Tuesday, 15 February 2011


Ken Berwitz

Dennis Prager, just returned from a trip to Vietnam, has written an excellent, thought-provoking column about what we did there, and how it has been distorted, contorted, mangled and lied about.

This column is a must - read it all.  But here are the last few paragraphs - see if they ring true to you:

America fights to liberate countries, not to rule over them. It was the Vietnamese Communist Party, not America, that was interested in controlling the Vietnamese people. But the lie was spread so widely and so effectively that most of the world -- except American supporters of the war and the Vietnamese boat people and other Vietnamese who yearned for liberty -- believed that America was fighting for tin, tungsten and the wholly fictitious "American empire" while the Vietnamese communists were fighting for Vietnamese freedom.

I went to the "Vietnam War Remnants Museum" -- the Communist Party's three-floor exhibit of anti-American photos. Nothing surprised me -- not the absence of a single word critical of the communist North Vietnamese or of the Viet Cong; not a word about the widespread threats on the lives of anyone who did not fight for the communists; not a word about those who risked their lives to escape by boat, preferring to risk dying by drowning, being eaten by sharks or being tortured or gang-raped by pirates, rather than to live under the communists who "liberated" South Vietnam.

Equally unsurprising is that there is little difference between the history of the Vietnam War as told by the Communist Party of Vietnam and what just about any college student will be told in just about any college by just about any professor in America, Europe, Asia or Latin America.

I will end with the subject with which I began -- the Vietnamese. It is impossible to visit Vietnam and not be impressed by the people. I hope I live to see the day when the people of Vietnam, freed from the communist lies that still permeate their daily lives, understand that every Vietnamese death in the war against America was a wasted life, one more of the 140 million human sacrifices on the altar of the most bloodthirsty false god in history: communism.

Personally, I do not agree completely with Mr. Prager.  I supported the war in Vietnam for years, then started getting a queasy sense that the high purpose Mr. Prager speaks of was getting lost in the effort to somehow show we were "winning" something.  I got the awful feeling that a lot of our soldiers died needlessly for reasons unrelated to the ideals Mr. Prager speaks of. 

(FYI:  before anyone asks "If you supported the war in Vietnam, why didn't you enlist"......the answer is that I did.  I enlisted in the Air Force in May of 1963, just as combat operations were moving forward - a four year hitch.  I was rejected, believe it or not, because I had psoriasis.  Years later, in the draft lottery, my birthday, February 18th, came up #292.  That was pretty much that).

What I do agree with Dennis Prager on, is that the USA was not then about "imperialism" any more than it is now.  In a part of the column I have not excerpted, Mr. Prager points to Korea to make this point.  He could also have pointed to Iraq, Grenada, and other places where we have fought and died so that others could be freer than they were.  The "boat people", and the killing fields of Cambodia, were what happened when we walked away and left the people to communism's tender mercies.

Going back to Dennis Prager's central point, the simple truth is that Vietnam's current success is not because of communism.  Vietnam's success is because of the areas in which its government has rejected communism.

That is a lesson that Cuba, after 50 years of hell under castro, is finally learning. 

It is also a lesson that the people of Venezuela, under hugo chavez, are learning, but from the opposite direction.  God help them.


Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about the fact that roseanne barr, as sick and hate-filled a human being as you are ever likely to find, has been given her own show on Lifetime.

I decided to contact the network, advise them of what barr has become, and ask why they are rewarding her with a TV show.

Here is my email, verbatim (Lifetime sets a limit of 500 characters, so I had to be very brief):

My name is Ken Berwitz.  I write a political blog (www.hopelesslypartisan.com). 


I would like to know why roseanne barr has been given a show on Lifetime, in view of her rich history of making hateful comments about groups of people and individuals - with a special hatred reserved for Jews (please read my blog (http://www.hopelesslypartisan.com/item_9529.htm) and see for yourself).


Thanks in advance for your response - which I will post for my readers if/when it is received.

As promised, if/when a response is forthcoming I will put it up for you to see.


Ken Berwitz

If you are a media personality who hates, make sure you hate from the left.  That way, it won't cost you a cent. 

Want proof?

First let's note that Lifetime Networks just gave roseanne barr her own show, via these excerpts from the insidetv.ew.com web site:

The Barr is back: Roseanne Barr is returning to TV in a new Lifetime docu-series as she sets out to believe it or not run a macadamia nut farm in Hawaii.

The program will follow Barr as she runs a 40-acre nut farm on Hawaiis Big Island along with her writer-musician boyfriend Johnny Argent and her son, Jake.

Roseanne Barr is an undeniable force of nature and the idea of following her in this unique premise excited us from the get-go, said Nancy Dubuc, Lifetime president and GM. Roseanne is funny and brutally-honest, and our audience will relate to her decision to go on this adventure and create an entirely new life for herself. We are thrilled she will make her long-awaited return to television on Lifetime.

Isn't it wonderful that Lifetime's President/GM, Nancy Dubuc, gushes about how funny and honest barr is and how thrilled Lifetime is to get her.

Well, Nancy, here are just a few of the many, many roseanne barr quotes that might give you a different perspective on how "funny" barr really is:

-November, 2008, speaking about Black voters in California, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8:   "They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney"


-January, 2011, speaking about Sarah Palin:  I hate Sarah Palin, Id slap her


-May, 2007, speaking about Israel:  I hate Israel too much to host The View


-February 11th, on her blog (which also viciously attacks Jews):  The Ruling Classes are less than one percent of the world's population, yet through their control of trade routes upon the Open Seas, the ungodly pirates that they are, control 99% of the world's resources, and move them through the world by water. They kill dispassionately and by stealing the wealth of entire communities and classes. After being arrested and tried by a Judicial system NOT heavily weighted in their favor (as now), they shall face a fate more horrifying than death (to them). These greedy moral derelicts will be forced to actually pay back the money they stole, every single plundered dime!!


Without Bullshit, the Twin Towers of Patriarchy, Warmongering-Piracy and Woman Hating-Pedophilia will collapse under their own weight. 

And then we have this proud moment from last year, when the Jewish-born barr displayed her humorous side by having herself made up to look like adolf hitler, and baking what she called "burnt Jew cookies":

Roseanne Barr as Adolf Hilter holding burnt Jew cookies in Heeb

Uh Nancy?  Still think roseanne barr is "funny"?  Still "thrilled" to get her? 

I'd love a statement about this from Ms. Dubuc and/or the other executives at Lifetime.  Wouldn't you?


Ken Berwitz

Did you read anything about the Obama budget - the one that is supposed to cut waste and put us on a path to fiscal health?

The more you know about this utterly fraudulent display of cynical gamesmanship, the more you realize that we are being taken to the cleaners again by those wonderful folks who told us the "stimulus package" would stop unemployment at 8%, and create millions of jobs by the end of 2010.

The Wall Street Journal isn't buying this sham budget, not at all.  Here are a couple of key excerpts from today's editorial:

This was supposed to be the moment we were all waiting for. After three years of historic deficits that have added almost $4.5 trillion to the national debt, President Obama was finally going to get serious about fiscal discipline. Instead, what landed on Congress's doorstep on Monday was a White House budget that increases deficits above the spending baseline for the next two years. Hosni Mubarak was more in touch with reality last Thursday night.


The White House actually touts as tight-fisted a budget proposing a record $1.645 trillion deficit for fiscal 2011, due largely to a new surge in spending to 25.3% of GDP. That's more spending than in any year since 1945.

Federal debt held by the publicthe kind we have to pay backwill rise to 75.1% in 2012, which is the highest since 1951 and more than double what it was as recently as 2007.


No wonder the commission's Democratic co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, said Monday that this budget goes "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." And he's an ally.


How unserious is this budget? Although the White House trumpets $2.18 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, those savings are so far off in the magical "out years" that you can barely see them from here.


From hard experience, we know that what matters are the cuts and reforms a White House is willing to make now. The Obama budget doesn't cut a penny from the deficit in the last seven months of fiscal 2011. Over the next three yearsthrough 2013the spending reductions in this budget add up to a paltry $20 billion net, out of a projected $3.5 trillion deficit. That's a 0.57% reduction in red ink and less than what the feds spend every two days.


This will go down as canny politics in Washington, as the President lies in wait to ambush Republicans when they propose their real spending cuts. Then he hopes he can cut them to ribbons on his way to re-election. That may be the White House game plan, but we wonder if the politics will play out that way. The American people also want a President to lead, and this budget is so transparently cynical it may help Republicans make their case that if they don't lead, no one will.

Some fiscal discipline this is. 

Will the voting public be smart enough to see through the Obama flim-flama --- and the supporting role provided by so many of our wonderful "neutral" media in pretending that it makes any sense?

I guess we'll find out, won't we?

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!!