Tuesday, 26 April 2011


Ken Berwitz

The late Gilda Radner's classic Saturday Night Live character, Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say (paraphrased) "If it isn't one thing, it's another".

Republicans who care about the quality of candidate they field in 2012 must feel that way today.  No sooner does the unasked-for, thoroughly unelectable Haley Barbour announce he will not run for the Presidency, the unaacceptable, thoroughly execrable ron paul makes it clear he will.

Rather than rewriting the reasons I feel this way, I will repost my blog of April 14th, 2010- which, in turn, references my blog of December 21, 2007.  The points I made at those times, which are every bit as true now as they were then, will give you the full picture:


Ken Berwitz


I have good news and bad news about the 2012 presidential race:

-The good news is that there is a Republican challenger who, if you believe the latest Rasmussen poll, is running virtually even with President Obama.


-The bad news is that the challenger is the single most objectionable Republican I am aware of - the hate-filled darling of White supremacists and neo-nazis (often one and the same), ron paul.

I blogged a lot about ron paul during the 2008 primary season.  I talked about the fact that he was supported by the White power, neo-nazi crazies of "stormfront" (its web site literally had a link to donate money to paul -- one that he never disavowed).  I cited the newsletter that went out under his name which was so sickeningly anti-Black.  And more;  a lot more.


Illustratively, here is a letter I wrote the now-defunct New York Sun about paul:


Reader comment on:
Ron Paul Can't Buy Respect

Submitted by Ken Berwitz, Dec 21, 2007 08:48

It is eating me alive that almost no one is talking about the sickening group of nazis and white supremacists that ron paul attracts, or the reasons they are atrracted to him.


Do you support ron paul? Congratulations. So does a voluminous list of nazis and White supremacists, including (but not limited to) david duke, hal turner, don black, jamie kelso, hutton gibson (Mel's looney-tune holocaust denying father) and those wonderful folks at www.stormfront.org, whose home page provides you with a convenient link to donate to the paul campaign.


ron paul has never disavowed one penny from stormfront.org nor said he would refuse it. Are you comfortable with this? Is this the candidate you would support?


Did you know that, last year, paul voted against re-authorizing the 1965 voting rights act? Did you know that he also voted against the house resolution condemning hezbollah?


Did you know that, at one time, paul published a newsletter which contained overtly racist material in it which, among other things,called 95% of all Blacks in Washington DC criminals and advocated trying 13 year old Black children as adults? Years later, he claimed he wasn't the writer of that material, that someone else wrote it. But that doesn't wash; the newsletter was all of 8 pages long and went out under his own name. Even if he didn't write the words themselves he allowed them to be published under his name. You know better than to think he wasn't aware of the content of an 8 page document he'd be responsible for. Personally, I assume he wrote the racist garbage himself.


paul also had columns published by "American Free Press" which is put out by willis carto. Do yourself a favor; google the name "willis carto" and see who he is. If you have any decency at all, you'll be sick to your stomach. While it can be argued that carto was able to publish ron paul's material without his ok, it is also true that paul could have publicly disavowed its presence in "American Free Press". He has never done so.


Bottom line: There are good reasons for nazis and White supremacists to flock to ron paul. You support him and you support them and their reasons. That's how they'll position it, and they have a point.


If all this is ok with you, congratulations again. If not, I suggest you think harder about ron paul.


It would not at all surprise me if ron paul made another presidential run in 2012.  And it would not at all surprise me if the same hate groups and assorted nutcakes and freaks came running to support him again.


I can only hope that the information posted above is blasted all over our media so that people understand who and what he is.


We need ron paul about as much as we need an advanced bowel virus.  And the bowel virus would have a better smell.

That says it all. 

If Republicans are smart (some are, some aren't), they will quickly and decisively send ron paul back under the rock he crawled out from. 

End of story.

Zeke .... .... The New York Sun is only Semi-Defunct. .... .... .... It's still online at www {dot} nysun {dot} com .... ..... Same logo. Same lack of PC dogma. .... Suffers from a shortage of staff & writers, but does put out something worthwhile. ... .. .... btw, great letter........ (04/26/11)


Ken Berwitz

The following is excerpted from an article by Susan Page in today's USA Today.  Please keep in mind that the headline ("What kind of president would Donald Trump Make") has nothing to do with what is being excerpted, and you would have to read down to the 8th paragraph  - and past a dishonest evaluation of what the poll data actually say - to even find it, let alone have a chance to grasp its meaning. 

Here are the 6th, 7th and 8th paragraphs of the article:

Though Trump initially got attention by expressing doubts whether Obama was born in the USA, that issue is not driving his support. Among those who say they definitely or might vote for Trump, only about a third question whether the president was born in the USA.


Support from the birthers is stronger for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The issue has persisted even though Hawaii has released an official Certificate of Live Birth showing Obama was born there, a fact confirmed in non-partisan investigations by FactCheck.org and others.


Still, in the USA TODAY poll, only 38% of Americans say Obama definitely was born in the USA, and 18% say he probably was. Fifteen percent say he probably was born in another country, and 9% say he definitely was born elsewhere.

Ms. Page must think you and I have the reading comprehension and analytical skills of rutabagas.

The data say that 38% believe President Obama definitely was born in the USA.  The rest have at least some level of doubt (that's what "probably" instead of "definitely" means, Susan), think he "probably" or "definitely was born elsewhere, or are too ambivalent about it to come to a conclusion. 

Let me put it a different way, to make it as plain as possible.  62% of the sample is not convinced Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Now let's think about this some more:  Republicans comprise far less than 62% of the population, so it is not just Republicans expressing doubts.  The sample is far less than 62% supportive of Donald Trump, so it is not just Trump fans expressing doubts. 

What do these findings tell us?  They tell us that the "birthers" who mainstream media have sneered at and worked so hard to ridicule/marginalize, a) are plentiful, b) transcend party lines, and c) remain unconvinced.

Their doubts exist, I would surmise, because of the proverbial 800 gorilla in the middle of the road:  namely that Mr. Obama and his people have zealously withheld not only his original long-form birth certificate, but just about every other piece of information that would give us any clue regarding his background, whether he got foreign aid to go to school, etc. etc. etc. 

When Barack Obama tells us he is not hiding a thing about his past, but then hides everything about his past, it stands to reason that people will be suspicious.  A lot of them.  Even if the Susan Page's and other mainstream media protectors of Mr. Obama try everything they can to convince us otherwise.

So keep burying those data, Ms. Page.  And keep writing phony analyses of what the data say.  Most of us may not be buying what you're selling, but at least you're doing what you apparently think to be your job.

And feel free to squeal like a stuck pig if someone (like me, for example) calls you biased.........

Ken Berwitz zeke - would you settle for an Earth Certificate? (04/26/11)

Zeke .... ..... .... .If Barack Obama is an illegal alien, then we must shove him into his flying saucer and send him back to Mars. ..... ..... We can't let that Birthee remain in gub'mint paid for housing (1600 Pennsylvania Ave) ... if he weren't born here (on Earth). .... .... That would explain why there is no Birth Certificate --- Martians are Hatched. .... ..... (04/26/11)


Ken Berwitz


This is the beginning of an interview segment on MSNBC the Sunday before last.  I dont want it to go unnoticed:


Health care, job discrimination, education,  equality across the board.  Everything that you have done in your career has been for equality.  Has been for opportunity for all.:  Ed Schultz, fawning over career racist, Black supremacist and anti-Semite al sharpton.


Does cable news have a dumber man with a bigger mouth than Ed Schultz?



Ken Berwitz

Since most of our wonderful "neutral" media stopped writing about Egypt about two seconds after Hosni Mubarak stepped down, I thought I would give you an update, by posting excerpts from today's Associated Press article on the subject, by Hamza Hendawi 

Despite the AP's ridiculous claims about Egyptian "moderation", it does get a modicum of credit for at least publishing somethine about this horror show, however unacquainted it is with reality. 

The bold print is mine: 

CAIRO A majority of Egyptians believe laws in their country should observe the teachings of Islam's holy book, the Quran, according to the results of an opinion poll by a U.S.-based research center.


Overall, the results of the poll paint a picture of Egyptians as a people who prefer religious moderation over extremism and prize democratic values even if they come at the risk of some political instability.


Islamic parties are expected to make a significant showing in the crucial vote, with 50 percent of people saying it was "very important" for religious parties to be part of a future government and as much 37 percent have a "very favorable" view of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest and best organized Islamic group.


Another 62 percent of Egyptians believe laws in their country should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran, though 27 percent thought it was enough that the laws reflect Islam's general values and principles.


In a result that doesn't bode well for the country's lingering sectarian issues, the poll showed that only 36 percent of those questioned believe it is "very important" for Christians and other minorities to freely practice their religions, suggesting the influence of these militant groups, who have incited hatred of the country's 10 percent Christian minority.


The poll results also showed that more than half of all Egyptians would like to see the 1979 peace agreement with Israel annulled, highlighting the deep unpopularity of the treaty, which is central to U.S. policy in the region and was scrupulously adhered to by Mubarak.


Former presidential candidate Ayman Nour trailed with a 70 percent rating while Nobel Prize Laureate and reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei only had 57 percent rating.


The United States, Egypt's strongest foreign backer since the mid-1970s, continued to garner low approval ratings, with only 20 percent of Egyptians seeing it in a positive light, up from 17 percent in 2010.

Help me out here.  How can these data "paint a picture of Egyptians as a people who prefer religious moderation over extremism", when:

-62% believe Egypt should become a strictly Islamic state,

-Almost 2/3 do not consider it very important that non-Islamic people have religious freedom, and

-A majority want to end Egypt's peace with neighboring Israel.

Does that look like moderation to you?

Does that look like the "freedom and democracy" our media assured us was afoot when those protesters filled Tahrir Square?

And why are almost all our media ignoring what is going on in Egypt? 

Can it possibly be that they are in protect-Obama-at-all-costs mode?

Nah, that couldn't be.  They'd never do that............


Ken Berwitz

Can it be possible?  Can a college actually spend taxpayer money to provide students with a how-to on union violence?

Well, read this blog from "Publius" at biggovernment.com, watch the accompanying video, and decide for yourself:

Union Official, Professor Teach How-to College Course in Violent Union Tactics

by Publius

If you are wondering why some folks are starting to question whether a college education is worth the cost, the video below goes a long way towards explaining it. Recently, the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) and the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) sponsored two college courses: Introduction to Labor Studies and Labor Politics and Society, to be taught simultaneously through a video conference between to two campuses. (if you have trouble seeing the video, just click here):


The Professors are Judy Ancel, Director of Labor Studies at UMKC and  Don Giljum, business manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers at Ameren UE in St. Louis. (Bonus: he is a member of the Communist Party.)

In the class, the Professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used. As one of our colleagues pointed out, its the matter-of-factness of it all that is so disturbing.

And yes, the schools, and the professors salaries, are funded by taxpayers.

If you consider a crash course on how to utilize violence in the name of the union movement to be tax money well spent, this should please you no end.

But if you find it another appalling demonstration of what "education" has sunk to in some colleges, you will feel a lot differently.

I know which side I come down on....


Ken Berwitz

I don't often agree with USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham.  And, truth be told, I don't agree with all of his latest column, which I am excerpting below. 

But credit where credit is due.  Within that column, Mr. Wickham has hit on some very painful truths which this country - particularly its Black citizens - has to deal with, regarding the difference between what Mr. Obama promised to do about unemployment and what actually has happened.

Here is the excerpt.  See what you think (the bold print is mine):

"(From a speech in July, 2007:) "Today's economy has made it easier to fall into poverty. Every American is vulnerable to the insecurities and anxieties of this new economy. And that's why the single most important focus of my economic agenda as president will be to pursue policies that create jobs and make work pay," Obama said that day to his mostly black audience.


At that time, the nation's overall unemployment rate was 4.7%. Whites had a jobless rate of 4.2% while the black unemployment rate stood at 8.1%. Today, the black rate is 15.5%, nearly double that of white job-seekers.


I don't blame Obama for the economic conditions that are responsible for so many blacks being out of work. The seeds of this problem were planted long before he moved into the Oval Office. But I do fault him for not doing more to fix this problem.


The poor in urban America, he said in that 2007 speech, "suffer most from a politics that has been tipped in favor of those with the most money, and influence, and power." And then he asked rhetorically, "How can a country like this allow it?" To which he answered, "We can't."


But so far, under his leadership, he has allowed it.


Finding work for the jobless is the best anti-poverty program this nation can mount. But while the Obama administration spends $608 million during the first 17 days of its involvement in Libya's civil war it can muster neither the money nor the will to combat black unemployment.


The president's failure to fight this problem as vigorously as he wages war abroad gets a pass from black leaders, many of whom complain to me privately but remain silent in public.

I certainly agree with DeWayne Wickham -- as far as he goes.  But he is letting others off the hook. 

Let's remember that, for two years, until just a few months ago, President Obama also had huge Democrat majorities in both houses of congress.  And, because of those majorities, he was able to pass the so-called "stimulus package", which was supposed to lead us - Black and White both -to some  kind of economic "Promised Land".

Did that happen?  No it did not.  The only place it has led us to so far is "Impossible, Unsustainable Deficitland".  After three trillion-dollar-plus budgets, unemployment is still higher than when the so-called "stimulus package" was enacted.

Thank you, Mr. Wickham, for your honesty.  It is not easy to be this candid about someone you so clearly root for. 

And thanks, also, for acknowledging how many other leaders (not just Blacks either) cannot bring themselves to muster a similar level of honesty about this disastrous presidency.

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!!