Wednesday, 13 February 2013

ILLEGAL ALIENS AND WELFARE

Ken Berwitz

Here is the first paragraph of Caroline May's article at dailycaller.com.  If it doesn't make your blood boil, you either have no blood...or you are a beneficiary of the giveway it is talking about:

In a response letter to four top Republican lawmakers, the Department of Homeland Security revealed it initiated only one case against an immigrant for becoming a "public charge," or being primarily dependent upon the government, in fiscal year 2012. The case was later withdrawn.

And if that isn't enough, read this as well.

When you do, you just might come to the conclusion that this administration is hell-bent to do two things with illegal immigrants:  1) give them everything they can, thus making them dependent, and obligated to the Democrat Party.  Then 2) do everything possible to turn them into voters as soon as possible.

If you have a more plausible explanation, I would love to know about it.  I'll wait......


IS CHRISTOPHER DORNER DEAD?

Ken Berwitz

The cabin has been consumed by flame.  The report is that they have found the charred remains of a human being.

Is it Chrstopher Dorner?  Probably.  But you'll pardon me if I wait for definitive identification.


THE FATAL GLASS OF WATER?

Ken Berwitz

In 1933, W.C. Fields starred in a short film called "The Fatal Glass Of Beer".  The most notable scene (please don't ask me why) had Fields in a cabin during a snowstorm, opening the door, proclaiming "Tain't a fit night out for man nor beast" and being hit in the face with a bucketful of snow tossed by an off-camera henchman.

It was so absurd, it was funny.  Very, very funny.

Now, fast-forward 80 years.  President Obama has just made his State of the Union address, and Republican Senator Marco Rubio is responding to it.  During his response Mr. Rubio feels the need to take a sip of water, but none is in front of him.  So he reaches off-camera, takes a swig from a bottle of, I think, Poland Spring water, and continues his response.

Mr. Rubio's action was neither absurd nor funny.  He needed a little water and had some.  Yawn.

Except........

All day today, left wing bloggers and mainstream media (not always easy to tell the difference) have been obsessing over this as if it meant something.  I kid you not, it really is happening.

You want absurd?  Try that on for size.  But what is the single most absurd example of them all?

This "honor", if you want to use the word, goes to Wolf Blitzer of the increasingly anonymous CNN network, who - I swear I am not making this up - started a segment on the Rubio sip by saying:

"So can a drink of water make or break a political career?" Blitzer asked. "A U.S. Senator, possible presidential candidate. We're going to find out, whether he likes it or not."

There you go.  Just like The Fatal Glass Of Beer:  absurd, and very, very funny. 

But what is absurd and funny in this instance is not the line itself.  It is that CNN (or anyone) would pay on-air "talent" to make such a statement.

Here's a scoop for you, Wolf.  If CNN cameras had followed Senator Rubio into the bathroom after he finished his response, I'll bet they'd have caught him peeing too. 

My question:  if drinking water is a potential career-ender for Marco Rubio, is relieving himself of the water a resurrection?  Maybe you can do a segment on it.

Yes, folks, this is what passes for "journalism" today.  And somewhere in eternity, W. C. Fields is probably belly-laughing about it too...through a faceful of snow, no doubt.

Zeke - - - - - - - - - On a serious note: .... There is a constant leftist drumbeat to denigrate, ridicule and make irrelevant the potential new conservative leaders. - - - - - None of it is based on the ability or demonstrated accomplishments ... merely on snarky, mean-spirited often untruthful spite. ..... .... Michelle Bachman, BetsyMcCaughey (former NY Lt Gov), Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and now Marco Rubio. - - - - - - - So, let's compare demeanor during a speech : Marco Rubio taking a sip of water -vs- Joe Biden howling like a hyena during the VP debate. ...... ...... ...... (02/14/13)

WisOldMan The water is a distraction from the speech, which was very good. The drink of water is also getting more press than the revelation that another US Senator had sex with teens in a foreign country. Our media is simply part and parcel of this government. (02/14/13)

Zeke .... ..... Abraham Lincoln's three greatest speeches were --The Gettysburg Address, --Second Inaugural Speech, and his --Right Makes Might speech. .... ... The last, delivered at my alma mater, Cooper Union, in February, 1860 introduced him to the East and was key in winning him the Republican nomination. ........ ....... ..... I was present there several years ago when Sam Waterston recreated the address. ..... .... It was magnificent -- and showed just how far the level of political discourse has fallen. .... .... .... Mr. Waterston paused during the eloquent delivery, uncapped a regular size bottle of Poland Spring, and continued the delivery after his drink. .... ..... ..... ...... ...... Just last night, I enjoyed a local cabaret performance. The singer was up there for 90 minutes, and she, too, paused for a drink of water. ..... ..... ..... ..... (02/13/13)

Ken Berwitz Sam Waterston, a drink of water....yeah, that holds water (02/13/13)


IS CHRISTOPHER DORNER DEAD?

Ken Berwitz

The cabin has been consumed by flame.  The report is that they have found the charred remains of a human being.

Is it Chrstopher Dorner?  Probably.  But you'll pardon me if I wait for definitive identification.


THREE VOTER "COMPLAINTS": SESAME STREET VERSION

Ken Berwitz

Remember that old Sesame Street song (maybe they still use it now):  "One of these things is not like the others..."?

According to an Associated Press story this morning, President Obama is appointing a non-partisan commission to fix voting in this country (if you are like me, you'll be putting special emphasis on the word "fix").

Let's stop here for a moment to reflect on the premise that President Obama would ever appoint a truly non-partisan commission to do anything.  Stopped laughing yet?  Good, I'll continue....

Now I will post the first paragraph of the AP story.  When you read it, I suggest you think about the Sesame Street song referenced above:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is creating a commission directed to help improve voting, a reaction to widespread complaints about lengthy waits, growing photo ID requirements and shortened early voting periods.

Let's see....three areas of "widespread complaints" are cited.  Can you tell which one of them is not like the others?  Well, we have:

-Lengthy waits:  This is an ongoing problem, usually in heavily populated urban areas, and has been for as long as I can remember.  If Mr. Obama and his commission can figure out a legitimate way of addressing it, more power to them.

-Shortened early voting periods:  Personally I do not see the problem here.  It used to be that voting took place on one day, or by absentee ballot.  Then there was the concept of "early voting" - which presumably can to a considerable degree solve the "lengthy waits" issue, as well as any difficulty some people might have in voting on that one specific day.  It seems to me a few days, or at most a week is more than enough.  But, that said, I do acknowledge that there is a problem per se.

-And then we have "growing photo ID requirements".    This means that people have to demonstrate they are who they say they are before being allowed to cast their votes.  

Any doubt about which one of the three is not like the others? 

Every poll I have ever seen shows that a majority of  people - including most people in both the Democrat and Republican Party individually, support mandatory voter ID.  The reason is self-evident:  that it protects the legitimacy of the vote:  i.e. it makes multiple-voting, or voting under an alias, much more difficult.  Concomitantly, it enables law enforcement to identify people who try to commit voter fraud, so they can be charged with a crime.  What exactly is wrong with that?

The people who are against voter IDs cite several reasons for their opposition, none of which make any sense:

-It is like a poll tax:  ridiculous.  Every state provides a way of getting a valid voter ID at no cost;

-It suppresses the minority vote:  ridiculous.   Minorities are 100% as capable of getting IDs as anyone else.  And overtly racist as well, since it suggests minorities as so inferior to Whites that they can't even engage in the simple procedure of acquiring a valid ID;

-It is an undue burden:  ridiculous.  The vast majority of people already have valid IDs, and there is no problem at all for any other legitimate voter to get one.  You need a valid ID to do just about everything  in the course of a normal day even before we get to voting.  You need one to cash a check, to get into an R rated movie, to get into any government building, to buy liquor, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  Did you ever hear anyone complain about how burdensome acquiring an ID was until it was for the purpose of voting?

So the question has to be asked:  why would a photo ID, or any other voter ID, be a problem?  Why wouldn't it be seen as nothing more than a logical expectation? 

Sadly, the most obvious answer is that some people do not want there to be photo IDs is that some people want it to be easier for voter fraud to take place.  Why do you suppose they would want this to be true?  Yep, you got that right.

And if you're going to tell me voter fraud doesn't exist, take it somewhere else.  Of course voter fraud exists.  How could any intelligent person ever believe otherwise?  Because the "non-partisan" Brennan Institute for Social Justice" - a left wing, soros-funded entity with a name as fraudulent as the votes we're talking about - says so?

Let me end by saying that I wish every success for President Obama's "non-partisan" commission (sorry, still laughing at the thought that President Obama could do anything in a non-partisan way).  Every legitimate success. 

And may serious IDing of voters be required in every state of the country.


SEPARATED AT BIRTH?

Ken Berwitz

I just got these pictures from our pal Montreal Rhonda.  See if you notice any similarity:

 

LL Kool J, Should probably stay at home for a while.

 

My advice?  Until there's a positive ID out in California, maybe it would be a good idea to cancel a couple of tour dates....


THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

Ken Berwitz

Don't you love it when other people make life simple for you?

I was all set to write a piece about President Obama's State State of the Union speech -- until I read the summary by powelineblog.com's Scott Johnson this morning.  Now I don't have to:  why bother, when Scott has done such a superlative job of it already?

Click here to read Mr. Johnson's witty, fact-filled commentary -- a few excerpts of which are shown below.

When Obama describes the "sequester" budget cuts as a looming disaster, does he expect us to forget that he is their author? Is he counting on his friends in the media to keep a secret? (Okay, foolish question.) How is it possible to take anything he says in good faith?

When Obama says we've already cut $2 trillion from the deficit, does that include the savings from Obamacare? Or just the savings from throwing in the towel on Afghanistan and Iraq?

When Obama promises that his proposals aren't going to add a penny to the deficit, what does he mean exactly? That they don't cost anything? That they will be financed by the savings from Obamacare?

When did tax deductions become loopholes? Or are they just loopholes when taken by those earning more than $200,000? I think I missed that class in law school.

When did government spending become "investment"? Was it during the halcyon days of the Clinton administration?

Why not just imposes a 100 percent tax on the millionaires and billionaires exploiting tax loopholes and be done with it? Why the half measures? Does anybody really need more than $200,000 a year to live on?

If that doesn't entice you to read Scott's entire piece, I give up.

Finally, allow me to finish with what probably is the single best response an Obama supporter will be able to muster:  'But...but....look at all the promises he made.  And the media liked his speech.  Isn't that enough for you?"

Zeke .... ..... .... "A chicken in every pot" ... ... (Herbert Hoover's 1928 Presidential campaign). .... ..... ... (02/13/13)


ILLEGAL ALIENS AND WELFARE

Ken Berwitz

Here is the first paragraph of Caroline May's article at dailycaller.com.  If it doesn't make your blood boil, you either have no blood...or you are a beneficiary of the giveway it is talking about:

In a response letter to four top Republican lawmakers, the Department of Homeland Security revealed it initiated only one case against an immigrant for becoming a "public charge," or being primarily dependent upon the government, in fiscal year 2012. The case was later withdrawn.

And if that isn't enough, read this as well.

When you do, you just might come to the conclusion that this administration is hell-bent to do two things with illegal immigrants:  1) give them everything they can, thus making them dependent, and obligated to the Democrat Party.  Then 2) do everything possible to turn them into voters as soon as possible.

If you have a more plausible explanation, I would love to know about it.  I'll wait......


THE FUNNIEST STORY OF THE MORNING

Ken Berwitz

Here is the headline from Dylan Byers' blog at politico.com, about President Obama's "State of the Union" address.  You don't need more than this to understand why I call it the funniest story of the morning:

State of the Union reaction: Media gives Obama thumbs up

Really?????????  Wow, who would ever have thought.

The next thing you know, Mr. Byers will have an exclusive on the sun rising in the East, and night following day.

(By the way, Dylan, media is plural.  Maybe you can take time out from marveling over the fact that the same media which have given Barack Obama a free pass on scandal after scandal after scandal for all these years like his speeches too, and correct your headline to "Media give Obama thumbs up".  Just a suggestion....)


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!!