Monday, 17 June 2013


Ken Berwitz

Why are Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats so hot to trot when it comes to handing out amnesty for illegal aliens?

This is a subject which has been discussed many times in this blog, and the answer is always the same:  Democrats want illegals to become legals, so they can become voters - millions of voters - who owe their status to the Democrat Party, and therefore will vastly support Democrats in elections.

But how far is Mr. Obama willing to go to provide this Democrat-beneficial result --- and how completely are our wonderful "neutral" media going to ignore his actions, even when they are successfully challenged in the courts?

Excerpted from Michelle Malkin's excellent - and desperately needed - commentary on the subject: 

Remember: Exactly one year ago this week, the president announced he would halt all deportations and start granting work permits to an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens who entered the country as children.

This blanket amnesty through administrative non-enforcement has been plagued by questions of fraud from the get-go. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, statistics from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services show that the feds have rubber-stamped applications at a whopping 99.5 percent approval rate. And fraudulent use of Social Security numbers is no problem for the so-called "DREAM"-ers. The feds reassured them last fall that they wouldn't have to disclose how many and which phony or stolen Social Security numbers they've used.

"Smarter enforcement"? Tell that to the rank-and-file Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who refused to look the other way at Obama's executive subversion of the law. ICE agent Christopher Crane and eight other officers filed suit against the White House over the DREAM deportation waiver program's usurpation of their ability and authority to do their jobs. The Gang of Eight plan would provide the executive branch "virtually unlimited discretion" to cut off immigration enforcement officers at the knees. As Crane testified in a searing statement on Capitol Hill in April:

"Lawmaking in our nation has indeed taken a strange twist. Senators invite illegal aliens to testify before Congress ... but American citizens working as law enforcement officers within our nation's broken immigration system are purposely excluded from the process and prohibited from providing input. Suffice it to say, following the Boston terrorist attack, I was appalled to hear the Gang of Eight telling America that its legislation was what American law enforcement needs."

In April, a federal judge in Texas agreed with the ICE agents that King Obama could not order them to ignore immigration laws at his whim. A decision on their motion for preliminary injunction is expected any day now.

Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement legal eagle Kris Kobach broke it down for me yesterday:

"The federal judge in Crane v. Napolitano has ruled that the ICE agents are likely to prevail in their argument that the Obama administration is ordering them to violate federal law. Think about that: This administration is ordering career law enforcement personnel to break the law. Now, the administration is pushing for an amnesty bill that contains almost nothing to improve immigration enforcement. All that the American citizens will get in return for the amnesty is the promise from the Obama administration that they will try harder to enforce the law. The administration has already shattered that promise, doing exactly the opposite. This is a stark warning to Congress. I sincerely hope that they hear it."

To summarize:  the President of the United States waves his wand and suddenly millions of illegals are "legal" - virtually no exceptions.  ICE agents go to war with Obama & Co. over this imperial usurpation of the laws of this country...and, at least so far, are winning in the courts.

Now, tell me:  have you read, or seen, a thing about this until right now?  And if the answer is "no" (which I'm betting it is), tell me how it is possible this is not news? 

Here's one possible answer:  it is possible if most mainstream media have decided they are in favor of an imperial, extra-constitutional long as he's one of their guys.  So they decline to report on an obviously major story, because knowing the facts as they are might cause the general public to demand that the amnesty farce be stopped.

What happened to the country we used to live in? 

What happened to the concept of journalism which says that stories are reported as news, not censored into partisan propaganda?

After four more years of Obama and his Accomplice Media, can we ever retrieve either of them again?


Ken Berwitz

Here is what CBS Evening News anchor/snob Scott Pelley has to say about Fox entity he clearly has major problems with: 

"Fox is associated with the right and MSNBC is associated with the left and they've done that because it is a business model. It's a strategy. They've decided to bite off one small part of the viewership and be happy with that 200,000 viewers, 300,000 viewers that they have. But when you are talking to 7 million viewers across the country, man you have got to represent everybody's views and have got to give them the impression that you are being as honest as you know how to be...We measure our audience in millions....Not a lot of people watch cable news, they just don't. If you look at the Nielsen numbers, the cable channels have a few hundred thousand viewers at any given moment. The CBS Evening News again has 7 million viewers, ABC has 8 million viewers. Brian (Williams of NBC) has almost 9 million. Altogether we have about 25 million viewers on any given night. That's a very different order of magnitude."

Thank you, Scott, for that trip to Fantasyland.  Now, in stark contrast, here are a few facts, as noted by Noel Sheppard of

-You equate Fox and MSNBC in audience size?  Er, wrong:  Fox averages 3 - 4 times as many primetime viewers as MSNBC does.  

-You think Fox has 200,000 - 300,000 viewers?  Er, wrong:  it averages over 2 million.

-You think the three network news shows average 25 million viewers a night?  Er, wrong:  they total slightly over 20 million - an average of less than 7 million viewers per network - even with their huge advantage of having been around for decades longer than Fox, and not requiring cable/satellite.  Every viewership number you gave, for all three networks, is overstated.

Now, having seen the amazing level of ignorance displayed by Scott Pelley, please remember again that he is a major network's NEWS ANCHOR - i.e. the guy who is supposed to be relied upon for accurate information.

Man oh man, dos that explain a lot about media.


Ken Berwitz

This Quote Of The Day is Dick Cheney's analysis of how Barack Obama is handling the situation in Syria. 

I do not agree with every part of his assessment, which was stated on yesterday's Fox News Sunday show.  But this passage makes so much more sense than what the Obama administration is doing that I feel it should be noted (bold print is mine):

"Is it strictly humanitarian?  Is it geo-strategic? Does the United States have a vested interest in the outcome? Are we potentially involved in some kind of proxy war with the...Russians...who are supporting Assad? I think it is important that Assad go down. I think - my instinct would have been to support the opposition sooner. You had an opportunity, if you cared about it, if it was in fact in the national interest. You had an opportunity earlier to provide support without having to get American forces directly involved and they took a pass. Now they are going to do it. But the question is whether or not they are a day late and a dollar short."

Does that make sense? Is it an intelligible, coherent analysis of our situation regarding Syria?  I would say so.

Compare that to how Barack Obama and his administration have handled it so far:  i.e. doing nothing, then allowing months to go by during which tens of thousands of innocent Syrians were being butchered by al-assad - and during which the rebel groups which initially sprung up to remove this butcher became overrun with al-qaeda scum - then finally committing to do something on behalf of the now al-qaeda infested rebel groups, then backtracking on what will be done, and now who knows what.

Which of these two ways of thinking makes you more confident that the person doing the thinking has it right?

Many thanks to the much-maligned Dick Cheney for injecting such intelligent, analytical insights into the conversation.  What a welcome counterpoint they are to Obama & Co.'s mess.

Quote Of The Day honors are his.

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!!