Tuesday, 09 April 2013


Ken Berwitz

On March 19th I blogged about thomas perez, President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor.  I detailed his racist activity in the Department of Justice (aka the Department of Just-us - hardly surprising given the racism of our Attorney General, eric holder) and pointed out that he is a take-no-prisoners advocate on behalf of illegal aliens (sorry, Associated Press, that term is still absolutely correct and I'm still using it, even if you aren't).

Well, there's more.  And, as you will see, there are culprits on both sides of the aisle, not just one.

Excerpted from Paul Mirengoff's piece at powerlineblog.com:

Katrina Trinko wonders whether Tom Perez, President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, will face the kind of stiff opposition in the Senate that Chuck Hagel encountered. He certainly should. Indeed, he should be filibustered.

Perez is under congressional investigation regarding his involvement with an alleged quid pro quo deal between the Justice Department and St. Paul, Minn. Pursuant to that deal, the Justice Department would cease prosecuting a case against St. Paul (which could have net around $180 million for the federal government) if the city dropped a case that could have led to a Supreme Court decision to change the definition of "disparate impact" in housing-discrimination cases.

Perez's Civil Rights Division appears to have allowed political/racial considerations to affect its handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case from Philadelphia.

A federal district judge found that Perez, when under oath, gave incorrect testimony about the involvement of political appointees in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case.

Looking ahead, as Secretary of Labor, Perez would crucially involved in the implementation of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, if it is enacted. Perez's background in this area demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to implement immigration reform even-handedly, or even to abide by the law. As a member of the Montgomery County Council, he promoted spending taxpayer dollars on day-laborer sites to facilitate off-the-books work by illegal immigrants.

So will Republicans block Perez? According to Trinko, they "will be closely watching to see if Perez, like Hagel, ignites a firestorm among the grassroots." They "aren't sure whether conservative bloggers and their readers are even paying attention to Perez yet, but if the buzz builds, they want to be ready to capitalize."

How pathetic is that? It's as plain as the nose on one's face that Perez is a corrupt left-wing ideologue who has been specially selected by Obama to implement immigration reform in as radical a fashion as possible. But Republican legislators are waiting to to see whether conservative bloggers will create some buzz.

It is hard to decide which is worse:  a President who is going on his merry way transforming what used to be the United States of America into a hard left European-style social democracy, or the pathetic Republicans who will not challenge oerez based on what he, and other similarly far-left appointments, will do to the country  --- unless they can make a little political hay out of it, that is.

Bad enough that we have this woeful administration putting people like perez (and Hagel, and Kerry, and, before them, Hilda Solis, and Steven Chu, and Hillary Clinton, etc.) in positions of authority.  But must we also endure a supposed "opposition party" interested less in doing something about the damage these people are inflicting than they are in playing "gotcha" and maybe keep their jobs?

Jobs to do WHAT?

Does anyone care about this country anymore?


Ken Berwitz

Until now I have not speculated on how the United States should address the overt threats by kim jung-un - the 28 year old idiot who, by accident of birth, is in control of North Korea - a nation loaded to the gills with weapons and quite possibly capable of launching nuclear-tipped missiles.  I'm no military expert, and I'm not sure anyone can know exactly what to do about this situation until and unless the idiot actually launches something.

But, this being the Obama administration - with its remarkable record of stupidity and miscalculation in foreign affairs - I should have known it would continue its streak with North Korea.  And it has.

Here is the beginning of Thmas Sowell's column for townhall.com, which describes, and explains what is wrong with, the de facto "briefing" this administration is giving kim jung-un so clearly that I don't have to bother doing it myself:

Since when has it been considered smart to tell your enemies what your plans are?

Yet there on the front page of the April 8th New York Times was a story about how unnamed "American officials" were planning a "proportional" response to any North Korean attack. This was spelled in an example: If the North Koreans "shell a South Korean island that had military installations" then the South Koreans would retaliate with "a barrage of artillery of similar intensity."

Whatever the merits or demerits of such a plan, what conceivable purpose can be served by telling the North Koreans in advance that they need fear nothing beyond a tit for tat? All that does is lower the prospective cost of aggression.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, should we have simply gone over and bombed a harbor in Japan? Does anyone think that this response would have stopped Japanese aggression? Or stop other nations from taking shots at the United States, when the price was a lot lower than facing massive retaliation?

Could this be more obvious?  Is it really that hard for Obama & Co. to comprehend?

You do not tell your enemy what you will (and therefore what you won't) do if it attacks.  And you certainly do not promise to limit your military response to no more than what the enemy does.  But, if the Times article is correct, that is exactly how the Obama administration is handling this threat.

Now, the idiot in North Korea can lay out a smorgasbord of possible attacks, decide which ones will generate the responses he least cares about, and fire away. 


Look, I'm not sure we should give any advance information at all to an enemy about what what our miitary is going to do.  But if this administration thinks it's a great idea to brief kim jung-un on our plans, the one and only thing we should tell him is that the response would be so massive and so destructive that it would be disastrous for him to proceed.  Maybe - maybe - that would make even an idiot think twice....or cause one or more of his less-idiotic generals to consider a summary change of leadership, if you get my drift.

But, instead, we are offering him a menu of "proportional" reactions? 

Tell me I am just having a bad dream.  Tell me the voters did not re-elect this President.  Please.

free` So if NK bombs one of our supermarkets or food warehouses or movie theaters or the hundreds of other things we enjoy and take for granted, that a NK citizen could only dream of. What will do then? (04/09/13)


Ken Berwitz

How does one of the key architects of ObamaCare feel about what it has become.....now that he is retiring from the senate and apparently more able to say what is truly on his mind?

Excerpted from Paul Bedard's piece at washingtonexaminer.com.

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, one of the towering architects of Obamacare, on Tuesday openly criticized program managers for not moving quickly enough to build the system, warning that if it gets off to a bumpy start it will just get worse.

Decrying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as way too complex, he warned the acting Medicare director that Obamacare is "so complicated and if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."

The retiring senator also told Marilyn Tavenner at her Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that Obamacare rivals tax reform in its capacity to confuse Americans.

"I believe that the Affordable Care Act is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress. Tax reform obviously has been huge too, but up to this point it is just beyond comprehension," said Rockefeller.

I wonder how many other Democrats would talk as negatively, and even worse, about ObamaCare if they did not feel bound to pretend it is anything but the monstrosity most of us recognize it to be. 

A disaster with a bunch of smiley-faces behind it is still a disaster.  Think of that as a good descriptor not only of ObamaCare, but pretty much the rest of the Obama agenda as well.


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political, here are two movies that I think you might like (my wife and I certainly did):

-The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which has been on the premium cable channels for weeks, is a story about a group of older British people, with very different lives and agendas, who travel to what they are led to believe is a luxury hotel in India - but, in reality, is a terribly dilapidated dump.  How they react to the hotel, and the country's culture, is not just interesting and entertaining, it is nearly mesmerizing.  The fact that it has a cast featuring Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Tom Wilkinson, and a raft of other superb actors doesn't hurt a bit either.

-Malena, initially released by Miramax in 2000 and now on Cablevision's pay-per-view, came out just about the same time as Chocolat, but with about 1/50th the promotion. Set during WWII, it is about a young, attractive Italian woman (played by Monica Bellucci, as talented as she is beautiful), whose husband goes off to war. The men of the town she lives in are struck by her beauty and, though she fights to remain faithful to her husband, rumors and gossip about her proliferate. To tell you what happens as the result of those rumors and that gossip would ruin the movie, so I won't do it. But Malena's story is told through the eyes of a 12 year old boy in the town who loves her from afar and knows the truth about her. It is a remarkable combination of emotionally wrenching, subject matter and humor (remember, we're talking 12 year old boy here) that deserved far more exposure, and far more acclaim than it got in its first run. Watch it and I'm sure you'll agree.

Ok, so much for my channeling of Siskel and Ebert.  Now, back to politics.

free' Ken, I have to agree with you on The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, I found it to be a great movie, well worth watching. I haven't seen the other one, but will be on the lookout for it. (04/10/13)

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!!