with courtesy and respect.

My guess is that this fraudulent little dog and pony show will reassure a lot of US Jews and get Mr. Obama a lot of the votes and money that he is pandering for. 

But Israelis are not as easily fooled.  Read this excerpt from an article in today's Jerusalem Post and see for yourself

US President Barack Obamas efforts to reach out to the people of Israel last week when he hosted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for a positive meeting at the White House and gave his first interview as president to an Israeli television station were not very successful, according to a Smith Research poll for The Jerusalem Post.

After Obamas earlier meetings with Netanyahu were portrayed as adversarial, Obama made a point of treating the prime minister with the utmost respect last week, accompanying him to his car and constantly commending him in particular and Israelis in general during his press conference with Netanyahu on Tuesday, and his interview with Channel 2 anchor Yonit Levy two days later.

But what was widely described as a charm offensive did not immediately sway many Israelis in his favor, the JPost/Smith poll indicates. There was only a 1 percentage point rise in Israelis who consider the US administration headed by Obama to be more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian since the last such poll was taken in March.

When asked whether they saw Obamas administration as more pro-Israel, more pro- Palestinian or neutral, just 10 percent of Israeli Jews said more pro-Israel, 46% said more pro-Palestinian, 34% said neutral and 10% did not express an opinion

As you can see, this charade didn't even make a dent in Israeli opinions.  They saw right through it.

Would that more U.S. Jews were as perceptive - or, more to the point, receptive, to seeing things as they really are.

free` In his interview with Channel 2, he accused the majority of Israelis of being racists. president obama said: "Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein ..." (07/16/10)


Ken Berwitz

Since I regularly skewer President Obama's so-called "stimulus package", I have to be fair and show you two specific examples of job creation that it is directly responsible for.

Excerpted from a story at

Signs of the Stimulus

Some Call it Transparency, Others Another Example of Government Waste


July 14, 2010

On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to

However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign a single sign announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.

ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia , Vermont , and Arizona do not sanction any signs.

In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."

There you go.  There are your two examples:

1) A runway improvement project which has produced 17 a cost of only $882,352 per job.  What a deal!  Do we get frequent flyer miles with that too?

2) A mini-boom for professional sign-makers.  $5,000,000 so far, for new signs that brag on behalf of the Obama administration about where the money came from.  And who knows how many more millions to come!

Are you happy about this? Do you feel it is a good use of taxpayer money?  Do you feel it demonstrates the "stimulus package" is working? 

If so, you should be in seventh heaven.

Or, are you unhappy with this?  Do you feel it is an imbecilic use of taxpayer money?  Do you feel it demonstrates the "stimulus package" is a disaster that has done little other than pay off Obama supporters and put the country hopelessly into debt? 

If so, you might want to hold that thought at least through election day.

free` Don't forget about the report that showed democrat districts got twice as much funding as republican districts. (07/15/10)


Apropos of nothing political, let me say that I would rather swim in nuclear waste than ever drive the Staten Island Expresssway, to the Belt Parkway to the Van Wyck Expressway during a weekday again.

Ok, I feel better.  Now back to politics.

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!!