Wednesday, 23 February 2011


Ken Berwitz

I have a question.  Given that:

-Libya has hundreds, maybe a thousand or more dead,

-it teeters on the brink of a horrific civil war,

-qaddafi has ordered what is left of the troops still obeying him to continue killing civilians and sabotage the country's oil fields

-and oil prices are going through the roof,

When does President Obama SAY SOMETHING?

Zeke ...... "When does President Obama SAY SOMETHING?" ............ ................ ............ "Present" ..... ..... ... "Hope and Change" ..... .... ...... (02/23/11)


Ken Berwitz

For Democrats, this is a recurring theme.  Find an individual or group.  Then relentlessly attack, making him/her/them into bogeymen, through an intense, orchestrated tidal wave of planned attacks, and then watch the ever-complicit mainstream media follow suit. 

The latest Democrat bogeymen?  The Koch brothers, David and Charles, who oversee a multi-billion dollar diversified corporation and who (gasp) are Republican/conservatives.

For months now Democrats have been hammering away at the Koch brothers.  And one after another, those nice "neutral" folks in our mainstream media have been regurgitating everything Democrats have fed to them. 

Interestingly - maybe tellingly - even after all this time, the attacks on David and Charles Koch have not gotten very far in the general population.  Maybe enough of the public has finally wised up to the Democrat bogeyman routine to render it less effective than it used to be.  But that doesn't mean they aren't still trying. 

John Hinderaker at has a terrific, fact-filled story on just how hard Democrats are working to demonize the Kochs, just how fraudulent some of their efforts are, and just how immaterial that fraudulence is to so much of our wonderful "neutral" media.  John's piece is well worth reading in its entirety.  But, to whet your appetite, here are the first few paragraphs:


It is tempting to wonder whether at some point in the last few months, the Left held a meeting and decided to try to demonize Charles and David Koch, their company, Koch Enterprises, and the non-profit organizations that they support. Almost overnight, Koch Enterprises went from being one of the most successful and respected companies in America to the focus of a concentrated campaign of hate, the likes of which we haven't seen in quite a while. Maybe someday history will record where the meeting was held, what rationale was advanced for trying to demonize the Koch brothers, and what the vote was on the motion. Maybe someday we will find out who sent the memo to left-wing news outlets like the New York Times, giving them their new assignment. For now, we can only observe that the Left's campaign against the Kochs is suddenly a top priority.


Yesterday, the Times ran an article by Eric Lipton titled, Billionaire Brothers' Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute. Lipton's theme was that events in Wisconsin are, somehow, all about Charles and David Koch, who live in Wichita, not Madison or Milwaukee, and have never until now been viewed as significant players in Wisconsin politics. Lipton writes:


Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.


The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits. ...


What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group ... was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.


State records also show that Koch Industries, their energy and consumer products conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., was one of the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who has championed the proposed cuts.


Lipton leaves that claim hanging, and never tells his readers how much the Koch PAC contributed to Walker's campaign. In fact, the total was $43,000. That was out of more than $11 million that Walker raised, and $37.4 million that was spent, altogether, on the 2010 race for Governor of Wisconsin. Which means that people associated with Koch Industries contributed a whopping one-tenth of one percent of what was spent on last year's election. So why is the Times running scare headlines about the "Billionaire Brothers' Money?"

Next we have this curious statement:


How pathetic is this?

But use the link I've provided, continue reading, and you'll find out that it is just the beginning.  There is plenty more in the pathetic category, I assure you - including the chart John puts up showing how much more money - dramatically more money - was contributed by special interest groups in bed with Democrats.  That, by itself, makes hi bog a worthwhile read.

John ends with this:

Well, the New York Times is an arm of the Democratic Party, so that isn't surprising. Nevertheless, the kind of rampant dishonesty we see from Eric Lipton still has the power to shock.

Truer words were never written.


Ken Berwitz

For years I have blogged that, as committed as I am to alternative energy sources, I understand that they will not prevail for many years -- so we must driill offshore, at ANWR, and utilize our massive shale oil resources, or we will be at the mercy of people in volatile places who hate our guts.

But, for all these years, Democrats - most notably the current occupant of the White House - have done everything possible to prevent that drilling.

Well, now that the Middle East is exploding, with oil skyrocketing to $100 a barrel (and don't doubt that it can go a lot higher), my question, in four parts, is.....

How do you feel about Democrats preventing us from exploiting our oil resources all these years?  Are you happy about it?  Are you less happy about it now then you were, say, last month?  Do you think you'll be even less happy about it in the future?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.


Ken Berwitz

A San Franciscan named Lloyd Schofield is circulating a petition which, if it gets enough signatures (and I'm about 100% certain it will) would ban circumcisions in the city.

I'm sure this will sit wonderfully with the doctors who recommend circumcision for sanitary reasons.  But it will be of even more interest to San Francisco's Jewish population, given that, under Jewish law, boys are circumcised when they are 8 days old.

In fairness, Mr. Schofield is not demanding a complete ban.  He says that once the child is 18 and can legally make up his own mind, he can be circumcised any time he wants.

If this passes, I would assume it will also apply to vaccinations, for exactly the same reason -- i.e. forgetting health issues, how dare a parent let some greedy doctor stick needles into the child for money.  Leave that precious body alone!

The irony is remarkable, isn't it?  In the third trimester it is legal for women to "abort" their children - abortion in that case being a euphemism for killing a live child in the womb - sometimes while the child is actually being born. 

But 8 days later?  Circumcise a child and be fined and jailed.  That's a terrible crime.

After all, babies have rights, don't they?


Ken Berwitz

When does President Obama have something to say about Libya?

Lee Smith, writing for the Weekly Standard, would like to know - and has written an excellent commentary on Mr. Obama's silence.

Here are a few excerpts:

After almost a week of escalating violent reprisals against protestors and soldiers who have joined the anti-regime forces, Libyas Muammar Qaddafi and his sons have yet to quell the uprisingsand the White House has yet to take a public stand. Last night, Secretary Clinton released a statement, and pathetic as it was, its more than the president has offereda president who has spent considerable energy burnishing his image for the Muslim and Arab public.


The Obama administration would do well to exercise some moral clarity regarding a man whose personal demeanor has long symbolized the most repressively autocratic and obscurantist features of Arab political culturea man who reportedly has now, among other things, dispatched his air force to put down the people he rules. The White Houses silence is perhaps explained by the idea that a public statement will do more harm than good.


The same is true of the White Houses decision to keep its support of Iranian protestors muted, for fear that the Islamic Republic might turn even more vicious. This policy seems to be a result of the Obama White House buying into the kiss of death fallacy. This line of thinking holds that since the U.S. is so hated in the Middle East, American support for any political cause in the region can only backfire by undermining the cause.


The thesis is absurd on the face of it: if it were really true, then Washington would have an instrument so powerful that it could bring down adversarial regimes with a mere whisper. After all, a public statement to the effect that Washington considered President X a dear friend and would do anything in its power to keep him enthroned for the rest of his life and ensure the succession of his progeny until the world ended would presumably send the Muslim and Arab masses to the streets until they had President Xs head on a stake. But the kiss of death thesis has no basis in reality; it is merely a political tool that Democratic operatives in the U.S. media used against Bush. However, since Obamas anything-but-Bush foreign policy is based on the same principle underlying the kiss of death fallacy, it is no surprise that the administration believes in its veracity, and this is why it is now tongue-tied.


U.S. support does not undermine a cause; when it is a factor at all, it lends prestige to it. In any case, neither Qaddafi nor the opposition is waving Old Glory. It is a Libyan affair, a Libyan conflict fought over Libyan issues, with the power to rule Libya in the balance. The White Houses task is to shape events in Libya to suit U.S. interestsand silence doesnt cut it.

Silence can be golden.  But it can also be a way to avoid saying the right thing, the thing that has to be said.  It seems all too clear that the Obamateurs running our foreign policy are behind door #2.

Lucky for moammar qaddafi that he didn't support Israel building residential housing units in its capital city.  Then he'd have heard something about it..

free` U.S. support does not undermine a cause; when it is a factor at all, it lends prestige to it. ----------------- That is not what the far left believes about America. They really believe America has been a force for evil. As far as they can believe in good and evil that is. As I was typing that last line it dawns on me that the left claims to see the world [usually just the bad] as gray, being neither good nor bad. But when it comes to the USA they lose that perspective. Interesting. (02/23/11)


Ken Berwitz

Can you believe what those Republicans in Wisconsin are doing now?

In Wisconsin, spending legislation require a quorum of 20 or more state senators.  There are 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats in the state senate; therefore, without them, no spending legislation can go forward.  So every Democrat - 14 out of 14 - has fled the state to prevent a vote on (Republican) Governor Walker's budget bill. 

-With them, the Republican majority will almost certainly prevail (that is called Democracy, since Wisconsin voters elected the Republican majority to office). 

-Without them, there cannot be a vote on the budget because the minumum of 20 senators will not be in attendance (that is called anarchy, because it is a deliberate attempt to thwart the democratic process).

But this is not where the story ends.  Since non-spending legislation does not require a quorum of 20, there is an entire legislative agenda that can be moved on without those Democrats present.  And one bill, which was proposed last month and now is being moved forward, will establish a requirement that Wisconsin citizens to show a valid photo ID before being allowed to vote.

This has Democrats, and their lackeys in the media, up in arms.  The sentiment appears to be "Imagine the nerve of those bastards, expecting people to show they have a legal right to vote.  Imagine the nerve of expecting the same proof  that is necessary for paying a $10 supermarket bill with a check, or getting a senior admission price at the local movie theater.  How dare they!  This is racist.  This is partisan!  this is.......(the other claims vary by person)"

(I dare anyone to explain to me what is anti-Black or partisan in any way about being asked to produce an ID before voting.  I'll wait for an answer.)

MSNBC, of course, is going bat-excrement over this.  Illustratively, on Rachel Maddow's show last night she cried that voter ID's would make it harder for Democrats to vote.  I swear, she said that.  Here are her exact words:

"Registering new voters has long been a great source of Democratic electoral strength. Why is that? Because young voters and people who haven't voted before do tend to vote Democratic. So, if Republicans can make it really hard to register to vote, they can take away one of the ways that Democrats win in elections. If you make it harder to register to vote, you make it harder for Democrats to win elections."

Unbelievable?  And then some. 


You can't make this stuff up.  But here is something that Wisconsin can do.  It can pass this bill, thereby restricting the vote to people who have a right to vote.

Tell me what is wrong with that?

Zeke .... .... ... Limiting the right to vote to only CITIZENS ? ......... That's outrageous ! .... How dare you? .... .... Why, next you will be limiting the NUMBER of times a person can vote in an election . .... ... ... (02/24/11)


Ken Berwitz

This latest example of Democratic "civility comes to us from Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) who, yesterday, spoke in support of the Wisconsin protesters by saying:

Im proud to be here with people who understand that its more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary

Count on our wonderful "neutral" media to roundly condemn Rep. Capuano's call to violence --- about three days after moammar qaddafi leaves Libya to become a concierge at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

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!!