Thursday, 18 November 2010


Ken Berwitz

James Carville made the following observation about Barack Obama this morning, at a breakfast event:

"If Hillary gave him one of her balls, they'd both have two,"

Don't believe me?  Then watch the video, from 

You may like James Carville and you may not like him.  But you have to admit the man has a way with words......



Ken Berwitz

ahmed ghailani is one of the subhuman scumbags who directly participated in the bombong of our Tanzanian embassy in August, 1998.

After his capture he was held in Guantanamo.  And then he went to trial.  A civilian trial, not a military trial. 

Why would a non-citizen, captured outside of the USA, be given a civilian trial?  Maybe you can come up with an answer to that question.  I can't.

Now:  How did the trial turn out?  Here is your answer, from NBC, via The Weekly Standard:

Jurors have delivered mixed a verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee.


After hitting a snag earlier this week when one juror said she felt threatened by others, the panel on Wednesday delivered a guilty verdict against Ahmed Ghailani on only one of nearly 300 counts against him.


The Manhattan jury deliberated over seven days before finding Ghailani guilty of just one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings. He was acquitted of multiple other counts including murder and murder conspiracy.


Prosecutors said Ghailani helped an al-Qaida cell buy a truck and components for explosives used in a suicide bombing in his native Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998. The attack in Dar es Salaam and a nearly simultaneous bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

Did you read what I read?  286 counts against this subhuman scumbag and a civilian court dismisses 285 of them.  It convicts him of conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings, but ignores the fact that when those buildings he conspired to destroy went down, 224 lives were lost - 12 of them Americans.

Also from the Weekly Standard:

The Department of Justice says it is "pleased" with the guilty verdict on one count, which carries a 20 year minimum sentence, according to ABC. Ghailani was aided during his trial by the judge's decision to exclude key testimony from one witness because the government learned of the witness's identity during a CIA interrogation of Ghailani that employed so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

So this result pleases the eric holder-led Department of justice.  Does it please you? 

Are you happy with the fact that a civilian judge excluded key testimony because it came from "enhanced interrogation techniques" - or are you damn thankful for those "enhanced interrogation techniques" because they yielded key testimony? 

Here is what Keep America Safe had to say about the trial and its result:

Bad ideas have dangerous consequences. The Obama Administration recklessly insisted on a civilian trial for Ahmed Ghailani, and rolled the dice in a time of war. The Department of Justice says its pleased by the verdict. Ask the families of the victims if theyre pleased. And this result isnt just embarrassing. Its dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war. The Ghailani trial was supposed to be a test case for future trials of 9/11 terrorists. 


We urge the president: End this reckless experiment. Reverse course. Use the military commissions at Guantanamo that Congress has authorized. And, above all--accept the fact that we are at war. 


Liz Cheney, Chairman
Debra Burlingame & William Kristol, Directors

Keep America Safe

Is Keep America Safe right?  Is the organization making perfect sense? 

Some questions answer themselves, don't they?


Ken Berwitz

This remarkable comment, which I pulled from a video you can see at, comes to us from U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia:

I hunger for quality news.  Im tired of the right and the left.  "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to, and to, MSNBC: 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and in their, more importantly, in their future.

Honest.  Jay Rockefeller really said that. 

To hear Sen. Rockefeller tell it, eliminating voices critical of the right and of the left would generate more faith in government.  And, in a sense, he does have a point:  if no one is there to criticize government, we will never be given any reasons to lose faith in government.

But, you might say, at least he is demonstrating an indisputably moderate stance, by attacking both the right and the left.


I checked Mr. Rockefeller's voting record at the invaluable web site  Here is what I found: 

-The liberal group, Americans for Democratic Action, gave him a rating of 85% 1n 2009 - which means that Mr. Rockefeller voted its way 8 - 9 times out of every 10 issues it took a position on. 

-By contrast, the American Conservative Union gave Mr. Rockefeller a rating of 0% in 2009 - he did not vote its way even once on any issue for the entire year.

Knowing this, you'll pardon me if I am a tad suspicious that, instead of Mr. Rockefeller wishing for nothing other than voices of moderation, what he really wishes for is that Fox - which gets something like triple the viewership of MSNBC, thus reaches far more people with criticism of most of his views than MSNBC does when agreeing with him - disappears from our TV screens.

Why is Jay Rockefeller so against Fox?  I don't know, but maybe it is because someone on Fox reported his actual voting record;  a voting record which completely belies his pretense of being a moderate. 

I hope that's exactly what happened....

Zeke .... .... According to his office, Senator Rockefeller spoke "off script". .... .... Guess his teleprompter was in for its 15,000 mile servicing. ..... .... (11/18/10)


Ken Berwitz

Me, two days ago:

If there were any justice, rangel would be expelled from the house of representatives and facing jail time.

But this is still a Democrat-controlled house, so I expect a reprimand - a strongly worded one, I'm sure - after which rangel will continue his dissolute political career as if nothing had happened.

If I'm wrong and he is expelled?  Good. 

If I'm right and he is welcomed back into the house of representatives?  It will stink to high heaven.

Well, we now have a recommendation from the chief counsel of the ethics committee, Blake Chisman:  charles rangel should be censured.  No expulsion.  

In other words, being a serial scoundrel is just fine - provided that you are a Democrat and there is a Democratic majority in the house.

Does it stink to high heaven?  Yes it does.  Not an unexpected stink, but a stink nonetheless.


Ken Berwitz

Here is a new, well-deserved entry into the "you can't make this stuff up" file.  It comes to us from Sylvio Berlusconi of Italy, via the following excerpt from an article in London's Daily Telegraph:

New penis for statue in Silvio Berlusconi's Rome office


A marble Roman statue of Mars has had its snapped-off penis rebuilt and reattached on the specific orders of the prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi.


The reported cost to taxpayers of the restoration 70,000 euros (59,500) prompted criticism at a time when the Italian government has slashed millions of euros from the country's arts and heritage budget and parts of Pompeii are crumbling into dust.


"This is aesthetic surgery carried out on the personal whim of the prime minister," said Manuela Ghizzoni of the opposition Democratic Party.


The 6ft-high sculpture, which dates from around AD175 and stands next to a similarly proportioned statue of Venus, is on loan from a museum and displayed in Palazzo Chigi, Mr Berlusconi's office in central Rome.


The new penis has been fitted with a magnet so that it can be easily removed if, in future, a more comprehensive restoration is carried out.

For the accountants in the house, 70,000 euros is over $100,000 for that new penis.  Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to go to a sex store and get a really good strap-on?

How did Berlusconi order it?  Did he ask for a Mars bar?

The ironic part is that the penisless figure of Mars is right next to the presumably armless replica of Venus.  How many sex acts will these two never have a chance to complete?

I disagree, however, that Venus  is similarly proportioned.  Now that Mars' has his new penis that can't be true anymore.

Ok, that's my contribution to the probably endless number of bad jokes related to this story.  Feel free to add your own.


Ken Berwitz

Here, excerpted from an article in today's New York Post, is an article that seems meant to make us see the police as overreacting to a perfectly innocent situation.  But is that really the case? Your call:

Cops bust seven men playing chess in upper Manhattan park


Drop that bishop and come out with your hands up!


A squad of cops in bulletproof vests swooped into an upper Manhattan park and charged seven men with the "crime" of playing chess in an area off-limits to adults unaccompanied by kids -- even though no youngsters were there.


"Is chess really something that should be considered a threat to the neighborhood?" Inwood resident and mom Joanne Johnson wrote Mayor Bloomberg, the City Council and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly after the raid.


"This incident is an embarrassment to the officers from the 34th Precinct who felt that it was necessary to use their badge and authority to issue such a random summons."


The chess tables where they were ticketed for "failure to comply with signs" are in a fenced-in area where posted notices read: "Adults allowed in playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of 12."


Yacahuda "Y.A." Harrison, 49, one of those chess aficionados, said he saw those signs months ago and "asked the [Parks] ranger if we had permission to be there."


"The ranger said, 'Oh no, that's fine, that's only written for pedophiles.' "


Since then, he said, parents have welcomed him and the other players -- and even had their kids take chess lessons from them.  

So tell me:   Is this a case of police overzealousness or are young children being protected?  Personally, I can make both cases. 

-On the overzealousness side, this appears to be a group of sincere people who only want to play chess.  If what they say is true, they are "regulars", the people who bring their children to the park know them, they pose no threat, and should be left alone to play and teach.

-On the protection side, even assuming every one of these "regulars" is sincere and safe, what is to prevent pedophiles from showing up at the park to "play chess", knowing that this is cover for what they're really after?  How can the police tell one player it's ok and another to take a hike? 

Look, there is no way to 100% protect children from pedophiles.  Even someone who brings a child to the park might be abusing that child and looking for other victims. 

Do I think that, if the police err, they should err on the side of caution?  Yes I do.  But, as pointed out in the previous paragraph, doing so is no guarantee of safety.

Sadly, in this day and age, things that at one time seemed very simple have become very complex. 

And sometimes there are no clear answers.

Zeke .... .... Living in Manhattan means constantly pushing with your elbows to stake your claim. .... .... The place is overcrowded, and if you are not assertive, then you'll be trampled. .... .... Chess players in parks do not take up much space, and are pretty quiet .... .... ..... In more normal towns, they'd be allowed to quietly play there, especially if no other venue were available nearby. .... .... IF the cops had a complaint, and all the criminals were safely tucked in their beds already, ... then ONE cop could have told them to finish the game and find another place to play. ..... ... but in the "claw thy neighbor" atmosphere of NYC, especially if the complainer has some juice ..... it's let 'em have both barrels ..... ..... There are similar signs in the children's petting zoo in Central Park (11/18/10)


Ken Berwitz

Earlier this year, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, commonly known as ACORN, ceased to exist under that name.  It went down claiming that, as an organization, it was innocent as a newborn babe.

Well, babe, it wasn't.  Not even close.  And in its current form (the same people operating under different names) you can bet it still isn't.

Excerpted from an article at CNN (and let's see how many other mainstream media venues pick it up):

An ACORN worker who submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals before the 2008 election was sentenced Thursday to 10 months in prison, Wisconsin's attorney general said.


The worker, Kevin Clancy, also admitted that he and other ACORN workers registered each other to vote multiple times in order to meet voter registration quotas imposed by the community organizing organization, said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.


Judge Richard Sankovitz sentenced Clancy to serve the 10-month term to run consecutively with a sentence he is serving for armed robbery.


Clancy's co-defendant and former coworker, Maria Miles, pleaded guilty to a similar charge and is scheduled for sentencing December 6, Van Hollen said.

Does that look innocent to you? 

And, remember:  this story is only about the two who got caught.  How many fraudulent registrations do you suppose were not caught and got through?  How many thousands do you suppose were not caught and got through -- both in Wisconsin and other states throughout the country?

It is my fervent hope that the Republican majority in the house of representatives addresses voter fraud as a major front-burner issue during the next two years.  And I hope with equal fervency that it is joined by the Democratic Party in this effort. 

To me, the more a political party works against protecting us from fraudulent voting, the more it expects to benefit from that fraud. 

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!!