Tuesday, 31 August 2010


Ken Berwitz

As men go (not "Black" men, just men), Harry Alford is major-league impressive.  You can read his many accomplishments by clicking here, and I hope you do.

Given the quality of the man, and his impeccable credentials as, among many other things, a hugely successful promoter and cheerleader of Black-owned businesses, I thought you might be interested in what he has to say about Glenn Beck, the "Restoring Honor" event, and the so-called Black "leaders" who have opposed and denounced it.

This is an excerpt from Mr. Alford's commentary for the Charlotte (NC) Post:

Beck is a very interesting person.  He first started his television career on the liberal CNN.  From there he transitioned to the conservative Fox News and blew up with his tirades and accusations of the liberal camps.  He became the pride and glory of the conservative movement and many credit him with the start of the tea party movement.  He is unashamed of his ultra conservatism and will call out anybody in much detail and doctorial fashion.  To the surprise of many he has lately been applauding black history and many of the little known heroes of black history.  He is actually on a campaign to show all of the contributions of our leaders in the making of America.  It is admirable and you must give him his due praise. That is, if you are not on a mission to counter whatever he says as opposed to weighing his words as he speaks them. 

From my black viewpoint, Mr. Beck has been on the 1 in discussing the contributions of Frederick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver and many others.  So why are these human rights Democratic groups bashing him.  Could it be the money they receive from the DNC that is doing it?  Probably, it is reported that the Department of Education is giving one organizer $1.5 million to talk about education with Secretary Arne Duncan, who attended the protest rally, by the way.

I went on the Glenn Beck show last December after a series of regrets.  I finally relented just to see what would happen.  We talked about the racist innuendos of California Senator Barbara Boxer and the discrimination by construction unions in employment and contracting.  The professionalism of his staff was very impressive.  More than that, they were quite diverse with blacks interacting at the management level.  My wife and I must admit that the professionalism of his staff is probably better than that of any other talk show host. 

Glenn Beck knows what he is doing and his ratings are the second highest in cable television.  The Lincoln Memorial event he produced on the anniversary date of the I Have a Dream speech (August 28) is not a coincidence.  His recent campaign to promote black history falls right in line with this event. It was here that he made clear that one man can change the world over and over throughout the ceremony.  As a student of Dr. King and a direct benefactor of his work, I am impressed and appreciative of what Glenn Beck is doing.  No one else thought of it.  The human rights groups reaction was knee jerk as they were caught sleeping.  They had no plans whatsoever to honor the anniversary.  It was reactionary and on demand from the Democratic National Committee.  It is so tough to be an organization when you have a boss telling you what to do.  As my grandmother would say, they were like chickens with their heads cut off.  They were running and ranting with no distinct purpose. 

Mr. Beck with his 500,000-plus followers had an agenda and mission.  They accomplished it.Glenn Beck is now touting that his movement is going back to the roots of conservatism. 

We were the first ones to shout freedom for everyone and we are reclaiming that.  He flipped the script and the traditional colored groups took the bait.

Pretty interesting, wouldn't you say?

It's a funny thing:  I personally do not care for Glenn Beck.  I've made that clear in previous posts.  Yet, the bile, the hatred and the dishonesty hurled his way over the past week has turned me into one of his defenders.

Among the most frequent charges against Beck is that he is a racist and the "Restoring Honor" event (not "Restoring America", as I erroneously called it in earlier, now-revised posts) is a racist enterprise.

One look at the stage, and the crowd, would tell any honest person that the event was not racist at all.  But screaming racism, regardless of whether it exists, is an all-purpose panacea for the professionally oppressed (in this case, al sharpton; a career hater who, accomplishment-wise, couldn't come within 1,000,000 miles of a man like Harry Alford). 

So sharpton stayed true to form and screamed racism about Beck this weekend. 

Just as our wonderful "neutral" media stayed true to form by conveniently forgetting sharpton's disgusting, racist past and describing him as a "civil rights leader".

Me?  I'll take a Harry Alford over an al sharpton 100 times out of 100.  Let the media have sharpton.  They are responsible for keeping him in the public eye all these years, so they deserve him.

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


Ken Berwitz

Let me start by responding to a question that is sure to be asked.  Yes, there are dishonest rightward media too. 

But the difference is that the left dominates our media.  So its dishonesty is that much more damaging.

Following is an excerpt from an article by Ed Lasky at americanthinker.com, which gives you a good idea of what I'm talking about:

August 31, 2010

Covering up for George Soros

By Ed Lasky


The sinister, omnipresent moneybags of the American left, George Soros, knows that distraction and misdirection make for a good defense. So do his many lackeys and sympathizers in the American media.

Recently, the left has built up two conservative billionaire brothers as their latest bogeymen. I am referring to the libertarians Charles and David Koch, who fund, among other groups, Americans for Prosperity. First Barack Obama lambasted them, and his minions in the media dutifully followed. Jane Mayer's 10,000-word article in the New Yorker, titled "Covert Operations: the billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama," has been widely cited in other liberal media.


In reality, the brothers have long funded a variety of causes years before anyone had ever heard of Obama. Regardless, Mayer's article was criticized as shameful by others, including a trenchant bit of criticism by Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner. One of Hemingway's points was right on target: Mayer's barely visible coverage of George Soros, sugar daddy of the Democratic Party and an early, ardent and generous supporter of Barack Obama. Hemingway excerpts a paragraph from Mayer's article and notes some omissions:


But this passage from Mayer's piece is also worth noting, as a measure of the article's bias:

Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama's. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros's giving is transparent, and that "none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests."


The idea that Soros' giving is transparent is laughable -- he's given millions to the Tides Foundation, a byzantine organization notorious for obscuring finding sources on the left ... Further, Soros was very influential in setting up the Center for American Progress think tank and many other liberal organizations in the last decade. If any billionaire has waged war against a president recently, it's Soros' campaign against Bush. To dismiss any concerns about Soros' political spending while saying that the Koch brothers are at the center of a dark conspiracy is absurd.

Mayer just let the claim that Soros has no monetary interest when he gives money stand unchallenged -- and that was shameful. Where was the famed New Yorker fact-checking department? Did they get laid off?

There is how the vaunted, celebrated New Yorker Magazine allowed itself to be used on behalf of george soros.

As Ed Lasky points out, the difference between how a relatively similar situation is handled from the right and from the left could not be clearer.

Thank you Mr. Lasky, for this reminder of just how biased our media can be....and are.


Ken Berwitz

Let's get this "news" out of the way, so that we can get back to something - anything - of value.

Here is  article #1 from abcnews.com, which discusses that paragon of vacuousness and self-importance, paris hilton:

One would think that it would be hard to mistake cocaine for chewing gum, considering one substance is powdery, white, illegal and most commonly found in tiny plastic bags, and the other is solid, multi-colored, sold at convienience stores around the country, and often wrapped in foil.

But apparently, Paris Hilton has trouble telling the difference between the two.

According to an officer's report, when a little white baggie fell out of the purse Hilton was carrying in Las Vegas Friday, Hilton said that "she had not seen [the bag] but now thought it was gum."

The bag actually contained 0.8 grams of cocaine, according to People magazine, and now the 29-year-old heiress faces felony drug-possession charges, with an Oct. 27 arraignment.

Hilton maintains she didn't put the drugs in the bag. According to the police report, she attested to owning a broken Albuterol pill, Zig Zag wrappers commonly used to smoke marijuana, and $1,300 in cash and credit cards, but said "several cosmetic items inside the purse were not hers."

And here is article #2, from her equally vacuous, self-important soul sister, lindsay lohan:

In an interview with Vanity Fair magazine conducted prior to her latest jail and rehab stint, Lohan told the magazine that she wants A-list status in Hollywood again, by any means necessary.

"I want my career back," she said. "I want the respect that I had when I was doing great movies. And if that takes not going out to a club at night, then so be it. It's not fun anyway.

"I don't care what anyone says. I know that I'm a damn good actress," she continued. "And I know that in my past I was young and irresponsible, but that's what growing up is. You learn from your mistakes."

Are there two less significant people who get more publicity than paris hilton and lindsay lohan?  Could there be?

Yeah, I know I just gave them some myself.  But it's just once, and only to make a point about how warped media priorities are when it comes to wannabe sex kittens who have no idea of, or interest in, how to exist in the real world.

Ok, the end.   Back to politics.  Or submarine race watching.  Or tiddlywinks.  Anyone or anything but them.

Zeke .... .... Lindsey and Paris are famous for .... well, for being famous. .... .... .... Just shows you the value of a good publicity agent ..... .... (08/31/10)


Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama has been President for over a year and a half.  Do you miss George Bush? 

 It is becoming very clear that a lot of people do.

The latest evidence comes to us  from Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling, a political research outfit that counts among its clients the far left dailykos.com.  The bold print is mine:

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Previewing Ohio


We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama's preferable (3%.)

A couple months ago I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010 but when you see numbers like this it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons.

There's not much doubt things are getting worse for Democrats...and they were already pretty bad. Somehow the party base needs to get reinvigorated over the next two months or there's going to be a very, very steep price to pay.

Is the Democratic Party in trouble?

That's like asking if the Sahara Desert is sandy.

Zeke .... .... ... uhhhh ... DB .. here is the accurate information: .... .....Barack Obama is Satan incarnate. He is too destructive to simply be a complete moron being controlled by George Soros. I'd be pretty happy if a few more Republicans were in Congress so that we could actually get something done. Ideally, I'd be really happy if we went back to the time when everyone in Congress actually tried to come up with good laws that benefited the majority of people. (Not sure that ever existed). ..... I'm sick of them (the Democrat majority in both houses and the Democrat POTUS) coming up with stupid laws that only serve to keep themselves well financed so they can keep their phony baloney jobs. .... .... Now, DB, you see the reality. .... Glad to help you out. ..... ..... (09/01/10)

free` It is so nice to read the articulate statement of DB, at least we now know what the people who don't prefer Bush think. I wonder how DB feels about being in a tiny minority? (09/01/10)

DB George Bush was Satan incarnate. He was too destructive to simply have been a complete moron being controlled by Dick Cheney. No way would I want him back. I'd be pretty happy if a few more democrats were in Congress so that we could actually get something done. Ideally, I'd be really happy if we went back to the time when everyone in Congress actually tried to come up with good laws that benefitted the majority of people. I'm sick of them coming up with stupid laws that only serve to keep themselves well financed so they can keep their phoney baloney jobs. (09/01/10)


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an article at UPI.com:

PHOENIX, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- The U.S. Justice Department says it has filed an immigration lawsuit against Arizona authorities alleging hiring discrimination by schools in the state.

The lawsuit alleges a group of community colleges acted illegally in requiring non-citizens to provide their green cards before they could be hired for jobs, The Washington Post reported Monday.

Justice Department officials said the Phoenix-area Maricopa Community Colleges discriminated against nearly 250 non-citizen job applicants by forcing them to fill out more documents than required by law to prove eligibility to work, a violation of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

That's right.  You read it correctly.  The Department of Justice is suing to make sure that non-citizens in a state with an estimated half-million illegals sucking its health care, education and social services dry, and an intensely violent, murderous drug war boiling over across its border, do not have to prove they are legal.

This administration, aided and abetted by the Attorney General and Obama sock-puppet eric holder, is hell-bent to make sure that illegals get everything they are not entitled to.

And as long as Mr. Obama has a majority in congress, he will be able to continue doing so.

A little something to remember on election day....


Ken Berwitz

This isn't political, nor does it have anything to do with the entertainment business we touched on in the previous blog.

But it is uproariously funny.  I promise.

Click here and see for yourself.


Ken Berwitz

Investors Business Daily is an excellent source for hard-hitting, intelligent, thoughtful editorials.

And its editorial on the remarkably obtuse, self-destructive behavior of Democrats regarding the "Restoring Honor" event this past Saturday is a classic.

In fairness to IBD I won't post every word.  But here are key excerpts - and you can treat yourself to the rest by clicking here.

Ignoring Glenn Beck And Us

Nothing going on here, Mr. President, just a few hundred thousand Americans from across the country that a Fox News pundit stirred up....

Nothing going on here, Mr. President, just a few hundred thousand Americans from across the country that a Fox News pundit stirred up.... View Enlarged Image

Grass Roots: The president says he didn't watch any of Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" rally on the National Mall. That's not surprising. Democrats and the White House haven't been listening to the people for awhile.

Whistling past the political graveyard looming for his party in November, President Obama dismissed the crowd gathered to hear the Fox News pundit, telling Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News, "It's not surprising that someone like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of (the American people) ... "

He dismissed this crowd just as he and his party dismissed the "angry mobs" that descended on health care town meetings wanting to know why their government no longer wanted to hear their voices or seek out the consent of the governed. Those people were also said to have been "stirred up" by political opponents and conservative talk radio.

The movement that met on the Mall and had coalesced into what became known as the Tea Party comes from different parties and, despite what the so-called mainstream media say, different ethnic groups and nationalities. They have one thing in common: They are tired of being ignored. They are opposed to the kind of arrogance that convinces a president that maybe he just didn't make himself clear enough and he only needs to make more speeches in a perpetual campaign to get it through our thick skulls.

The Democrats push health care that Americans don't want by overwhelming numbers. The feds sue the sovereign state of Arizona over the wishes of a majority of Americans that want secure borders. Then the secretary of state slams Arizona, citing SB1070 as a human rights violation to the United Nations.

The American people see the disconnect between "saved" jobs and near double-digit unemployment. They are weary of a government so out-of-touch that once again we seem to have taxation without representation. They see a government making war on job-creators, punishing success and rewarding failure, redistributing wealth while creating none. They see an energy policy that produces no energy in order to save a planet that is not in danger.

Ignore that crowd on the Mall at your peril, Mr. President. That "certain portion" of the people grows bigger every day and by November your party may lose big in all 57 states you campaigned in.

Brilliant.  And spot-on true. 

To IBD:  Thank you.

To the Democratic Party:  Wake up.  For your own sake, wake up.


Ken Berwitz

Credit where credit is due.  This time Matt Lauer asked the right question in the right way.

And then President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs, lied to our faces.

From Lauer's interview of Gibbs on this morning's Today Show:

LAUER:  Let me read you something.  In January of 2007, when President Bush announced the surge in Iraq, then-senator Barack Obama had this to say:  quote:  I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there.  In fact I think it will do the reverse.

So when President Obama speaks to former President Bush today, will he change his mind on that?  Will he give President Bush credit for making that decision on the surge, and admit that it contributed to the situation of more stability on the ground today?

 GIBBS:  Matt, what is certainly not up for question is that President Obama, then candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would indeed improve the security situation, and it did.  What was necessary for this moment to happen was a diplomatic surge, a change in the Sunnis, a Sunni awakening, rather than fighting with al qaeda they fought against al qaeda.

Oh yeah?  WHEN did then Senator Obama say that?  Did he say it when he said that the surge would not work, that it would have an opposite effect?  Or if he said it at all, was it months and months afterwards, to cover his backside because he was so wrong in the first place?

First let's look at President Bush's explanation of the troop surge, from his 2007 State of the Union Address.  The bold print is mine:

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

See that bold-print excerpt?  The one about Anbar province?  Anbar has a predominantly SUNNI population.  And President Bush made a specific point of sending additional troops there because the Sunnis had started fighting al qaeda.  That is in direct contradiction to "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs' absolute BS.

Now let's look at what Barack Obama actually did have to say about the surge.  Here, copied from a blog I wrote just last Friday, are a few other quotes of his.  See if you can find what Gibbs is talking about in any of them:

-"October, 2006 (months prior to the surge):  "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

-January, 2007, reacting to President Bush's State of the Union speech:  "I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq."

-July, 2007, as the surge was yielding dramatically positive results:  "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Does that look like President Obama was saying Iraq's security was improved to you?  Because it sure as @^#$ doesn't look anything like that to me. 

What it looks like is Senator Obama desperately clinging to his original incorrect assessment, even as it was being proved dead wrong.

So:  Is Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs a pathetic liar?  That's like asking if a 50 year old outhouse smells from human waste.

Sorry for the unpleasant comparison, but somehow Robert Gibbs and human waste seem to go together.....

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!