Monday, 06 May 2013


Ken Berwitz

Nikki Haley, a Republican, a native South Carolinian, and the state's current Governor, is of Sikh ancestry.

On Friday night, outgoing Democrat State Chairperson dick harpootlian said this about whichever Democrat might challenge Ms. Haley in next year's election:

"In about 18 months from now, hopefully he'll have sent Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from."

Harpootlian now claims he means wherever Ms. Haley came from in South Carolina. 

Do you believe him? 

Before answering, let me advise you that, last year, during the Democrat National Convention, Harpoolian said that Haley was "down in the bunker, a la eva braun" - eva braun being adolf hitler's mistress, who committed suicide with him as Germany lost WWII.

Most people outside of South Carolina - and, I suspect a good many in South Carolina - have no idea that the state's Democrat Party Chairperson said anything of the sort about Governor Haley, either last year or this past Friday - at least not until today when it has exploded all over the internet.  Do you think mainstream media would have kept this under wraps that well if it had been a Republican State Chairperson making similar comments about a Democrat Governor of minority ancestry? 

Do you think they would have ignored the "back to wherever the hell she came from" comment, or the comparison to adolf hitler's mistress?  For that matter, do you think they would have ignored the implicit assumption that Ms. Haley's opponent would only be a man?

Interesting, isn't it, how reporting about racism seems to depend on which party the racism emanates from.....


Ken Berwitz

As someone who has exactly zero problem with people being openly Christian, or openly gay, I found this cartoon - by the Chicago Tribune's Scott Stantis -  to be an excellent representation of how political correctness works these days. 

See if you agree:



Ken Berwitz

Amazing, isn't it, how rapidly a coverup unravels when just one major network decides to report both sides of the story.

Excerpted from a just-released article - in fact, the lead article - at CBS News's web site:

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

The more we find out, the clearer it is that this administration - especially its former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton - first handled the security of our people with a deadly combination incompetence and ineptitude, and concocted one lie after the other to prevent us fom realizing just how incompetent and inept they really were. 

Well, that is not working anymore.  Not if one of the networks is now serious about reporting things as they are, rather than how Obama & Co. would like us to think they are.

Go CBS go.  Just tell the truth.  And who knows....maybe  NBC (which, as I type this buried as a second-tiered story on its news page) and ABC (which doesn't have it at all)  might be forced to follow suit.


Ken Berwitz

How scared are they about Benghazi?  Read this partial sampling of what has been said on cable news shows, in left wing blogs, and among commenters who frequent those blogs:

-This is all political.

-They are just using Benghazi to avoid talking about real issues.

-It is all a stupid act of desperation by the repugs, rethugs, repigs, repuglikkkans, rethuglikkkans, repiglikkkans, teabaggers, and too many others to type out here.

-Benghazi is old news from 8 months ago.

-They just hate Hillary Clinton.

-They just hate Bill Clinton.

-They just hate the fact that a Black man is in the White House.

-The whistleblowers are liars.

-The whistleblowers are jerks.

-The whistleblowers are publicity hounds.

-The whistleblowers are looking for a book deal.

-Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., with more to come. 

That is how scared they are about Benghazi.


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote of the day can as easily qualify for our "Real Racism" series.  So let's put it in both categories.

It comes to us from Democrat Bill Richardson, former congressperson, UN Ambassador, Energy secretary and Governor of New Mexico and is directed at Ted Cruz, the newly elected, very conservative Republican Senator from Texas.

After appearing on ABC's "This Week" show yesterday morning, Mr. Richardson participated in a post-show web chat - during which he was asked if he thought Ted Cruz, with his politics, represented most Hispanics.  Richardson's answer?

"No, no. He's anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. No, I don't think he should be defined as a Hispanic."

It is hard to decide which is more repulsive; Richardson's response or the question itself.

Personally, I would put about 60% of my disgust on the question. 

Yes it is true that Senator Cruz, whose father was a Cuban escapee from Castro, is ancestrally half-Hispanic (his mother is of Scottish and Italian ancestry).  Why does that generate any question about whether Senator Cruz represents Hispanic people?  Why should this ethnic onus be placed on Mr. Cruz at all?

In addition to being part Hispanic, Ted Cruz is a man (why didn't ABC ask if he represents most men), a Christian (why didn't ABC ask if he represents most Christians), heterosexual (why didn't ABC ask if he represents most heterosexuals), over 40 years of age (why didn't ABC ask if he represents most over-40's), a lawyer (why didn't ABC ask if he represents most lawyers), etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. 

Get the point?  Ted Cruz is part of countless different groups.  But ABC decided to define him as Latino (I prefer that term over Hispanic) and ask about his fealty or lack of same to what it apparently thinks Latinos are supposed to think.  In my book, that is real racism.

And how does Bill Richardson answer?  Well, Senator Cruz doesn't agree with most Hispanics on the immigration issue...therefore he should not be defined as a Hispanic.  In other words, according to Bill Richardson in order to qualify as a Hispanic you have to think a certain way on political issues.  If you don't think that way you're not a real Hispanic. 

In that regard, Richardson is every bit as bad, every bit as racist, as the people who say conservatives like Allen West, or Clarence Thomas, or Thomas Sowell are not really Black - as if there is some kind of political litmus test which determines their melanin content.

With a resume like his, you might think Mr. Richardson would know better.  Evidently, if you did you would be wrong. 

Real racism.  It comes in all forms, from all sources.  No group is immune to it, or from it.  Very much including people who engage in a Q & A which pigeonholes people by their ancestry, and then suggests they have to think a certain way to be a real member of that ancestry.


Ken Berwitz

The Benghazi coverup worked fine for months - long enough to get President Obama re-elected and to have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leave office without her next stop being a court of law.

At least so far.

Now, however, things might finally be changing.  Now, we might be on the verge of  finding out what really happened during that awful night when four US citizens were killed - our Ambassador quite probably raped and tortured before his death - while the President and Secretary of State did nothing to prevent it.  Now, we might hear significant testimony that, in classic Chappaquiddickian form, Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton may well have been far more concerned about personal damage control than the lives of the victims they doomed.

Excerpted from James Rosen and Chad Pergram's article at

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.

If this is what Mr. Thompson and the second official have actually said, and there is any truth to it, we have witnessed a coverup that would leave Watergate in the dust. 

Watergate was political espionage (which, I assume, both parties engage in all the time) that turned a corner from zealous to overzealous to illegal.  No one was hurt in Watergate, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks it had an effect on the 1972 election.  The crime that took Nixon and his people down was not the act itself, but the subsequent coverup.

By contrast, Benghazi was a case of our citizens, representing us in an extremely volatile part of the world, left without even adequate security on September 11th - a day on which, more than any other, USA hating Muslim terrorists would want to strike.  Because of the utter incompetence and ineptitude of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, four people are in their graves.

And what has the administration's major effort been ever since?  Little other than to try, with increasing desperation to cover up its incompetence and ineptitude - certainly not to do a thing about catching the perpetrators of this attack, one of whom freely roams the streets of Libya to this day, and has given proud interviews about what he did.

If these whistleblowers are telling the truth - and every inch of my not inconsiderable gut tells me they are - I want every word of what they have to say out there.  And I want every person in the country to hear their every word. 

Then, I want Barack Obama's accomplice media to stop covering up for this sorry administration, follow Fox News' lead on the Benghazi coverup (that's right, Fox News), and start acting like journalists instead of Obama sock-puppets. 

Is that too much to ask?

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!!