Monday, 21 February 2011


Ken Berwitz

These cartoons come to us from Phil Hands - who usually is a reliably liberal/leftward cartoonist for the Wisconsin State Journal.

But, despite his personal political leanings, Mr. Hands knows full well which side currently is worthy of ridicule in his state:


Very funny.  And very insightful too.


Ken Berwitz

Jamie Weinstein, writing for, has an excellent analysis of the latest instance where President Obama, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton obsequiously marching in step behind him, has sabotaged Israel.

Excerpted from Mr. Weinstein's piece: 

Last week at the United Nations Security Council, America reluctantly vetoed a resolution attacking Israeli settlement expansion as illegal and an obstacle to peace that was pushed by Arab countries. But the American veto only came after the Palestinians rejected a compromise presidential statement that America was willing to support which would have lambasted Israeli settlements as illegitimate.

Americas incomprehensible handling of the situation highlighted once again the Obama administrations amateurish foreign policy. What follows are three major takeaways from the whole affair.

Takeaway No. 1: Obama showed a willingness to attack Israel at the U.N.

Many supporters of Israel were disturbed when Foreign Policy magazine reported last week that the United States had apparently informed Arab governments about its willingness to support a compromise Security Council presidential statement declaring that the Council does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.

Takeaway No. 2: Kissing up to unsavory regimes while kicking friends fails again

There have been many examples of the Obama administration kicking traditional American allies with the hope of winning favor from unsavory regimes that arent traditional friends of the U.S. Recently, for instance, it was reported that the Obama administration provided British nuclear secrets to the Russians in order to win support for the START treaty.

But this strategy has been a miserable failure and last weeks U.N. situation once again demonstrated why. Even though the Obama administration ultimately vetoed the resolution, they alienated Israel by showing a willingness to bash them at the United Nations something America rarely does at the disgustingly anti-Israel international body as a matter of decency and self-respect. Plus, even though the U.S vetoed the resolution, American U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice did deliver a shockingly harsh condemnation of the Jewish state at the Security Council meeting.

Takeaway No. 3: Obama fiddles with inconsequential resolution while the Middle East burns

Finally, what is perhaps most stunning of all is the wasted time and energy the Obama administration expended on this issue when the Middle East was burning. While revolutions are upending the old order in the Middle East, President Obama and his administration spent an outlandish amount of time negotiating a resolution that was totally meaningless in practice.

Forget a 3:00 a.m. call, Obama cant even seem to handle a 3:00 p.m. call. Its time for the administration to get its foreign policy act together.

As impressed as I am with Mr. Weinstein's analysis, I have to admonish him for that last sentence - because it assumes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of what I will most charitably call the administration's foreign policy brain trust are capable of getting a foreign policy act together. 

What, exactly, has indicated there is any such capability?  Where are the foreign policy successes?  Can you find any?  Show them to me.

This administration is a foreign policy catastrophe, which seems to be operating under the bizzaro-world delusion that it makes sense to pull our enemies up by their bootstraps while kicking our friends (Israel being just one example) squarely in the ass.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.


Ken Berwitz

One of contributor Ed Morrissey's readers, "Tim R",  took some pictures of the union protest signs in Wisconsin on Saturday.

Here there are (by all means go to Mr. Morrissey's blog to see his commentary about them - it is well worth your while).

Now where are those poignant, plaintive cries for civility and an end to "heated political rhetoric" from our wonderful "neutral" media?  Where are they from those Democrats we heard from after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting? 

It certainly seems as though such concerns end at the point where criticism would be aimed at people who contribute to Democrats, doesn't it? 

What frauds these people are.


Ken Berwitz

Apprently those unconfirmed reports that Libya's ruling subhuman scumbag, moammar al-qaddafi, fled to either Venezuela or London are untrue.  He is still in Libya, killing his own people to try to stay in power.

Excerpted from a report at

TRIPOLI  A central government building in the Libyan capital Tripoli was on fire Monday, a Reuters reporter said, in the latest sign that the revolt against Moammar Gadhafi is gathering strength.


"I can see the People's Hall is on fire, there are firefighters there trying to put it out," the reporter said. The building is where the General People's Congress, or parliament, meets when it is in session in Tripoli.


Early Monday, protesters also took over the office of two of the multiple state-run satellite news channels, witnesses said.


Human Rights Watch said Monday that the estimated death toll from four days of protests had risen to at least 233, citing hospital sources.


In Benghazi, staff at Al Jalaa hospital said they recorded 50 dead Sunday, while the 7 October hospital reported another 10 dead the same day, giving a total of 60 killed in Benghazi Sunday. Human Rights Watch said it had been unable to contact two other hospitals in Benghazi.


The anti-government protests broke out in Tripoli for the first time Sunday, following days of unrest in the city of Benghazi.


Thousands of protesters clashed with Gadhafi supporters in and around the central Green Square. Gunfire rang out in the night and police used tear gas to disperse demonstrators, some of whom threw stones at Gadhafi billboards.


Witnesses reported snipers opening fire on crowds trying to seize the square, and Gadhafi supporters speeding through in vehicles, shooting and running over protesters.


In response, Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi appeared on national television in an attempt both to threaten and calm people.

"Our spirits are high and the leader Moammar Gadhafi is leading the battle in Tripoli, and we are behind him as is the Libyan army," he said. "We will keep fighting until the last man standing, even to the last woman standing ... We will not leave Libya to the Italians or the Turks."

How telling. 

Big, brave moammar qadaffi is nowhere to be seen.  But his equally despicable son is assuring the Libyan people that he and his father will continue to kill them - kill them all, if necessary - to keep power.  Men, women, who cares?

These two sacks of manure better be packing and packing fast.  The people of Libya are taking their country back.  And even if they want fundamentalist Islamic rule, a) how different will that be from what they already have and b) in any event, it will be without the murderer/oppressor qadaffi.

And whatever of the army remains loyal to him?  After the qadaffis, they will be the most despised people in the country.  The hundreds (eventually, maybe thousands) of deaths they are inflicting on their own people will be avenged.  You can count on it.

The bloodshed is far from over.


Ken Berwitz

When is racial discrimination acceptable? 

Here is your answer, via the following press release - the one-week-old press release from the Center for Equal Opportunity (  The press release media did not cover, and I only learned of today at  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I've put in bold print:

(Columbus, OH) A new study released today by the Center for Equal Opportunity documents evidence of significant discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate admissions at Ohio State University and Miami University. African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos were given preferences over whites and, again to a lesser extent, Asians.

 The study is based on data supplied by the universities themselves. The study was prepared by Dr. Althea Nagai, a research fellow at CEO, and can be viewed on the organizations website, The executive summary of the study is attached.

CEO president Roger Clegg will answer questions about the study when it is formally released at a press conference Monday at 10:00 a.m. at Ohio State University in Columbus (in the Student-Alumni Council Room of the Ohio Union building). The address is 1739 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210.

The odds ratio favoring African Americans over whites was 10-to-1 or 8-to-1 at Miami (depending on whether the ACT or SAT was used along with high school grades and other factors), and nearly 8-to-1 or over 3-to-1 at Ohio State (again, depending on whether the ACT or SAT was used).  The black-white gap in median SAT scores varied from 110 to 160 points at the two schools, the ACT gap was consistently 4 (which translates into an even larger gap), and there were gaps in high-school grades as well.

CEO chairman Linda Chavez noted:  The study shows that many, many students are rejected in favor of students with lower test scores and grades, and the reason is that they have the wrong skin color or their ancestors came from the wrong countries.  She added that significantly fewer African Americans are likely to graduate than whites and Asians.  You arent doing someone a favor if you admit him to a school and then he doesnt graduate.

Roger Clegg added:  The discrimination becomes more pronounced among students with lower standardized tests scores and grades.  For example, at Miami more than eight out of ten African Americans with ACT scores and GPAs at the 25th percentile of black admittees were admitted, versus half of Hispanics, four out of ten Asians, and fewer than one out of three whites with those credentials.  At OSU, more than seven out of ten blacks with these credentials were admitted, versus fewer than two out of ten whites.

 The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and educational organization that studies issues related to civil rights, bilingual education, and immigration and assimilation nationwide.

A few questions for Ohio State, Miami, and the many other universities which engage in this odious, racist practice:

-Why is it wrong to discriminate against non-Whites, but perfectly fine to discriminate in favor of them?

-Why would it be a surprise that students who attend a college they have gotten into by leapfrogging over more qualified applicants, will wind up performing poorly and be more likely than other students to drop out? 

And when do universities (among other entities) realize that discrimination is wrong regardless of which color is being discriminated against? 


free` And when do universities (among other entities) realize that discrimination is wrong regardless of which color is being discriminated against? ----- MY guess would be after the U.S. Government stops doing it. Why does the Government divide us in the census by race? (02/21/11)


Ken Berwitz

The latest from Libya's fluid (to say the least) situation.

-Reports indicate that the death toll - i.e. the killing inflicted by the (rapidly dwindling) armed forces still loyal to qaddafi' - has climbed to over 400 protesters.  That number is sure to rise further;

-Protesters may have taken over the major city of Benghazi;

-Those unconfirmed reports that moammar qaddafi had left the country, which then were then denied?  Now there are new reports that he has fled Tripoli - to who knows where, maybe in and maybe out of Libya;

-The justice minister has resigned over what he calls an excess of violence against the Libyan people.  Or, put another way, this scumbag, who was working for qaddafi until now, is trying to save his own skin. 

Keep watching.  Events are unfolding at lightning speed.

Zeke ..... ..... ...... Conclusion #1: .... GW Bush was a genius in foreign policy. ... ... All this is the result of his initiative in Iraq .... ... Democracy has begun to spread throughout the Arab (and maybe Persian) world. ... .... Conclusion #2: .... al Qaeda and Iran are behind all the turmoil, and when the populist leaders have been removed by these thugs, tyrannical regimes will be installed ... just like Hamas, Hezbulloh. .... ... .... and previously in 1917 Russia, in 1933 Germany, in 1960 Cuba, ... Nicaragua, Venezuela, Haiti, Peronist Argentina, 19th century Mexico... ..... ... .... .... no way to predict which Conclusion will happen. ... ..... but Pakistan and probably Iran will be nuclear powers during this. (02/21/11)


Ken Berwitz

I inflicted Chris Matthews' "Hardball on myself for a few minutes just now.  He conducted "interviews" with a Wisconsin Democrat, sitting serenely in a quiet room somewhere in Illinois presenting his side, and with a Wisconsin Republican trying to make himself heard over the union protesters who were all around him shouting him down as he spoke.

And, unless Matthews made mention of it at the very beginning before I tuned in, he conducted the entire interview without even one reference to the amazingly unfair circumstances the Republican (who acquitted himself quite well, it should be noted) was subjected to.

And, yes, there was no doubt that Matthews was siding with the Democrat.  What a shock.

Pathetic beyond belief.   Or, put another way, business as usual for Matthews and MSNBC.


UPDATE:  Noel Sheppard of has put up a terrific blog which points out how the Republican, whose name is Glenn Grothman, blewMatthews away by answering Matthews' whiney sarcastic town with actual facts.  Click on the link I've provided and you will see that Sheppard provides copious reference to show that Grothman rather than Matthews had things right.  He ends with this:

Either the "Hardball" host and his staff are completely incompetent and are incapable of identifying what is clearly available on the internet, or they are intentionally misinforming their viewers in order to show support for the protesters in Madison.

Whatever the answer, the higher-ups at MSNBC should be doing something about this blatant negligence if they want their network to be in any way taken seriously.

To the Comcast people now running MSNBC:  That is good advice.  Do yourselves a favor and think about it.


Ken Berwitz

Who owes more to the union thugs engaging in anarchy in Wisconsin than Democrats?

According to sometimes conservative/sometimes not Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", unions contributed something like $200 million dollars to elect Democrats last year and virtually nothing to Republicans.

Let me say it again, in case you think it must have been a typo:  unions contributed something like $200 million dollars to elect Democrats last year and virtually nothing to Republicans.  That incredible amount of partisanship is real.

This was acknowledged by the other members of the panel - liberal/left guest Mark Halperin and undisputed by liberal/left Mika Brzezinski, liberal/left Mike Barnicle and liberal/left Charles Blow (like I said, this is MSNBC), 

And it is why, when Halperin was asked why President Obama chimed in his support of the unions, he responded that Democrats are so beholden to the unions that the President has to line up on their side.  Even if, in reality, they are joining the 14 disgraces-on-legs otherwise known as Wisconsin's Democrat state senators, in doing everything they can to prevent democracy from taking place.

I then watched a piece on Fox & Friends in which one of the show's producers asked a "doctor" (who knows if she really was one) for a sick note.  The answer was yes, of course, without any examination or anything other than that request.  The producer said she would be out there until Tuesday or Wednesday and the "doctor" happily started writing the sick note for that time period.  This was followed by footage of a protester with a smirky grin, assuring us that the sickness were real, because when you protest so much your voice hurts and there is a lot of stress.

Meanwhile, the schools of Milwaukee are shut down for almost a week - and counting - while these wonderful dedicated teachers screw democracy and screw their students and screw the parents who may not even be able to go to work if their children are not in school.  The reason?  Because, in their wonderful, dedicated way, they will screw anyone and anything to get and keep as much as they can. 

Who will ever again believe that these people are dedicated to teaching?  We can all see what they're really dedicated to.

So the Wisconsin exercise in anarchy continues.  And the newly elected Republican Governor hangs tough.

Ironically, if the public supports this stand against public employee unions, it is going to do more for Republicans in general and Governor Walker in particular than 100 campaign rallies and 1000 TV ads could ever do.

I wonder how the unions feel about that?

Oh, one other thing:  Have you noticed the dearth of polling on this issue by our wonderful "neutral" media?  You would have expected a rash of them, wouldn't you?  But try and find one.

The only poll I have seen this morning that might tell me what effect it is having, is Rasmussen research's daily Presidential tracking study.  Since Mr. Obama took his stand with the unions, the percent of people strongly supporting him has dropped from 28% to 23%, while the percent strongly opposing him has risen from 37% to 41%.  That is a doubling of his negative "passion index" (the difference between "strongly support" and "strongly oppose") from -9% to -18% in less than a week.

Does that give you any inkling of which side the public is on here?  Does it explain why mainstream media have avoided conducting (or have conducted and avoided publishing) any polls on this issue? 

You tell me.


UPDATE:  Finally one poll.  From Rasmussen.  And the results are exactly what I (and maybe you) would have assumed:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Do yourself a favor and use the link I've provided to read Rasmussen's entire analysis. It is a real eye-opener (except for the media venues which intend to keep their eyes closed no matter what.  I wonder how many will even report these numbers tonight and tomorrow morning).

Also, keep in mind that these data were collected on February 18 and 19, before the ugliest part of the protests - the signs, the phony doctor's notes, the continued bug-out of Democratic legislators, etc. - was made public by the blogosphere (and precious few media venues).  I have no doubt people are even more negative now.


Ken Berwitz

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, with huge majorities in both houses of congress to grease the skids for his agenda.

Now, over two years later - and less than two years until the next election - how is the electorate reacting to their performance?

From a poll released by Gallup today:

Political Composition of U.S. States, Based on Party Affiliation, 2008-2010
And before assuming that this is just another little thousand-sample-size pop poll, please note that....

These results are based on Gallup Daily tracking, and include interviews with more than 350,000 Americans each year since 2008. In 2010, Gallup interviewed at least 1,000 adults in every state but North Dakota as well as the District of Columbia.

You see data like these, and you wonder not just if Barack Obama can be re-elected, you wonder if Democrats will even renominate him.

Put yourself in the shoes of a congressperson representing a formerly blue state which is now either competitive ("purple" as they say) or even red.  These are the cards Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership are handing you.  Do you really want to play them?

The leadup to 2012 is going to be a very interesting time. 

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!!