Friday, 10 December 2010


Ken Berwitz

Did you know that, according to Gallup, a majority of the country supports the "DREAM Act", which gives citizenship to the children of illegal aliens if they attend college for two years or serve in the military?

That might or might not surprise you.  But it doesn't surprise me.  After over 40 years of questionnaire writing, I can assure you that there are ways to get the answer you want, even if it isn't the actual answer most folks might give under other circumstances.

First let me show you the survey results, via an excerpt from Jennifer Epstein's article at

As the DREAM Act remains stalled in the Senate, a small majority of Americans say they support the path to legal status for people brought illegally to the United States as children.

In a Gallup Poll released Friday, 54 percent of Americans said they would vote for a law that would create a route to citizenship for immigrants who go to college or serve in the

Support broke down along partisan lines. Among Democrats, 66 percent said they would vote for the DREAM Act, while 31 percent said they would vote against it.

Thirty-four percent of Republicans said they support the bill, while 63 percent said they were opposed to it. Nearly 60 percent of independents said they would vote for the law.

How in the world did a majority of the country say "yes", when most polls show a decidedly negative view of creating paths to citizenship for illegals?  Well, here is the question they were asked:.

Issue Referendum: Legal Status for Those Brought to U.S. Illegally as Children if They Attend College or Join Military, December 2010

So how did they do it?  Can you see?

The trick is in the narrowness of the question.  There is no mention of any issue beyond children who came here through no decision of their own, and who are guaranteed to travel a path that would make them valued, productive citizens.   No qualifications of any kind.

Now:  Suppose the question ended with one or another of several "ifs" which introduced such qualifcations.  Like, for example:

-if the rest of the family, the ones who did decide to come here illegally, will also become legals?

-if "going to college for two years" can include signing up for courses without necessarily bothering to show up for them, and not worrying about grades?

-if there is no mechanism for checking if they have criminal records?

-etc. etc. etc. 

See my point?  That question is framed in the most generic, most positive way possible, without introducing any consequences which might inhibit respondents from giving a "yes" answer.

I hope this serves as a reminder that, in research, if someone wants a particular result, there are ways of getting it.  And that you never should blindly accept research results without checking how they came to be.

Zeke .... ..... Dream Act ? pfffft - doesn't go far enough. .... .... How about if I rob a bank, and then go to college for two years - can I keep the money? Do I have to pass any courses ? .... .... After two years, can my parents and relatives just walk into any bank and take what they see ? ... ... What about all the people who tried to legally get a loan from the bank (or withdraw their own money) ? ..... Why should ANYONE work, when they can just steal money from the bank ..... ..... .Yeah, we need to expand this DREAM-ON act. .... ..... (12/10/10)


Ken Berwitz

Imagine if Harold Stassen came back to life, got real angry, moved way left, went green, and......

.....oh, wait.  You don't have to imagine at all. 

Read the following excerpt from Lucy Madison's article at and see for yourself:

Ralph Nader, liberal activist and two-time third-party presidential candidate, lambasted President Obama in a Wednesday interview, and called for a liberal alternative to challenge in him in the 2012 presidential campaign.

"He has no fixed principles," Nader said, of Mr. Obama. "He's opportunistic -- he goes for expedience, like Clinton. Some call him temperamentally conflict-averse. If you want to be harsher, you say he has no principles and he's opportunistic."

"He's a con man," Nader continued. "I have no use for him."

Nader urged a progressive candidate to challenge Mr. Obama for the presidency in 2012, and said that while he wasn't altogether disallowing the possibility of running himself, it was time for a new progressive leader to step forward.

"Obama's position has been that the liberal, progressive wing has nowhere to go, therefore they can't turn their back on the administration. But a challenge will hold his feet to the fire and signal that we do have somewhere to go," Nader said.

"I'm not foreclosing the possibility [of running]... There are just other things to do," he continued. "And it's time for someone else to continue. I've done it so many times. When I go around the country, I'm telling people they need to find somebody."

Ralph Nader?  This isn't a resurrection, it is an exhumation.  Is there anyone less relevant?

When does this man ever figure out how to call it quits? 


Ken Berwitz

This excerpt of a classic "you can't make this stuff up" story comes to us from Jake Whittenberg of KING5-TV in Seattle:

Zeke .... ..... .... .... These UN Climate Conferences (Kyoto, up through Copenhagen, Cancun) are vital to everyone on Earth. ... ..... ..... You see, the only way to combat Global Warming is to hold a UN Conference. Invariably, there is a severe COLD SNAP, which saves us all from the dreaded Global Warming Heat Death. .... .... If temperatures go up, we'll have to schedule more UN Climate Conferences to counteract the danger. ... ... ... (12/10/10)

free` Zeke wrote: "the only way to combat Global Warming is to hold a UN Conference." ------- They do the same thing to combat genocide. (12/10/10)


Ken Berwitz

Why is the left so furious about President Obama's "compromise" (in reality, his near-total capitulation) to Republicans on tax policy?  It's not like he hasn't lied to them before.

Well, maybe it is because he was so definitive about sticking to his guns on taxing "the rich" throughout the entire presidential campaign and even beforehand.

Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, has compiled a partial list of Mr. Obama's quotes regarding tax policy.  Here it is:

"It's true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." Chester, Pennsylvania, October 28, 2008

"We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, those making more than $250,000 a year." Lake Worth, Florida, October 21, 2008

"Yes, I'm going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans." New Philadelphia, Ohio, September 3, 2008

"I think it is very important to roll back the Bush tax cuts on some of the wealthiest Americans." Chesapeake, Virginia, August 21, 2008

"We're going to have to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent." Fargo, North Dakota, July 3, 2008

"I'm going to roll back the Bush tax cuts back to the levels they were in the 1990s." Interview with Fox News Channel, June 26, 2008

"I will roll back the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250,000." Watertown, South Dakota, May 16, 2008

"We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." Raleigh, North Carolina, May 3, 2008

"It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton." Fox News Sunday, April 27, 2008

"We're going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent." Lancaster, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2008

"I want to roll back those Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." Youngstown, Ohio, February 18, 2008

"Let's roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." Washington, DC, June 19, 2007

"I would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000." Manchester, New Hampshire, June 3, 2007

Looking at those quotes, it is not hard to understand why Mr. Obama's supporters - especially the most leftward of them - are up in arms.

Well, guys, if you are disaffected and disillusioned by Mr. Obama's performance - especially his dishonesty - welcome to the club.  It's a big one, and getting bigger all the time. 

But leave that door open.  Dollars to donuts, there will be more members coming in after you.


Ken Berwitz

These are the first two paragraphs of Michelle Malkin's latest column:

When jihad-bent American Muslims target American soldiers on American soil, why does America yawn?


The Fort Hood massacre has faded from view. The Little Rock Army recruiting station ambush barely registered on the national radar screen. Ditto the Fort Dix plot. And the latest arrest this week of a Baltimore-area bomb plotter, intent on blowing up a military center and murdering our troops in the name of Allah, was met with a collective shrug. Its pointless to rally citizens around Never forget when their heads are in the sand.

Truer words were never spoken.


What is wrong with us? 


Ken Berwitz

How catastrophic is ObamaCare? 

Read the key excerpts from yesterday's editorial at Investors Business Daily and see for yourself:

New Poll Confirms IBD's '09 Finding Of Doctor Exodus Under ObamaCare

Reform: When we said nearly half of U.S. doctors might close their practices or retire early rather than live under the Democrats' health overhaul, we were heavily criticized. The critics, though, were wrong.

Four in nine doctors responding to an IBD/TIPP poll sent out in August 2009 said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed what has become known as ObamaCare. That means as many as 360,000 physicians have plans to be doing something other than treating the growing number of patients in this country.

The doctors also told us 67% to 22%, with 11% not responding that they expected fewer students to apply for medical school in the future if the plan became law.

Now a Merritt Hawkins survey of 2,379 doctors for the Physicians Foundation completed in August has vindicated our poll. It found that 40% of doctors said they would "retire, seek a nonclinical job in health care, or seek a job or business unrelated to health care" over the next three years as the overhaul is phased in.

Of those who said they planned to retire, 28% are 55 or younger and nearly half (49%) are 60 or younger.

A larger portion (74%) said they plan to make "one or more significant changes in their practices in the next one to three years, a time when many provisions of health reform will be phased in."

In addition to retirement, and finding nonclinical jobs elsewhere, those changes include working part time, closing practices to new patients, employment at a hospital, cutting back on the number of patients and switching to a cash or concierge practice.

Over half (56%) said they believe the government takeover will affect the quality of care they are able to provide their patients and 86% said doctors weren't "adequately represented to policymakers and the public during the run-up to passage of health reform."

Doctors simply don't like what the Democrats have force-fed them. A large segment of the healing profession says it's willing to close its doors rather than endure the problems that will be created by the overhaul.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of outcome that's expected when lawmakers leave common sense behind and work far outside their moral and constitutional authority.

 Add to this the $575 billion gutting of Medicare - which was done to move enough $$$ to ObamaCare so that it would look like a money maker instead of a money pit - and you have more than a catastrophe.  You have a catastrophe on steroids.

Does medical care in the USA need an overhaul.  You bet it does, and that overhaul is long overdue.  But ObamaCare is less likely to be a boon to health care than it is a death knell.

For this reason, at least 20 states (so far) are challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare in court.  When the 5 new Republican Governors take over next year it's a good bet that number will increase. 

Can they stop the ObamaCare catastrophe?    Let's hope so.

free` Don't forget all the waivers, 220 of them last I saw. (12/10/10)

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!!