Monday, 13 December 2010


Ken Berwitz

Want to see a newspaper smirk?  This is your chance.

Here are the first two paragraphs of the Wall Street Journal's Saturday editorial, which I have pulled from Noel Sheppard's well-worth-reading blog at

We thought we'd seen everything in politics, but yesterday was truly miraculous: There in the White House press room was none other than former Democratic President Bill Clinton appearing with current Democratic President Barack Obama to endorse the tax cuts of Republican George W. Bush. [...]

Both Democrats have devoted most of their political lives to denouncing such tax cutsfor their injustice, for increasing the deficit, for any other ill you can imagine. But 9.8% unemployment half way through a Democratic President's term tends to discombobulate the partisan mind. So Barack brought in Bill to help persuade a liberal Democratic base that is having a harder time forgetting two generations of anti-rich populism. Or as Mr. Clinton once famously said, "You gotta do what you gotta do."

Yep.  I couldn't have said it better.

And the best part is that this cannot make the hard left angry.

Why?  Because the hard left is always angry.  So all it can do is maintain the status quo.

Maybe, however, it will serve as the tipping point.  Maybe it will cause the sorosian hardliners to conclude that Democrats are too right wing for them and a new, far more enlightened, party has to be formed. 

I don't expect it -----but I wouldn't bet against it either.


Ken Berwitz

Henry Hudson was the explorer who "discovered", Manhattan (that claim of "discovery" must have been quite amusing to the people already living there).  Hudson eventually met his demise (it is assumed) in 1611, when his crew mutinied and sent him and a few others adrift on a small boat in Hudson Bay, never to be heard from again. 

Hudson's ship was called the Half-moon.

Given that history, how ironic it is that, today, federal judge Henry Hudson gave a "half-moon" to ObamaCare, by "discovering" that, while some of it is acceptable, the mandate which requires people to either buy insurance of pay a fine for not doing so is unconstitutional.

Excerpted from Rosalind S. Helderman's article for the Washington Post:

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.


"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]


Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014.


The ruling comes in a case filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), who said he was defending a new state statute that made it illegal to require people to carry health insurance in Virginia.


"I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

The bad news for ObamaCare (but, arguably, great news for us) is that without the mandate, ObamaCare cannot work - sort of like a car without a fuel tank  Thus it would either have to be scrapped altogether or dramatically revamped.

Plus, this has nothing to do with a similar lawsuit that 20 other Attorneys General of other states (so far) are pursuing to challenge ObamaCare's constitutionality.

Bottom line:  Judge Hudson's ruling, along with the other lawsuit, obviously puts ObamaCare on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Of course, this can be avoided if congress is smart enough to redo ObamCare next year and make it a more reasonable piece of legislation. 

Will congress act responsibly enough to do it?  Stay tuned.


UPDATE:  Maybe this will help the congressional decision-making process along.  Excerpted from an article at ABC News:

Coinciding with a federal judges ruling invalidating a key element of the health care reform law, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for the landmark legislation at a new low but division on what to do about it.


The laws never been popular, with support peaking at just 48 percent in November 2009. Today its slipped to 43 percent, numerically its lowest in ABC/Post polling. (It was about the same, 44 percent, a year ago.) Fifty-two percent are opposed, and that 9-point gap in favor of opposition is its largest on record since the latest debate over health care reform began in earnest in summer 2009.


More also continue to strongly oppose the law than to strongly support it, 37 percent to 22 percent.

Elections are in less than two years, guys.  Think about it.

MIA The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has indeed done just that (thank you Mr. Romney, senators & representatives), since 2007, the citizens of this state have been coerced into buying private health insurance. Imo, health insurance is the bane of healthcare, we did all live well with the middleman before and maybe can once again. (12/13/10)

Zeke .... .... ..... ObamyKare is Too Sick to Fail .... ..... ..... IIRC, the 2K pages of lobbyist penned law does NOT have a severability clause. (If any part of this law is ruled unenforceable, the other parts still are law). Therefore, it is open to question if ANY of the ObamyKare legislation is still valid. .... .... I rather like the 'preexisting conditions' part -- sign up for insurance while the ambulance is taking you to the hospital. (12/13/10)


Ken Berwitz

In her latest column, Pamela Geller accuses radical Islam of stealing 9/11.

What does she mean?  What is her basis for making this claim?  Here is the beginning of her commentary, with a link to the rest.  Read it and see for yourself.

The Theft of Ground Zero By Pamela Geller


The most egregious aspect of the Ground Zero mosque controversy is something that people don't think or talk about: the incalculable theft involved in this second wave of the 9/11 attacks. These Islamic supremacists are grifting the system big time. And yet the biggest theft of all is one that everyone has overlooked.

The biggest theft of all is that they have stolen Ground Zero itself from America like thieves in the night. They have ripped it from our collective soul and national psyche.

Now, whenever anyone mentions Ground Zero, it has nothing to do with the largest attack ever on American soil.  Whenever anyone speaks about Ground Zero now, it is never about the thousands of lives lost that day.  It is never about the hundreds who jumped to their deaths because the alternative was worse.  It is never about the horrified, terrified people on the planes who watched in indescribable horror as they crashed into these buildings to the wail of Allahu akbar.

Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan have stolen Ground Zero. They have kidnapped it. Hijacked it. Before these heartless Islamic supremacists declared their stealth jihad, Ground Zero was like Pearl Harbor or Antietam or Gettysburg: the site of a catastrophic loss of life through an unprecedented act of war. Ground Zero was the site of the largest attack on American soil in our history. Ground Zero was where we would mourn our dead. Ground Zero was where moms, dads, aunts, uncles, kids, construction workers, stockbrokers, waiters, postmen, and other ordinary Americans became the infantry -- soldiers without uniforms. Ground Zero was hallowed ground.

But no more. Not since these raiders came in the dark of night with their fifteen-story mega- mosque. They have succeeded in stealing our memory, our cherished remembrance of that horrible day. They stole Ground Zero. Before the advent of Daisy Khan and Feisal Abdul Rauf, Ground Zero was just that: it was September 11. But now Ground Zero is all about a mosque. It has morphed (like the Ground Zero mosque controversy itself) into an angst-ridden conflict about insensitivity toward Muslims, "backlash" against Muslims, and American attitudes toward Islam.

Now, Ground Zero is all about the earnest, unctuous, smug, and deceitful faces of Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan, and about their concern over imaginary "Islamophobia."


Remember also that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been unmasked as a New Jersey slumlord. He just had his slum buildings placed in receivership despite getting taxpayer dollars to make repairs. Rauf snagged more than $2 million in public financing to renovate low-income apartments; he kept the money and never made the repairs. He took the money and forced good people to live with vermin and in dilapidated conditions.

Yet not once did any American media outlet ask him where all that money went.

There is more. Rauf and his wife Daisy listed their one-bedroom apartment as a mosque in order to conduct what appears to amount to tax fraud. Rauf sought "church status" -- to avoid paying taxes. He got the wildly valuable tax-exempt status for his Muslim organization after deceiving the IRS by claiming that as many as five hundred of its members prayed in that tiny one-bedroom apartment (which was also listed as Daisy's residence).

Meanwhile, we, the American people, fund Rauf's State Department junkets to terror states -- and now the Ground Zero mosque organizers want even more tax money. Yet Daisy Khan said recently on ABC News that "we don't want use taxpayer money." This was yet another outrageous lie. In fact, Daisy Khan and Imam Rauf may float public debt to raise the money for the Ground Zero mega-mosque . And outrageously, they have  applied for a $5-million grant from the 9/11 fund to rebuild lower Manhattan. The language of morality is in such grave disorder today that it is Daisy Khan and Feisal Abdul Rauf who are lauded and venerated, revered, and respected, despite their long record of dishonesty and deceit. Rauf is even a nominee for Time Magazine's Person of the Year, while those few who dare speak about the real meaning of Ground Zero and why it disrespectful and dishonorable to build a giant mosque there are kicked to the curb like so much rubble -- to paraphrase Rauf's description of the human remains at the World Trade Center.

How dare they?


How dare they steal our children and our parents and our loved ones, those we lost on 9/11, from us?


And why haven't our political elites and our media shamed them into crawling back under the rock from which they emerged?


Please, go, read the rest here. 

Does Ms. Geller have a point?  Is she right?  And, if so, do you join her in wondering why our wonderful "neutral" media are not all over this story? 

Too bad their names are not Imam Rauf and Daisy Palin.  Then media would consider it important enough to report about every day.


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from yesterday's London Daily Telegraph:

An Islamic suicide bomber who attacked Christmas shoppers in Sweden at the weekend is a British university graduate and was living in this country until two weeks ago.


Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly tried to set off a car bomb packed with gas canisters in a busy shopping street in Stockholm. The car caught fire and the bomber fled the scene before blowing himself up 300yd away 15 minutes later, injuring two bystanders.

It emerged last night that Abdulwahab, who was due to turn 29 yesterday, is a former physical therapy student at Bedfordshire University in Luton, and that his wife and three young children still live in the town.

MI5 is now investigating possible links with extremists in Luton, whether the bomber was radicalised at the university and claims that he was helped by an extremist group in Yemen, the base for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The suicide bombing follows an attempt by Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, a former student at University College London, to blow himself up last Christmas on a flight to Detroit.

Abdulmutallab had trained in Yemen, but had become increasingly radical during his time in Britain. The security services and police are concerned that British university campuses have become breeding grounds for extremism. Neighbours told The Daily Telegraph last night that they had last seen Abdulwahab at the 1930s semi-detached house in Luton, Beds, two and a half weeks ago. The couple have two young girls and a baby son. His wife, Mona, a Swedish citizen, is said to run a home beauty company.

The bomber had recently advertised on a Muslim dating site for a second wife, saying he was looking for a lady 25-30 who lives in UK for marriage. The site,, said he was born in Baghdad, Iraq, and moved to Sweden in 1992 and then to Britain in 2001 to study for a degree in physical therapy, marrying in 2004.

On his Facebook page, he included a group called Yawm al-Qiyaamah, meaning Day of Judgment, that featured a montage of Tower Bridge in flames.

Reports from Sweden said Abdulwahab was shouting in Arabic and carrying six pipebombs, one of which exploded, along with a rucksack full of nails and explosives.

An Yemeni Islamist website, Shumukh al-Islam, published a photograph of Abdulwahab in dark glasses, saying: It is our brother, mujahid Taymour Abdel Wahab, who carried out the martyrdom operation in Stockholm.

Twelve minutes before the bombing on Saturday, a Swedish news agency received a message with two sound files, one in Swedish and one in Arabic, that was also sent to the Swedish Security Police. The message criticised Swedes silence over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and Swedish soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

Add abdulwattab al-abdaly and abdulmutallab, "The christmas bomber", to the 2005 London subway/bus bombings, the 2006 foiled plot to blow up planes flying from the UK to the USA, the 2007 Glasgow airport bombing, ....etc. etc. etc.  And what do you have?

If these are not wakeup calls for the United Kingdom and the rest of western Europe, I don't know what would be.  Do they hear them?

And what about the United States of America?  Do we hear them?


Ken Berwitz

Here, pulled from, is a verbatim transcript of rosie o'donnell discussing the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

He's in his time of grief, and believe me, I think the person who probably has suffered the most through all of this is him, and there are people who would disagree with me and say, 'No, it was her, she was the one who was publicly humiliated,' and blah blah blah blah blah.

I just think he has to live with himself every day. Not only survivor's guilt, but you know? He, I'm sure, has guilt, right? Look, you know, she was in remission, this happened, she got sick again. I don't know, I'm sure that it's very hard for him to live with himself and to have to deal with the public condemnation...

This is on top of her 9/11 "truther" idiocy and countless other similarly idiotic proncouncements

I'm still waiting for our wonderful "neutral" media to give o'donnell one day's worth of the opprobrium they direct against Sarah Palin.  But I know better. 

If this didn't do it, it isn't going to happen.

Media bias?  Naaaahhhhh


Ken Berwitz

How would you like to vacation in Chernobyl, Russia; home of the Chernobyl nuclear facility -- that's right, the one which partly exploded in 1986, causing the city to be shut down, with well over 300,000 people evacuated.

Well, you can.  Russia now seems to think this is a tourist attraction.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

Want a better understanding of the world's worst nuclear disaster? Come tour the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Beginning next year, Ukraine plans to open up the sealed zone around the Chernobyl reactor to visitors who wish to learn more about the tragedy that occurred nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Emergency Situations Ministry said Monday.

As a public service, let me end this blog by providing Chernobyl's weather conditions: 

-Mostly sunny. 

-Wind from the west at 10 miles per hour. 

-Current temperature 3,496.

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!!