Tuesday, 05 April 2011


Ken Berwitz

What is Cuba doing, while the Obama administration continues its no-drill policy in the Gulf of Mexico?

Cuba is doing this - as excerpted from an article by Carlos Batista (what a name for a story about Cuba!)  in Agence France Presse:

Cuba to drill five new oil wells by 2013


HAVANA Cuba on Tuesday announced plans to drill five deepwater oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico beginning this summer, expressing confidence that its efforts will be rewarded with major new energy finds.


"We're about to move to the drilling phase," said Manuel Marrero, an official with the government authority tasked with overseeing Cuba's oil sector.


"We're all really hopeful that we will be able to discover large reserves of oil and gas," said Marrero, who added that the ventures would be undertaken with the help of unspecified foreign companies.


He said the deepwater wells were to be drilled between 2011 and 2013, and would be in waters ranging in depth between 400 meters (a quarter mile) and 1,500 meters (1.6 miles). He did not specify which countries would be among the foreign partners working with Havana on the project.

Wonderful.  Just wonderful

So let's see what we have accomplished by our no-drill policy:

-Drilling will take place anyway;

-Unless you are brain-numbed enough to believe Cuba will regulate its offshore drilling more stringently than we would, the environmental impact is at least as great as it would have been if this were us;

-The oil which is extracted will redound to the benefit of Cuba instead of the United States;

-We will remain just as dependent on foreign oil as before.

This, folks, is the Obama energy policy.  How do you like it?

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?

free` Cuba was talking with China not very long ago about expanding Cuba's oil industry. I would imagine China is one of those undisclosed countries Cuba won't name. (04/05/11)


Ken Berwitz

Have you noticed how little media coverage has been given to Egypt since President Obama, Hillary Clinton and our wonderful "neutral" media got its way and Hosni Mubarak resigned?

Evidently, you are supposed to be left with the belief that all those "freedom and democracy" protesters in Tahrir Square had their happy ending - which can only be accomplished by media looking the other way and not reporting what actually has happened since.

Well, here is an indication of where Egypt is going, courtesy of excerpts from an article by Grace Wyler at businessinsider.com:

ElBaradei: If Israel Attacks Gaza, Egypt Will Strike Back

Grace Wyler | Apr. 5, 2011, 10:25 AM


Egyptian presidential candidate and former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said that, if elected, he would fight back against an Israeli offensive in Gaza, Ynet News reports.

In an interview with an Arab newspaper Monday, ElBaradei emphasized his determination to protect Palestinians in Gaza, stating that any Israeli military attacks would result in a declaration of war from Egypt.

"If Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime," ElBaradei told Al-Watan, according to YNet. "In case of any future Israeli attack on Gaza - as the next president of Egypt - I will open the Rafah border crossing and will consider different ways to implement the joint Arab defense agreement."

While it is not certain ElBaradei can win the election, it is likely that Egypt's next president will take a similarly hardline stance toward Israel. ElBaradei's main opponent, Arab League Secretary General and former Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, has voiced disapproval with Egypt's policies toward Israel under former president Hosni Mubarak.

What a shock.  mohamed elbaradei, a UN senior operative and nobel peace prize winner, is chafing at the bit to go to war with "the Zionist regime - as is his main opponent for the upcoming Egyptian elections. 

That should tell you plenty about the quality of both the UN and the nobel committee.

And what will elbaradei and moussa consider an attack by Israe...er, excuse me, The Zionist Regime?  Would he consider it an attack if Israel reacted militarily to the daily bombardment emanating from Gaza into its territory?  elbaradei doesn't say, does he?

Would elbaradei consider the attacks from Gaza "resistance to the Zionist regime"?  Because, if he would, it means that anything Israel does will be seen as an attack, and a war provocation. 

So Israel's only way to prevent war with Egypt would be what?  Allowing the hamas haters in Gaza to attack it without answering back?  To do nothing other than sitting back as its cities are bombed?

When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were demanding an end to the Mubarak government, did they think for even one second about this eventuality?  Or, worse still, did they think about it, conclude this would happen, and then make their demands? 

Any supporter of Israel (or, for that matter, any supporter of peace regardless of which country is involved) who can look at this strategic and diplomatic catastrophe, and then vote to re-elect President Obama, is beyond hope.

And that's before we get to President Obama's nonexistent policy on Iran during its democracy protests, and the impossibly bungled Libya mess.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Zeke .... .... ElBaradei will be the next President of Egypt --- IF the electorate is composed of US Leftists and US media. .... ..... In Egypt he is seen (correctly) as an outsider who hasn't lived there for decades. ... .... The Muslim Brotherhood is the only well organized group in Egypt .... they have the inside track in the election.... especially as the military is working closely with them. ..... .... The Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty limits Egypt to 800 soldiers in the Sinai, and even specifies the light weapons they may have. .... .... I can't see Egypt wanting to start a shooting war with Israel. ... .... (04/05/11)


Ken Berwitz

West Coast Russ put me on to this video.  It is less than three minutes long, and I guarantee it will fascinate you, amuse you, and give you a warm feeling....or an urge for confit, or something.

Take a look and see.....


Ken Berwitz

There are liars.;  There are big liars.;  There are big fat liars.  And there are heads of unions who claim they don't contribute money to elect (or, presumably, re-elect) President Obama.

Here is a video of AFL-CIO President richard trumka, talking to Darren Gersh of PBS, claiming that his union did not spend a penny to elect President Obama:

Yeah, ok.  Sure..

The key part of this exchange?

GERSH:  How much will the labor movement raise for the President?

TRUMKA:  For President?  None.  We didn't raise anything for him last time.  We, we use all our money to educate our members.  We give some to candidates, the same as everybody else, you have a $5,000 limit, but that's not what we use the vast, vast, vast amount of our money for....

richard trumka, and people like him, must think you and I are complete idiots, with no capacity to think or see or understand anything but what they tell us.

Let me end by quoting Keith Benman, of  the Obama-supporting democraticunderground.com.  On August 31, 2008, he wrote:

Labor union's have lavished big bucks on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama since January of 2007 and only a piddling amount on the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

On the eve of Labor Day, a Times analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows Obama scooped up $8.1 million from union political action committees through July 2008 while McCain garnered just $54,100 from organized labor and employee PACs so far in this presidential election cycle.

So thanks for that heads-up, Mr. trumka.  We'll give it the, er, serious consideration it deserves.  

WisOldMan Trumka is a socialist, representing mainstream Democrats, today. (04/05/11)


Ken Berwitz

I often write about the disgraceful toady and Obama sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder. 

But today is a classic. 

holder is upset that khalid sheikh mohammad , the "mastermind" of the 9/11 terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 people - and who proudly bragged about it - will be tried by a military court rather than in civil court.  And, even worse for holder, the trial will be held in Guantanamo, which holder's boss, President Obama, promised to close throughout his 2008 election campaign.

holder's reaction?  Since his ego far surpasses his intelligence and logic, it was to have a hissy fit.  A very public one, in which he made an abject fool of himself.  For a change.

Today's New York Post has an editorial on holder's hissy fit.  I usually post only excerpts -  but in this case I will make an exception, because I want to be sure you read every word:

Holder's ungracious punt


It took 500 days, but President Obama yesterday abandoned his ill-conceived effort to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom.


Attorney General Eric Holder was none too gracious about it, however.


It was back in November 2009 that Obama and Holder docketed KSM and four confederates for trial in New York.


An uproar ensued -- understandably -- and Congress promptly outlawed the movement of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the US. There the matter stood for some 15 months -- until yesterday, when Holder announced that the deadly quintet will now return to military commissions at Gitmo, right where they started, and right where they belong.  


The AG, however, felt compelled to wag his middle finger at Congress, the CIA and the American people: "Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence" to determine where the trials should be held.


Asked by reporters whether Congress reflected the will and wisdom of its 300 million constituents, Holder smoldered: "Do I know better than them? Yes."


He next accused critics of using the trials to "scor[e] political points."


(Politics? He should know. Yesterday's announcement came on the very day that Team Obama kicked off its 2012 reelection bid -- and getting KSM & Co. off the radar screen won't hurt that effort.)


Then Holder sullied the CIA:


"There is no other tool that has demonstrated the ability to both incapacitate terrorists and collect intelligence from them . . . as our justice system."


That's a breathtaking claim, without a shred of evidence to support it, as far as foreign terrorists are concerned.


And it's also an astonishing slap at the intelligence agents who captured, interrogated and collected intelligence from KSM -- and who have moved mountains to protect this nation from harm.


That is, Holder scoffed at the very people who delivered KSM for prosecution.


For sheer arrogance, few public officials could surpass the attorney general.


For sheer incompetence, too.


Trying KSM in civilian courts could have been a disaster, given their strict rules of evidence. During Obama's first civilian trial of a Gitmo detainee last year, key evidence was barred and the country was treated to an ugly spectacle.


A terrorist responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombing in Tanzania was acquitted on 280 counts. Holder's team got him on a single, lesser charge -- meaning they went about 1 for 280.


That was an unacceptable outcome then -- and, given the stakes, a far more terrifying prospect in KSM's trial.


Make no mistake: Restoring the 9/11 trials to the military system was the right choice -- the only choice.


The victims and families afflicted on 9/11 deserve far better than the administration's performance to date.


America deserves far better.


But today everybody can be thankful the trial is no longer in Eric Holder's shaky hands.

What an arrogant jerk this man is.  What an ego he has.  And what, exactly, has he accomplished to earn that ego? 

Let us never forget, this is the same eric holder who is suing Arizona because, after waiting in vain for holder, his DOJ and President Obama to prevent illegal aliens from streaming across its border, the state finally enacted its own laws - which parallel the federal laws holder & Co. are ignoring. 

Amazing.  Instead of trying to protect the USA border, the Attorney General sues to keep it unprotected -- with the apparent blessing of the President.

Whose side is eric holder on?  And whose side is his boss on?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Zeke .... .... How about holding the trial on the Arizona / Mexico border ? .... .... Solve several problems at one time. ... (04/05/11)

Zeke ..... Holder: "Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence" to determine where the trials should be held. .... .... .... Exactly what type of 'evidence' does Congress need to pick a place to try this murderer ? ... Recall, KSM said in court that he did it, ..... ..... Memo to Mr. Holder: If the "World wants to see the US Justice System" in action, let them buy a DVD of the O.J. trial. ... ..... Oh, and Eric-baby ... get back to prosecuting illegals who crashed our border. Check your law school notes : "Illegal" means against the law ... (04/05/11)


Ken Berwitz

I am not calling Chris Matthews a raving lunatic.  I am presenting what may be a case for doing so.

Suppose Chris Matthews put up a graphic of muslim fanatics with the words "zealots abroad", and then put up a graphic of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich with the words "zealots at home" - thus equating the two.  Would that make him a raving lunatic?

And suppose, Matthews supplemented those graphics with the following dialogue (my comments are in blue):

Leading off tonight: Zealots abroad, zealots at home. What a horrible story I've come home to. Not the tsunami, not the nuclear disaster. Not even Qadhafi. But what do you do when people, 20,000 of them, rush United Nations workers? Good people doing good work in a tough place? Why? Because some character on the other side of the world burnt a holy book. Is this why young men risk and give their lives, arms and legs in Afghanistan and Iraq so that any time on this planet that some clown decides to say something against Islam, innocent people get killed? Is this the deal? (20,000 people not zealots or fanatics, but people riot and kill UN workers who had nothing to do with the Koran burning and youre blaming someone other than the 20,000? 

listen to the fanatics in this country (the Afghani murderers are people  But USA citizens opposed to Obama are the fanatics?). They attack the President's basic beliefs, accusing him of thinking like a Muslim from Kenya (Who does that?  Trump?  Bachmann?  Gingrich?  Any mainstream Republican?  Any mainstream conservative?  Name one). You hear that a lot. (From who?) Or- this is the subtle version- not accepting the specialness of America. Like he's not really one of us. They say the President isn't one of us. They say he may also be an impostor (Who says that?  Trump?  Bachmann?  Gingrich?  Any mainstream Republican?  Any mainstream conservative?  Name one)

The Democrats are anti-American. They want next year's election, that's the people on the right, to be about who the real Americans are, the real Christians. (Who says that? repeat list above)  They let the word spread around the country, keep spreading, by the way, to a majority of their Republicans, about how the President may have just snuck in this country, doctored his papers and now pretends to be a Christian (Who says that?  Repeat list above). Even John Boehner, who's obviously a sensitive guy, won't raise his voice one bit to stop this talk.  (Stop this talk from WHO?  Repeat list above)  Is this what's come to the wars in the Islamic world? We've begun to talk like the zealots from the Middle East.  (Who has?  Repeat list above) 

But they keep spreading this rumor on the right, people like Newt Gingrich and the rest of them. They are building the case for this Billy Bob character to burn Korans and then he's giving a case to Karzai to save his butt over there
(Newt Gingrich and the rest of them built a case for someone to burn a Koran?  . This is a dynamic, dangerous kind of thing that does lead to wars (Gingrich is leading us into war?  What evidence of any kind do you have to say this and if you do have any, how come you didnt just present it?). This is what happens in wars. Rumors lead to rumors lead to rumors and then only in the end, "I only responded to what I heard. It's not my fault." That's what you hear. The killers.  (What does this have to do with Trump?  Bachmann?  Gingrich?  Any mainstream Republican?  Any mainstream conservative? 

There you have it.  A successful businessman a former Speaker of the House and a twice-elected congressperson are equated to Muslim religious fanatics.   A mass murder by 20,000 Afghanis against UN workers is blamed on an obscure "preacher" burning a koran in Florida.  And there is a nonstop barrage of personal, vicious attacks against an entire group of unnamed people (other than Trump, Gingrich and Bachmann), without a shred of evidence to support any of them,

Now tell me:  Is this a compelling case for calling Chris Matthews a raving lunatic?

If so, then you can stop supposing.  Because last night Chris Matthews put up exactly the graphics I just described and said exactly the words I just posted.

I guess you have your answer.

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!!