Monday, 30 August 2010


Ken Berwitz

This quote is from Brian Williams' woefully partsan interview with Barack Obama, after the "Restoring Honor" event that, despite low coverage by media and decidedly negative coverage when there was any at all, drew hundreds of thousands of people to Washington DC on Saturday:

"It's not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country"

Does the tone of that quote communicate anything to you?  Maybe something strongly negative and insulting?  I know it does to me.

Does that tone suggest a continuation of Mr. Obama's comments in San Francisco during the presidential primary season (April, 2008), when he said:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothings replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So its not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who arent like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Has Mr. Obama's arrogance and consdescension lessened even one iota? 



Ken Berwitz

What do you get when you segment a group of congresspeople by race, and their districts keep re-electing the same congresspeople every election cycle without the opposition party having any chance whatsoever of unseating them?

You get a racist organization with corrupt members in it, that's what.

We've seen it with william jefferson and his frozen money.  We've seen it with charles rangel and his illegal apartments and unpaid taxes.  we're seeing it with maxine waters and what appears to be her personally-profitable intervention on behalf of a bank she and her husband have a stake in.

And now we're seing it with Eddie Bernice Johnson, who first denied, and now admits to, doling out money to her relatives and a staff member's children, using funds they have no business getting a penny of.

Excerpted from an article in today's Dallas Morning News (the bold print is mine):

Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide's two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers' causes.


The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member's district.


Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so "unknowingly" and would work with the foundation to "rectify the financial situation."


Initially, she said, "I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one." Had there been more "very worthy applicants in my district," she added, "then I probably wouldn't have given it" to the relatives.


Her handling of the scholarships puts a rare spotlight on the program and how it is overseen. Caucus members have great leeway in how they pick winners and how aggressively they publicize the awards. Some lawmakers promote the program online, for instance, while Johnson does not.


Philanthropy experts said such lax oversight of scholarship money doesn't match the standards for charities.


The foundation which is supported by private and corporate donations, not taxpayer money provides $10,000 annually for each member of the Congressional Black Caucus to award in scholarships. Each gets to decide how many ways to split the money and whether to create a judging panel, choose personally or delegate the task.


Johnson, a former chairwoman of the caucus who has served on the board that oversees the foundation, said she wasn't fully aware of the program rules and emphasized that she didn't "personally benefit."

Uh, let's see:  Hayes is a former chairwoman of the caucus, she has served on the board which overseas the foundation, but she didn't know the most basic rule - who can and cannot get the money - so she just happened to give it to her family and an aide's children.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. 

And if media buy that, media will buy anything.  Or is it more a case of them preferring not to see what is in front of their eyes?

Look, let's be brutally honest here:  If media had even the remotest interest in looking into how the CBC operates, it would long ago have found out about how this money was spent, or at the very least found out that it couldn't find out and started asking questions about why the information was hidden.

But in this day and age, when any investigation of any Black official is virtually certain to generate howls of "racism", no matter how flagrant that official's actions are, is it not reasonable to conclude that media intentionally look the other way?

Would they do it for, say, a White Citizen's Council?  Not a chance.  And I assume you will join me in emphatically agreeing that they should not. 

But a Black congressional caucus - every bit as racist for exactly the same reason (i.e. members must have the right skin color) and even worse,  given that the CBC is comprised of federal officers doing federal duties on federal properties while being paid by federal money?  Apparently that is another story.

I would like to think that this amount of corruption would cause voters in the relevant districts to remove the offenders.  But I don't see Rangel (who, ironically, is being challenged by Adam Clayton Powell IV, a son of the man he himself unseated), or maxine waters or Eddie Bernice Johnson being sent anywhere but back to congress.

How sad.  How terribly said.

(Anon) Ken wrote: "Apparently that is another story." --- You mean another story the media refuse to report on? I wonder if the media would ignore a REPUBLICAN Congressional White Caucus. (08/30/10)

free` Ken, I am surprised you haven't reported on this yet; Don't agree with Obama? Get ready for IRS probe Private group told review under way since work may 'contradict' president - The Internal Revenue Service has delayed approval of tax-exempt status for a private organization and is reviewing its educational work, telling a lawyer for the foundation that it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies." - "Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET, 'these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the administration's public policies,'" the lawsuit reports. - She said she would like to know about the special policy of reviewing applications of organizations concerning Israel to see whether they align with the Obama policy. She said the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration." - The group "was informed explicitly by an IRS agent on July 19, 2010, that approval of Z STREET's application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to 'a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies.'" (08/30/10)

free` That first post was from me. (08/30/10)


Ken Berwitz

Is NBC News anchor Brian Williams a pro-Obama partisan?  If his latest interview of the President is any indication, the answer is a resounding yes.

This morning's Today Show tackled the fact that many people believe Mr. Obama is a Muslim.  We were told that Williams, who interviewed Mr. Obama this weekend (see the previous blog), asked him about it.

Matt Lauer led in to the Williams segment by noting that Mr. Obama was just back from New Orleans where he marked the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and that the President "...has faced a storm of his own recently, after polling shows that a staggering number of Americans believe he is Muslim"

That's fair enough. 

But then Brian Williams came on, and things deteriorated, and fast.  He started by saying:

Well, good morning to you Matt.  And when you think about itnowhere in our recorded history, in the history of the presidency, 44 people have occupied the job, has one ever had to face accusations by his enemies that he is somehow a Muslim

Brilliant.  And I'll bet no one ever asked any of the other former Presidents if he was Black.  Or if he had a wife named Michelle.  Or if he used to be called Barry Soetoro. 

That is because observations about, and attacks on, Presidents tend to be based on their individual characteristics and personal backgrounds. 

Illustratively, critics called Bill Clinton a philanderer and George Bush a cowboy.  No one called Mr. Obama either of these things, did they?

Williams correctly pointed otu that neither Clinton nor Bush nor any other former President was ever called Muslim.  But did any of them have a Muslim name, a Muslim father, a Muslim stepfather, and four years of education in a Muslim country (Indonesia) where they were signed into school under the religious designation of "Islam"?  Well Barack Obama did.  Maybe, just maybe, those factors bear on why some people believe he is a Muslim.

Ok.  Now, having given us a lead-in of absolutely no meaning whatsoever, Williams cuts to the interview. 

What should Brian Williams have asked?  Here are a few reasonable questions on the subject:

-Why do you believe people think you are a Muslim?

-When you were growing up were you taught to be a Muslim, even if you eventually did not become one? 

-Did you get Muslim religious instruction in Indonesia during the years you were there? 

-Did you attend Muslim services there?  Did you attend Christian services?  If both, which was more prevalent during your upbringing?

But what did Brian Williams ask?  Here it is, verbatim:

-"Mr. President.  You are an American-born Christian.  And yet increasing and now significant numbers of Americans in the polls, upwards of a fifth of respondents are claiming you are neither.  A fifth of the people, just about, believe you are a Muslim....this has to be troubling to you.  This is, of course, all-new territory for an American President.

This is a QUESTION????  Unbelievable. 

Williams' "question" blew off not only the claim that Mr. Obama is Muslim but, out of nowhere, tossed in the origin-of-birth issue as well.  Thus he not only pre-empted President Obama's answer by (in his mind, I suppose) debunking the possibility of his being Muslim before Mr. Obama even spoke, but, as an extra-added attraction, associated anyone who believes he is Muslim with the so-called "birther" movement. 

Incidentally, since the polls which asked about Mr. Obama's religion - at least the ones I've seen - went no further than generally asking respondents if they believed Mr. Obama is a Muslim, there is no way to distinguish between people who believe he was born and raised Muslim and those who think he is currently a practicing Muslim. 

Given Mr. Obama's Muslim name, his Muslim father, his Muslim stepfather, his mother's apparent indifference to religion and the fact that, in the Muslim religion, if the father is Muslim his children are too --- could it just possibly be that there is a valid reason to believe Mr. Obama/Soetoro was born and raised that way? 

Evidently Brian Williams is too ignorant of this, and/or too busy sucking up to Barack Obama, to bring it up.

And Mr. Obama's answer?  Not one word specifically relating to the issue of whether or not he was, at any time, a Muslim in any way.  Hey, why answer what isn't being asked?

There, folks, is Brian Williams' hard-hitting, neutral Q and A with President Obama on his connection to the Muslim religion. 

About as hard-hitting as a 6 year old playing T-ball.  And about as neutral as a stump rally.

But listen to Brian Williams squeal like a stuck pig if you call him biased.


Ken Berwitz

This morning's Today show had a two-person "discussion" about Saturday's "Restoring Honor" event. 

It, of course, included one person who supported the event and one who did no......

.....Oh, wait, I forgot.  This is the Today Show on NBC.  Never mind, both were against the event.

The "discussion", if that's what you can call it, consisted of al sharpton and Ben Jealous.

-sharpton, a career racist and anti-Semite, was the progenitor of a pathetic little counter-march, which drew something like 2,000 - 3,000 people -- and only got that much because a few unions sent out their members.  Additionally, according to the Washington Examiner, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who spoke at the sharpton counter-march, tried to boom up attendance by urging his personnel to attend it.  I seriously wonder if that is even legal for Duncan to have done, given that it is the boss "suggesting" attendance for people he can hire and fire..

-Jealous is the head of the NAACP, which supported the sharpton counter-march.

Does that come across as a fair representation of both sides to you?  Or is it a little like having your performance on American Idol judged by another contestant's mother and boy friend.

Anyway, this is what passes for a "discussion" on the Today show.

Way to go guys.  Very professional, I'm sure.


Ken Berwitz

This excerpt comes from Matthew Philbin's blog at

Want a tutorial in the hypocrisy, vitriol and deep unhappiness of the American left? You don't need to subject yourself to MSNBC, or wade through the muck of Daily Kos. Actor John Cusack's Twitter feed is a clearing house for liberal memes and nasty rhetoric.


Here's his peaceful entry from Aug. 29 [All spelling from original Tweets, but Cusack admits: "I type with I phone fast and loose with no spellcheck."]:




Presumably, this is a reference to the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque. And "all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS" seems to follow on this theme:


Johncusack: taht's the gop philospy.. gourge the stae while claiming to be rugged individuaist who live by the free market - biggest joke there is..


Johncusack: think of our the us treasury as the last frontier to be stripped mined if only pesky gov itelf wasn't in the way.


Johncusack: privatized gains- socialized loses-- complete hippcorites

There's more.  If you have the stomach, click on the link I've provided and get a cesspool-ful.

Simply stated - in Mr. Cusack's own language form - he comes across like a fukcign moorn

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!!