Saturday, 15 June 2013


I wish this surprised me....

Yesterday there was "testimony" from FBI director robert mueller, in which he stonewalled the IRS investigation by, among other things telling us that he did not even know who the lead investigator was,  along with a succession of "I don't know", "I'm not sure" and other such responses to questions that an FBI director has to know.

And, last night, neither NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News nor ABC World News reported on it.  Not one of the three, and not one word.

I use the term Accomplice Media a lot in here.  But when all three networks bury a story like this - a story that so clearly would damage the Obama administration's credibility (to whomever still thinks it still has any credibility - the number seemingly dwindling every day) what other term fits?

The so-called "newspeople" who bury a story like this, disgrace themselves as journalists - but do themselves proud as propagandists for this increasingly ugly administration.   

Oh, one other thing:  Fox News - the venue these three members of the Accomplice Media heap scorn upon - is the only one which did report mueller's shameful dog and pony show.

What does that say about Fox, and what does it say about NBC, CBS and ABC?  I'll let you draw your own conclusions.  

free` Ken asked "What does that say about Fox, and what does it say about NBC, CBS and ABC?" ------- According to the left it is because they're racist. Any one who would say anything negative about a black POTUS must be a racist, no other possible reason for it. Like global warming the argument is over right there. (06/15/13)

Zeke .... ..... .... Like the invisible outrage at Fast & Furious ..... ..... (06/15/13)


Ken Berwitz

Back in the days of Ford's Model A, one of the first assembly-line vehicles (Henry Ford innovated the concept of the assembly line), the joke went, "You can get it in any color you long as the color you want is black".

In a sad way, the "free elections" currently being held in Iran to replace mahmoud ahmadinejad, are similar in concept:  "You can elect any candidate you long as the candidate you elect is exactly what ayatollah khamenei and his revolutionary guard want him to be".

Excerpted from an article by Ben Brumfield. Laura Smith-Spark and Greg Botelho at


(The) victor will take Ahmadinejad's mantle as one of the most visible figures, at a time it's dealing with widespread sanctions tied to international anger over its nuclear program.

But he won't be Iran's most powerful man: That distinction belongs to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been Iran's supreme leader since 1989. He's got plenty of backing, from conservative citizens to paramilitary to, most notably of all, the Revolutionary Guard.

"Whoever is president, he's going to have his hands relatively tied by the Revolutionary Guard if they don't really like what he's doing," said Alireza Nader, a policy analyst at the Rand Corporation think tank.

This reality of Iranian governance, though, didn't prevent 680 men and women from officially seeking the office. The Guardian Council -- a non-elected body made up of six clerics and six lawyers operating under the oversight of the supreme leader -- narrowed that group down to eight. Two others subsequently dropped out.


 In other words, the Iranian "free elections" for President are being conducted exclusively among candidates approved by khameini - a fundamentalist Islamic who will operate that President like a sock-puppet (much as President Obama operates Attorney General eric holder). 

Therefore, anyone who expects a different form of governance than what the world has endured from ahmadinejad, can forget it. 

But was this inevitable?   Could the world have been rid of this terrorist scum? 

Well, possibly. 

In 2009, after the last - thoroughly illegitimate - Iranian election in which ahmadinejad "won" a second term with what was estimated at about 3 million fraudulent votes, the people uprose and marched by the hundreds of thousands in Tehran and other cities, demanding a real election and the re-institution of democracy. 

At that time, President Obama could have lent the support of the United States to this movement - and possibly given it the impetus needed to succeed.  But he did not.  Instead he made a point of saying we had no business getting involved in the internal affairs of another country.

Shortly thereafter, however, Mr. Obama came down like a ton of bricks on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the apparently far more egregious crime of announcing that several hundred residential housing units would be built for Jews in the eastern part of Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.  And since then, he has jumped with both feet into Egypt, to insure that Hosni Mubarak, at least a nominal friend, was replaced by mohamed morsi, a member of the terrorist Muslim brotherhood. 

I wonder how many Iranian people are, to this day, scratching their heads over the USA:  a country which, given a real choice, made that one?


Ken Berwitz

The question in that title appears absurd on its face, doesn't it.  And I would have thought the prospect of our troops doing so to be impossible.  Except for two reasons: 

-One is the remarkable series of foreign policy gaffes and outright disasters visited upon us by this woefully inept administration. 

- And the other is that the Mideast Times is reporting some 300 US Marines have been deployed to northern Jordan, who presumably will be their to facilitate the arming of Syrian rebels.  And when there are US marine troops deployed to a location, why would it be implausible that they might wind up fighting at that location?

As the mass-murdering butcher, bashar al-assad, started killing his fellow Syrians by the tens of thousands,  rebel forces quickly grew in size and strength.  Initially, the rebellion was primarily of outraged citizens trying to dislodge al-assad.  But, according to most reports, their forces quickly became infiltrated by, and now largely overtaken by, radical islamists:  al-qaeda and similar groups. 

During last year's election campaign, President Obama continually told us that he had virtually decimated al-qaeda.  But, like most of what President Obama tells us, that was a lie.  al-qaeda is anything but decimated, and apparently it is at the forefront of  the Syrian opposition at this moment.

Which brings us back to the awful decision by Mr. Obama to nose into this conflict and start arming rebels -- which is to say start arming al-qaeda. 

Why would we do that? 

Do we really find it preferable to facilitate the replacement of bashar al-assad with al-qaeda - which not only would transform Syria into a shari'a law state, but would be positioned on Israel's northern border, ready to carry out the radical Islamist dream of obliterating the country and killing every Jew?  Does Mr. Obama think that is that better than what is there now?

Now the big question: After watching him fumble and bumble through the first four years, how could we have re-elected this unqualified, incompetent Chicago machine politician to a second term? How could we have self-inflicted another four years of Obama on ourselves....and our allies?

What were we thinking? WERE we thinking at all?


Ken Berwitz

No need to comment on the point being made here.....

ramirez-iran-irs pretty much explains itself, wouldn't you say?

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!!