Wednesday, 20 February 2013

BARACK OBAMA: WHO'S SEQUESTER? MY SEQUESTER

Ken Berwitz

This is for anyone who is foolish enough to believe a word Barack Obama - or his Accomplice Media - says about who is responsible for the impending "sequester" (i.e. the automatic cuts in both domestic and military spending which will kick in if congress does not come to an agreement by March 1).

The Date is November 21, 2011.  The speaker is President Barack Obama.  And here is what he had to say (in case you want to get past his requisite attacks on Republicans - if, for no other reason, out of sheer boredom - start at about 2:30):

The key passage?  At about 3:25 Mr. Obama says:

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No.  I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

As you can plainly see, President Obama was not just on board with sequestration, he demanded it, and would use his presidential powers to prevent its removal.

Now - asking our wonderful, "neutral" media:  Who's sequester is this?  If it kicks in, how can you possibly have the nerve to blame it on Republicans?

Or are you so far gone, so completely in the tank, that facts are nothing more than an inconvenience to be disregarded on cue for your lord and savior Barack Obama?

How sad that the answer to that last question is so clearly obvious.


CHUCK SCHUMER'S POLITICAL BS FOR DUMMIES

Ken Berwitz

I'll wait for you to get a barf bag before you read this.

Ok, have one handy - opened and ready?  Good.  Now you can read this excerpt from Maggie Haberman's piece at politico.com, about Senator Schumer giving Chuck Hagel a "heads-up" on the amazing, heretofore unknown fact that Jews have, on occasion, been oppressed:

"He struck me as sincere, and you know, you have to be sitting there at the meeting obviously, but I also told him when he used the word Jewish lobby what it meant to Jewish people," he added.

"And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, its a negative, that's a double standard. And I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it harkens to the old days.

"And he really, you know, he almost had tears in his eyes when he understood. So I believe he will be good."

This, readers, is Charles Schumer in full condescension mode.  This is Schumer telling you he thinks you are so effing stupid that if he says Chuck Hagel had some kind of epiphany because a Jewish senator told him that, once upon a time, Jews couldn't be farmers or live in Moscow, you will believe it. 

Let me assure you that, if Chuck Hagel had tears in his eyes, it was from laughing uncontrollably at the thought that anyone with an IQ above 47 would buy this utter, total, complete, unadulterated BS.

This is what Schumer thinks of his constituents.  And the worst part is that, in the case of any constituent dumb and/or gullible enough to buy what Schumer is selling, he is 100% correct.


JACKASS JOE STRIKES (BLASTS?) AGAIN

Ken Berwitz

What should you do if you hear someone trying to break into your home?  Pull out your shotgun and start blasting.  Don't ask questions, just aim the gun...somewhere...and shoot.

If the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre ever said that in public, our media would be demanding that he be institutionalized as a menace to society.

But it wasn't Wayne LaPierre, folks.  It was....you better be sitting for this.....Vice President Joe Biden.  He said it yesterday, during a video town hall meeting.

Doubt me?  Well, here it is - see and hear for yourself:

Mr. Biden's exact words:

"If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun, have the shells of 12 gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded.  I said 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double barrel shot gun and fire two blasts outside the house.  I promise you whoever is coming in is not gonna ... you don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.  Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun.'"

 What great advice.  Perfect if you happen to live in a wooded, somewhat secluded area, I'm sure.  Just try not to hit a neighbor, or a passing car.

Now, what about the 99% of gun violence that does not take place in a wooded, somewhat secluded area?

How, for example, are Black families in South Side Chicago supposed to protect themselves from the gangbangers who seem to run that part of town - gangbangers who neither Rahm Emanuel nor his useless police chief Garry McCarthy (whose idea of law enforcement is to blame everyone else), nor any of the other ivory tower politicians over there have the slightest idea of how to handle?  Should they take Joe Biden's comments to heart?  Should they get double barrel shotguns and start blasting too? 

What we have here is the first in line to succeed Barack Obama as President, emphatically suggesting that the answer to "a problem" is to shoot first and ask questions later - while using an example (the "somewhat secluded" compound he lives in), with no relevance to almost any of the gun violence which permeates our society.

But do you seriously expect our mainstream media - AKA Obama's Accomplice Media - to ridicule and/or condemn what Vice President Biden said?  

Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.  And not for nothing do I call the media hopelessly biased.

Zeke ..... ..... Joey stands there looking cute .... And if something moves, ... He'll Shoot ........ ..... (02/20/13)


NBC, MSNBC, AND "UNIVERSAL" HEALTH CARE

Ken Berwitz

The competition is fierce, but I doubt that you can find media venues more loyal, more subservient, to Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats, than NBC and its even further leftward adjunct, MSNBC. 

I wonder how they'll be reporting this news, which is excerpted from Jason Garcia's article at the Orlando Sentinel:

Universal Orlando plans to stop offering medical insurance to part-time employees beginning next year, a move the resort says has been forced by the federal government's health-care overhaul.

The giant theme-park resort, which generates more than $1 billion in annual revenue, began informing employees this month that it will offer health-insurance to part-timers "only until December 31, 2013."

The reason: Universal currently offers part-time workers a limited insurance plan that has low premiums but also caps the payout of benefits. For instance, Universal's plan costs about $18 a week for employee-only coverage but covers only a maximum of $5,000 a year toward hospital stays. There are similar caps for other services.

Those types of insurance plans - sometimes referred to as "mini-med" plans - will no longer be permitted under the federal Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such, as hospitalization, or on overall spending.

Well, well, well.  "Affordable" care apparently isn't so affordable after all.  So plans which offer limited coverage at a lower rate are going away.

I'll just bet that the folks over at NBC and MSNBC are up in arms about this.  Imagine:  "Affordable" health care which forces the actual coverage to be so unaffordable that lower end workers won't be receiving it.

I can't wait to see all those condemnatory features and panel discussions with them attacking President Obama and his fellow Dem.....oh, wait.


VERN'S FUNERAL

Ken Berwitz

Things are getting too serious in here. So let me give you this silly little story, which comes to us from our pal IT Eddie:

VERN'S FUNERAL

Vern works hard.  So hard that he tells his wife he needs a couple of nights each week to go bowling. 

Between the work hours and the bowling, their sex life is virtually non-existent.

So his wife, trying to be understanding - and hoping it will re-ignite things - surprises Vern one night by taking him to the local strip club.  

The  doorman at the club greets them and says, "Hey, Vern! How ya  doin?"

His wife asks "How did that doorman know you?"

Vern says "Uh...he's in my bowling league."

A minute after they are seated, a waitress comes over with a Budweiser and says "Hey Vern, here's the usual".

His wife, now starting to get a little uncomfortable, asks him "How did she know that you drink Budweiser?"

"Uh...the bowling alley has a bar and I always have a beer after I'm finished.  I think she's a waitress over there too."

A stripper then comes over to their table, throws her arms around Vern, starts to rub herself all over him and says, "Hi Vern. Want your usual table dance, big boy?"

Vern's wife, now furious, grabs her purse and storms out of the club.

Vern runs after her and spots her getting into a cab. Before she can slam the door, he jumps in beside her.

Vern tries desperately to explain how the stripper must have mistaken him for someone else, but his wife is having none of it

She is screaming at him at the top of her lungs, calling him every four letter word in the book..

The cabby turns around and says, "Geez Vern, you wound up with a real bitch this time."

VERN'S FUNERAL WILL BE HELD FRIDAY


VERN'S FUNERAL

Ken Berwitz

Things are getting too serious in here. So let me give you this silly little story, which comes to us from our pal IT Eddie:

VERN'S FUNERAL

Vern works hard.  So hard that he tells his wife he needs a couple of nights each week to go bowling. 

Between the work hours and the bowling, their sex life is virtually non-existent.

So his wife, trying to be understanding - and hoping it will re-ignite things - surprises Vern one night by taking him to the local strip club.  

The  doorman at the club greets them and says, "Hey, Vern! How ya  doin?"

His wife asks "How did that doorman know you?"

Vern says "Uh...he's in my bowling league."

A minute after they are seated, a waitress comes over with a Budweiser and says "Hey Vern, here's the usual".

His wife, now starting to get a little uncomfortable, asks him "How did she know that you drink Budweiser?"

"Uh...the bowling alley has a bar and I always have a beer after I'm finished.  I think she's a waitress over there too."

A stripper then comes over to their table, throws her arms around Vern, starts to rub herself all over him and says, "Hi Vern. Want your usual table dance, big boy?"

Vern's wife, now furious, grabs her purse and storms out of the club.

Vern runs after her and spots her getting into a cab. Before she can slam the door, he jumps in beside her.

Vern tries desperately to explain how the stripper must have mistaken him for someone else, but his wife is having none of it

She is screaming at him at the top of her lungs, calling him every four letter word in the book..

The cabby turns around and says, "Geez Vern, you wound up with a real bitch this time."

VERN'S FUNERAL WILL BE HELD FRIDAY


MAKING IT EASIER FOR RAPISTS IN COLORADO: TWO VIEWS

Ken Berwitz

First we have this brilliance, from Colorado State Senator Joe Salazar:

"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop around at somebody."

Wonderful.  Women should not carry a weapon to protect themselves because somehow the vetting and training required to get a gun permit will roll right off of them and they'll just start shooting people indiscriminately.  After all, they're just girls - right, Joe?  Let's not confuse their little heads, for goodness sake.  How would they know if someone is attempting to rape them? 

This was so stupid that Salazar - no doubt because of how much negative reaction he got from his appallingly stupid, insulting remarks - apologized for what he said the next day.

Then there is this - or, more exactly, was this - from the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs (UCCS) web site:

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.

Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.

Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.

Don't take time to look back; just get away.

If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.

Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.

Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!

Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.

Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

Scream, run, vomit, piss, and when all else fails passively resist (you'll have to guess what that means, I don't have a clue), and a bunch of other things.  But do not carry any weapon which you might uyse to defend yourself.  No no no.  That's a bad idea.  

This was so imbecilic - and, no doubt generated so much ridicule and sarcasm - that the school removed it...with a disclaimer that it was taken out of context.  (How this could be taken out of context I do not know.  Nor, I suspect do you.  Nor, I am certain, does UCCS.)

Instead, UCCS has provided a ton of advice - much of it very good advice.  Here are the links (please note that the misspelling of aggression is UCCS's, not mine):

But, good advice notwithstanding, you can look through those links until your eyeballs fall out, and you will not find one suggestion that having something to fight back with (not just a gun -- but anything at all) is a good idea.   Apparently, you are supposed to fight the rapist - a man who is probably bigger, stronger, and inherently unconcerned about his violent behavor or your well-being - with nothing but your bare hands.

No gun, no taser, no blunt instrument, no nothing.  It's a much better idea to spontanously vomit, or try to con the rapist into thinking you have your period.  Yeah, that's the ticket. 

I wonder if the geniuses at UCCS are cognizant of the fact that talking about vomit and menstruation just might convince a rapist to decide on anal sex - for most women, the most painful sex of all - which, if done without sufficient lubrication (will a rapist give a damn about that?) can cause horrible, lasting bodily damage to go along with the emotional trauma. 

Oh, wait.  Maybe potential rape victims can say they have their period, a stomach problem...and diarrhea too.  That'll be very convincing, I'm sure. 

This, of course, is before we get to the fact that rapists stalking UCCS students might have some idea of the things female students are told to say/do, and are going to just laugh them off.

How sad that these people are so steeped in Political Correctness that they cannot see the danger they put young women in by spouting this stuff.

And how fortuitous for rapists in Colorado that they can feel so safe while engaging in their specialty.


THE VOTER FRAUD THAT DOESN'T EXIST (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest story on voter fraud - you know, the voter fraud Democrat politicians (not Democrat voters, interestingly enough) claim does not exist.

Excerpted from Eric Shawn's article at foxnews.com (where did you think this would be reported?  The major networks?  MSNBC?):

Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well.

"Yes, I voted twice," Richardson told WCPO-TV. "I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls."

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," Richardson vowed when asked about the voter fraud investigation that is now under way.

Richardson's granddaughter, India Richardson, confirmed to Fox News that her grandmother voted for her, by submitting an absentee ballot in her name. India told Fox News that she is not angry, and gave her permission to cast her absentee ballot.

"It wasn't a big deal," she said. 

Three other absentee ballots in the names of different people were submitted to the Board of Elections from Richardson's address on Nov. 1. Officials say the handwriting on those ballots is similar and that they were all received together, on the same day that Richardson's absentee ballot arrived at the office. Richardson maintains that some of the other voters live at her house.

Nope, nothing to see here.  Just move along, sheeple, just move along....

I have never heard anyone credibly claim voter fraud does not exist.  This very much includes the "Brennan Center For Social Justice" - a soros-funded group which media have desperately tried to convince us is nonpartisan:  they lie every time they say it.  I also assume people who want there to be no way of checking voter fraud are counting on it, because it will help their candidates win. 

How about you?


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes from Chrazy Chris Matthews on today's "Hardball" show - and provides us not just with another classic example of how low he has fallen, but another classic example of left wing "civility" as well.

Regarding Republican congressional opposition to President Obama's policies, Matthews had this to say:

"Who is the President talking to? Is it just a clique of a bunch of right-wingers who don't want to talk to anybody? Are they Hamas?"

Not that you need me to tell you, but hamas is a terrorist, Jew-hating, Jew-murdering organization.  That is who Matthews equated elected Republican congresspeople with.

Very intelligent, Chris.  Very "civil".

And, as usual, very sure to be ignored by the same "neutral" media which can find a reason to attack a Republican for (gasp!) taking a sip of water during a speech.

free` Since the comments were made on MSNBC, won't most of there viewers associate that comment with poor oppressed people? I mean has MSNBC ever done a segment on just how bad hamas really is? (02/20/13)


MAKING IT EASIER FOR RAPISTS IN COLORADO: TWO VIEWS

Ken Berwitz

First we have this brilliance, from Colorado State Senator Joe Salazar:

"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop ... pop around at somebody."

Wonderful.  Women should not carry a weapon to protect themselves because somehow the vetting and training required to get a gun permit will roll right off of them and they'll just start shooting people indiscriminately.  After all, they're just girls - right, Joe?  Let's not confuse their little heads, for goodness sake.  How would they know if someone is attempting to rape them? 

This was so stupid that Salazar - no doubt because of how much negative reaction he got from his appallingly stupid, insulting remarks - apologized for what he said the next day.

Then there is this - or, more exactly, was this - from the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs (UCCS) web site:

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.

Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.

Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.

Don't take time to look back; just get away.

If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.

Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.

Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!

Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.

Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

Scream, run, vomit, piss, and when all else fails passively resist (you'll have to guess what that means, I don't have a clue), and a bunch of other things.  But do not carry any weapon which you might uyse to defend yourself.  No no no.  That's a bad idea.  

This was so imbecilic - and, no doubt generated so much ridicule and sarcasm - that the school removed it...with a disclaimer that it was taken out of context.  (How this could be taken out of context I do not know.  Nor, I suspect do you.  Nor, I am certain, does UCCS.)

Instead, UCCS has provided a ton of advice - much of it very good advice.  Here are the links (please note that the misspelling of aggression is UCCS's, not mine):

But, good advice notwithstanding, you can look through those links until your eyeballs fall out, and you will not find one suggestion that having something to fight back with (not just a gun -- but anything at all) is a good idea.   Apparently, you are supposed to fight the rapist - a man who is probably bigger, stronger, and inherently unconcerned about his violent behavor or your well-being - with nothing but your bare hands.

No gun, no taser, no blunt instrument, no nothing.  It's a much better idea to spontanously vomit, or try to con the rapist into thinking you have your period.  Yeah, that's the ticket. 

I wonder if the geniuses at UCCS are cognizant of the fact that talking about vomit and menstruation just might convince a rapist to decide on anal sex - for most women, the most painful sex of all - which, if done without sufficient lubrication (will a rapist give a damn about that?) can cause horrible, lasting bodily damage to go along with the emotional trauma. 

Oh, wait.  Maybe potential rape victims can say they have their period, a stomach problem...and diarrhea too.  That'll be very convincing, I'm sure. 

This, of course, is before we get to the fact that rapists stalking UCCS students might have some idea of the things female students are told to say/do, and are going to just laugh them off.

How sad that these people are so steeped in Political Correctness that they cannot see the danger they put young women in by spouting this stuff.

And how fortuitous for rapists in Colorado that they can feel so safe while engaging in their specialty.


CBS - TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, BETTER THAN NOTHING

Ken Berwitz

Finally, a major network is reporting that graphically violent video games just might have had something to do with the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre perpetrated by adam lanza. 

Excerpted from Bob Orr and Pat Milton's article at cbsnews.com (the bold print is mine):

Law enforcement sources say Adam Lanza was motivated by violent video games and a strong desire to kill more people than another infamous mass murderer.

Sources say Lanza saw himself as being in direct competition with Anders Breivik, a Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011.

Breivik killed eight with a bombing in downtown Oslo. He then moved to a nearby island where hunted down and fatally shot 69 people, mostly teenagers attending a summer camp.

Two officials who have been briefed on the Newtown, Conn., investigation say Lanza wanted to top Breivik's death toll and targeted nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the "easiest target" with the "largest cluster of people."

Evidence shows that his mind, sources say, Lanza was also likely acting out the fantasies of a video game as he killed 20 first graders and six adults at the school. For Lanza, the deaths apparently amounted to some kind of "score."

Are you surprised? 

You certainly aren't if you're a regular reader of this blog, where I been talking about the significance of graphic video games to mass murderers continuously for over two months. 

Are you outraged?  If so, I hope it is because it took over two months for one of the networks to finally connect those video games with the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, as CBS is doing here. 

Are you impressed with CBS?  You shouldn't be.  Because the massacre took place on December 14th, and between then and now, CBS has joined NBC and ABC in:

-Putting out countless reports, features and web site articles attacking the NRA, which had nothing whatsoever to do with adam lanza's murdering spree, but next to nothing about the violence ingrained in lanza, and other mass murderers, by video games - and/or movies and/or rap and heavy metal "music" lyrics? 

-Putting out countless reports, features and web site articles connecting the lanza massacre with a demand for more gun control laws - as if any laws, new or old, would have prevented this deranged lunatic from illegally obtaining the guns he used (blowing off his mother's face in the process), illegally breaking into the elementary school (shooting his way through a window), and illegally killing as many people as he could before turning the guns on himself.  

The fact is, until now (with precious few exceptions), CBS has been just as guilty as its major network counterparts in reporting - selling is a better word - left wing politicians' feel-good BS, instead of dealing with the fact that our children are continuously being bombarded with "entertainment" which desensitizes them to murder, and turns it into little more than a game, in which the more you kill the higher your score is.

Could the reason just possibly be the amount of advertising $$$$$ these "entertainment" venues stuff the networks' pockets with, and the networks' fear of losing it? 

What are they thinking?  Is it "Hell, the NRA does little or no advertising, so let's go after them instead.  Besides, if there are more mass murders by sickos who are influenced by violent "entertainment" venues, that's great, because look at how high our ratings go when we cover the bloody aftermath.  It's a win-win for us!!"

So does CBS News deserve credit for this article today?  Yes it does in the narrow context that, although its article is way too little and way too late, it is more than most of the other media have provided.  In other words, it is better than nothing.

What a sorry, disheartening, pathetic state of affairs.

Remember when we had news organizations?  With journalists who actually followed stories, rather than narrating a party line?  Whatever happened to them?


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!!