Wednesday, 07 December 2011


Ken Berwitz

Just a quick note:  Now that Herman Cain no longer is running for President, what has happened to his accusers?  Where did they go?  Where is there evidence that Mr. Cain did anything wrong at all - evidence our Accomplice Media never got around to demanding when the three of them (not 5, because two women never came forward at all) were all over our broadcast and print media?

Specifically, there was:

-Sharon Bialek, the serial plaintiff who also accused other men of sexual harassment to try and get a settlement, and who proactively walked up to, and hugged, Herman Cain a month before making accusations against him (which leads to the interesting issue of whether he should have accused her of unwanted attention and sexual harassment)?  Gone.

-Karen Kraushaar, who did not even bother to tell us what Cain allegedly did, and who had made similarly vague accusations at least one other time, in another job, accompanied by demands for compensation?  Gone.

-Ginger White, who claimed a 13 year consensual relationship with Cain during which she alleged he put her on airplanes and in hotels for their trysts, but has never provided even one smidgen of evidence to back any of this up, and who claimed there were about 70 text messages with Cain but, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, virtually all of them were either from her, begging Cain for money, or Cain's responses to her begging?  Gone.

The Accomplice Media got what they wanted.  By torpedoing Herman Cain, they have again obliterated the terrifying specter of a conservative Black man demonstrating how far he could get without being a supplicant to the countless social programs Black people, in their view, must have in order to succeed.  Just like they did with Clarence Thomas.  Just as they tried to do with J. C. Watts.  Just as they have tried, and will continue to try, doing with Alan West.  Etc. etc. etc.

My congratulations.  I have no doubt that Black people everywhere, who succeed on their own because they personally have intelligence, talent and perseverance, will think twice before going public. 

Yep, that should keep the rest of 'em in line all right.

Zeke .... .... a What If ? ..... ...... .... What if the 5 lassies have NO proof .... just a smear ...... .... AND, Herman Cain announces, maybe before the first primary, "I'm ....... B ... a ... a ... c .... k ...... " ... "I'm Un-Suspending" ...... Likely ? No .... Impossible .. No ..... (12/07/11)


Ken Berwitz

Rod Blagojevich, the disgraced former Governor of Illinois, was sentenced to 14 years in jail today for his actions in trying to "sell" the senate seat formerly held by now-President Barack Obama. 

Blagojevich is a Democrat.  I mention this because the article at supposedly-neutral does not mention his party affiliation.  Not even once.

Please don't take this to mean that the writer, Mackenzie Weinger, declines to provide such information.  Illustratively, she has no problem referring to the current holder of that senate seat as "Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)".  It's just the disgraced Democrat who somehow isn't identified by party.

Make of it what you will.

free` Ken wrote; " Make of it what you will." Here is Websters definition of fraud --------------- 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick --------- Now I say, make of it what you will. (12/07/11)

Zeke .... .... Rod Blago gets 14 yrs hard time up the river. .... For selling Obama's Senate seat. ..... ..... And Barack was not involved in this, at all ? ? ? .... Tony Rezko, a Democrat "fund raiser" (i.e. kickback figure) gets 10.5 yrs in the slammer -- but none of this splashes onto Obama ..... ..... In Chicago, it's WHO you know, and who your friends are. .... ..... (12/07/11)


Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest salvo in the desperate attempt by some (not all) Democrats to demonize the movement to require that, before being able to vote, people demonstrate they are who they say they are.

Excerpted from Pete Kasperowicz's article at

A Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday on the House floor that Republican legislators around the country are purposefully trying to deny blacks the right to vote by pushing for voter identification laws.

Its no coincidence that a disproportionate number of these affected voters come from communities of color as well as the poor, the elderly and students, said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. 


Having been born and raised in Texas, this certainly looks like a poll tax to me, which those of us remember as a way to prevent African Americans from voting. These voter ID laws have a partisan agenda: seeking to disenfranchise and deny specific populations of voters before they have the opportunity to elect their representatives in government.

She also said the laws are meant to change election outcomes by turning the clock back to the days of Jim Crow.

On Wednesday, Lee charged that the ID laws would prevent 1 in 4 blacks from voting, and 1 in 5 Hispanics and Asian Americans. She also said the laws are a return to the voter suppression that was seen in the controversial 2000 presidential election.

What a hot, steamy load of crap this is. 

Lee does not explain why a voter ID requirement would disproportionately affect communities of color - not to mention the poor, the elderly and students (and, I'm sure a few more select population segments that she didn't think of offhand).  Nor does she explain how a voter ID - which is free or almost free in most states - equates to a poll tax. 

Starting to smell something already?  I don't blame you.

Is there any doubt that the vast majority of Black and Latino people - Black and Latino people who are legally able to vote, that is - already have ID's?   Or elderly people?  Or students?  How does Rep. Lee think they got those ID's?  By magic? 

Why is she doubting that these people are up to performing the relatively simple task of getting a valid ID?  What does that tell you about how she views their competency?

But I do agree with Ms. Lee that there is racism here.  And it's not hard to find: 

-Barbara Lee (and she has plenty of company in the Democrat Party) is telling you that 25% of all Black voters and 20% of all Latino voters would be prevented from voting if a valid ID were required.  This means, therefore, that -  according to Ms. Lee - at least 25% of all Blacks and 20% of all Latinos who are legally able to vote, neither have a valid ID nor are capable of getting one.   

-And since Lee specifies that, racially speaking, this is a problem for Blacks and Latinos rather than Whites, she is also telling us that, in her view, Whites, are somehow more competent to get a valid ID than Blacks and Latinos.

How's THAT for racism?  Could it be any clearer?  Could it be any more insulting to Black and Latino voters?

Of course not.

At this point you might be asking yourself why, if the racist element of Rep. Lee's claim is so obvious, our wonderful "neutral" media are not noticing it as well.  If so, that's a helluva good question.

And while we're on the subject of good questions that media are not asking, how about this one:  Since a valid driver's license would suffice as a voter ID, do Barbara Lee and her likeminded pals believe that requiring driver's licenses is racist too? 

What's really going on here? 

Look I acknowledge that I cannot prove it -- but it seems pretty apparent that what Barbara Lee and her cohorts are really worried about is that voter ID laws will minimize the number of illegal votes cast, not legal ones.  Because those are the votes that would be suppressed (if you can call it that) in states requiring voter ID's.

Think about it....

free` At this point you might be asking yourself why, if the racist element of Lee's claim is so obvious, our wonderful "neutral" media are not noticing it as well. If so, that's a helluva good question. --------- Ken, Are you ready to start using my term for the msm yet? If it isn't fraud what is it? (12/07/11)

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!!