Tuesday, 30 July 2013

DEATH PANELS

Ken Berwitz

Remember when Sarah Palin was raked over the coals by media for saying that ObamaCare would cause there to be "death panels" which would decide who does and does not get medical treatment - thus, who will and will not be permitted to live?

What an idiot she was, right?  Media had every reason to blast her from here to Jupiter (and I don't mean Florida).  To think that the administration of President Barack Obama would ever even consider such a horrible scenario.

Now, fast-forward to Sunday.

That is when the Wall Street Journal published an article by Howard Dean, the former Governor of Vermont, presidential candidate, then head of the Democratic National Committee -- and a doctor by training.

Mr. Dean wrote a piece about ObamaCare.  In it, he tries his best to support this monstrosity.  But, as a doctor, he cannot pretend everything about it makes sense.   As much a partisan pol as Dean is, that goes beyond his limits.

And what is one of Dean's major objections?  I'll let him tell you in his own words (the bold print is mine):

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

Hmmmmm.  A board that rations out health care, and determines who will and will not get treated.  What would you call a board like that?

Does the term "death panel" ring a bell?

Now, grow old waiting for mainstream media to point this obvious fact out to their sucke...er, readers and viewers.  

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.


MORE HILLARY

Ken Berwitz

Just days ago I blogged about NBC's proposed miniseries on Hillary Clinton, which I fully expect will sing her praises to the skies.  My exact words:

Would you like to know what the miniseries will say about Ms. Clinton?  I think I can tell you right now, before it is even written.  Ms Clinton, a brilliant woman and exceptional lawyer who performed admirably and effectively in a variety of jobs throughout her professional career, is also a terribly tormented soul who bravely has dealt with the sexual excesses of her brilliant but flawed husband, yet emerged as an even more accomplished, beloved statesperson who is eminently ready to become our first woman President.

But, in the immortal words of Jacqueline Suzanne, Once Is Not Enough. 

Not to be outdone by NBC, CNN is going to pump out its own hagiography...er, I mean hard-hitting, neutral biographical sketch of Ms. Clinton.

Excerpted from Dylan Byers' article at politico.com:

CNN Films has tapped documentary filmmaker Charles H. Ferguson to direct a feature-length documentary about former Hillary Clinton, POLITICO has learned.

"CNN is very pleased to be working with Academy-Award winner Charles Ferguson on the film, which will be released in theaters and air on CNN," Allison Gollust, the network's senior vice president of communications, told POLITICO on Monday. The release date has yet to be determined.

The film adds yet another installment to the growing list of Hillary-related television projects and books slated for release before the 2016 presidential campaign. But is also presents a potential image problem for CNN's News division as it covers Clinton in the run up to her highly anticipated bid for the White House.

Gollust told POLITICO, "CNN's editorial side has no role in the production of the film, just as it has no role in any of the films produced or acquired by CNN Films." 

Interesting that Allison Gollust would assure us CNN's "editorial side" will have no role in the production of the film.  That is exactly, precisely, what NBC told us about its mini-series.

And I believe CNN - which, during the years Hubby Bubba was President, often was referred to as the Clinton News Network - every bit as much as I believe the hardline leftists running NBC News.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 0%.

If you're asking me, it is not just that they are in love with Hillary Clinton's fantasy persona (the real Hillary Clinton is an unaccomplished nothing-with-nothing), but they also are guilt-ridden over dumping her in 2008 for the even more politically correct Barack Obama. 

What better time to make amends than a 2016 presidential run?

Let me end with a fearless prediction:  If Fox News Channel also announces it is doing a biography of Hillary Clinton, countless "journalists" who have nothing at all to say about NBC and CNN, will immediately condemn the Fox version as nothing more than right wing partisan politics.

Wanna bet on that?  Gee, I hope so.  I could use the money.

free' I am surprised Michael Moore isn't directing either of these "documentaries". (07/30/13)


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Why is it that so many people on the left find it so easy to lie about issues relating to the USA's Black citizens?  Is it because they figure Black people are so completely owned and operated by Democrats and the left (very often one and the same) that it doesn't matter if they tell the truth?

Today's Quote Of The Day comes to us from MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who is a particularly rich source of quotes for my blog - though, sad to say, most of his recent ones make him sound like he needs help.

This one involves the mostly-Republican efforts to require that voters present valid identification before they are allowed to cast ballots. 

In the normal world, the presentation of a valid ID before voting would seem to be an eminently obvious expectation:  show me you are who you say you are, and then you can vote.  But, insanely, many on the left consider this some kind of personal affront. 

And, even more insanely, if it is required of Black citizens, they call it a form of voter suppression.

More on that in a moment.  But first, Matthews' actual quote, straight from yesterday's "Hardball' show:

"It does look like it's almost like South Africa to this extent: You have a white - what's the word - feeble minority. It's losing its majority status. And it says, the Republican Party, "we can only get so many white votes. So, we got to reduce the votes of others." It does look that way. Only the- Maybe you're non-partisan, but only Republicans have pushed this in these 31 states. No Democratic legislature. You gotta look at the pattern here. You talk about profiling. I'm sorry, Republicans do this stuff."

Got that?  To expect that voters - all voters, not just Blacks, you understand - produce a valid ID, is almost like denying Black people the vote and turning the USA into a de facto apartheid state.

You want insane?  That's insane. 

But, more importantly, it is also hugely insulting to Black people - a fact that seems totally lost on Matthews and his pals.

When do these people realize that to say a Voter ID requirement suppresses the Black vote is to say, in so many words, that Black people are less capable of obtaining and producing a valid ID than non-Blacks? 

When do they realize that this says, in so many words, that White people are capable of this seemingly very simple task, but Black people will struggle with it? 

When do they realize that they are calling Black people inferior, plain and simple?

And these are the ones who call other people racist?  Mind-boggling.

But wait.  There's more.

Here's another part of the equation that Matthews & Co. conveniently overlook:  in poll after poll, a majority of citizens - including a majority of Black citizens - agree that there should be voter ID.   Click here to see just one of them - a Washington Post poll - which shows Black people favor Voter ID by a 2 to 1 margin.

The truth, of course, is that trying to get rid of voter ID laws has nothing to do with Black voter suppression.  Black people are perfectly capable of getting, and providing, voter IDs. 

The one and only reason that I can see for anyone to demand there be no checking of voter IDs, is for the purpose of allowing illegals to vote.  If you can come up with another reason that makes any sense, I'd love to know about it. 

Another thing:  do you believe the various Democrats and left wing ideologues who tell you there is no problem at all; that virtually no illegal votes are cast in the USA?  If you do, you need as much help as Matthews & Co.   

But fortunately, there are very few people who buy into this BS.  Illustratively, that same Washington Post poll shows 81% consider voter fraud a problem, with 48% saying it is a major problem.  Among Black people?  81% a problem and 47% a major problem:  virtually the same findings.

The bottom line?  Chris Matthews garners Quote Of The Day honors, because he has demonstrated (not for the first time either) that he is ready, willing and able to perpetuate a lie for the sake of left wing ideology. 

Such profound dishonesty cannot go unnoticed.  The award is yours, Chris, with my congratulations:  you've certainly earned it.


DEATH PANELS

Ken Berwitz

Remember when Sarah Palin was raked over the coals by media for saying that ObamaCare would cause there to be "death panels" which would decide who does and does not get medical treatment - thus, who will and will not be permitted to live?

What an idiot she was, right?  Media had every reason to blast her from here to Jupiter (and I don't mean Florida).  To think that the administration of President Barack Obama would ever even consider such a horrible scenario.

Now, fast-forward to Sunday.

That is when the Wall Street Journal published an article by Howard Dean, the former Governor of Vermont, presidential candidate, then head of the Democratic National Committee -- and a doctor by training.

Mr. Dean wrote a piece about ObamaCare.  In it, he tries his best to support this monstrosity.  But, as a doctor, he cannot pretend everything about it makes sense.   As much a partisan pol as Dean is, that goes beyond his limits.

And what is one of Dean's major objections?  I'll let him tell you in his own words (the bold print is mine):

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

Hmmmmm.  A board that rations out health care, and determines who will and will not get treated.  What would you call a board like that?

Does the term "death panel" ring a bell?

Now, grow old waiting for mainstream media to point this obvious fact out to their sucke...er, readers and viewers.  

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.


ANTHONY WEINER'S SEXTING PARTNER: COULD SHE JUST POSSIBLY BE A SLUT?

Ken Berwitz

Are you as tired as I am of beverly leathers (helluva name for her, if it's not made up), the 23 year old (if she's telling the truth about that) woman Anthony Weiner was sexting with?  The one who says she was in love (from a series of texts and picture exchanges) and that Weiner was going to set her up in a comfy apartment in Chicago, where they could consummate their relationship?

Yesterday I saw pictures of leathers cavorting around the beach in a bkini, apparently thrilled at the papparazzi attention she is getting.

I declined to write about it, because the issue here is Weiner, not leathers...and, frankly, because she is so completely inconsequential in the great scheme of things:  i.e. if she did not exist, Weiner would have have been guilty of the same thing, with multiple other women.

But today I have changed my mind, because we have this headline and sub-head from Laura Collins' article in London's Daily Mail (use the link to read the entire story, if you're into this kind of material):

WEINER EXCLUSIVE: Weiner's sexting partner offered sex for cash and bragged about milking sugar daddies she called 'super-pathetic' for thousands of dollars 

Explosive new messages reveal Sydney Leathers's boasts of earning $1,000 in just 30 minutes with one sugar-daddy

. The 23-year-old Indianan claimed older men are more generous...especially married ones

. Raked in money from 'dudes' she'd never met and offered 'dates for $$'

. She called it the 'easiest "job" ever' and said she needed the money

. Messages reveal rampant drug use

Assuming what you just read is true, could beverly leathers just possibly be a slut? 

Well, only if you think having sex for money, with a special emphasis on older married guys, is a definition of the word.  (Her alleged drug use is just an extra-added attraction - one, I strongly suspect, among many others we have yet to hear about).

I would say that Anthony Weiner should pick his sexting mates a bit more carefully.  But, then again, I'm not sure how you do pick sexting mates carefully.

Either way, now we have a description of Weiner's main cyberbabe.  Make of it what you will.  (Just try not to run for Mayor of a city afterwards.)

Zeke ... .... .... Pardon me, sir. .... I believe you have mistaken me for someone who gives a . - #%&@ . - about these losers. .... .... (07/30/13)


ANTHONY WEINER'S SEXTING PARTNER: COULD SHE JUST POSSIBLY BE A SLUT?

Ken Berwitz

Are you as tired as I am of beverly leathers (helluva name for her, if it's not made up), the 23 year old (if she's telling the truth about that) woman Anthony Weiner was sexting with?  The one who says she was in love (from a series of texts and picture exchanges) and that Weiner was going to set her up in a comfy apartment in Chicago, where they could consummate their relationship?

Yesterday I saw pictures of leathers cavorting around the beach in a bkini, apparently thrilled at the papparazzi attention she is getting.

I declined to write about it, because the issue here is Weiner, not leathers...and, frankly, because she is so completely inconsequential in the great scheme of things:  i.e. if she did not exist, Weiner would have have been guilty of the same thing, with multiple other women.

But today I have changed my mind, because we have this headline and sub-head from Laura Collins' article in London's Daily Mail (use the link to read the entire story, if you're into this kind of material):

WEINER EXCLUSIVE: Weiner's sexting partner offered sex for cash and bragged about milking sugar daddies she called 'super-pathetic' for thousands of dollars 

Explosive new messages reveal Sydney Leathers's boasts of earning $1,000 in just 30 minutes with one sugar-daddy

. The 23-year-old Indianan claimed older men are more generous...especially married ones

. Raked in money from 'dudes' she'd never met and offered 'dates for $$'

. She called it the 'easiest "job" ever' and said she needed the money

. Messages reveal rampant drug use

Assuming what you just read is true, could beverly leathers just possibly be a slut? 

Well, only if you think having sex for money, with a special emphasis on older married guys, is a definition of the word.  (Her alleged drug use is just an extra-added attraction - one, I strongly suspect, among many others we have yet to hear about).

I would say that Anthony Weiner should pick his sexting mates a bit more carefully.  But, then again, I'm not sure how you do pick sexting mates carefully.

Either way, now we have a description of Weiner's main cyberbabe.  Make of it what you will.  (Just try not to run for Mayor of a city afterwards.)

Zeke ... .... .... Pardon me, sir. .... I believe you have mistaken me for someone who gives a . - #%&@ . - about these losers. .... .... (07/30/13)


NAME THAT PARTY!! BOB FILNER (? - CA)

Ken Berwitz

Here, folks, is another installment of NAME THAT PARTY!!

I just read an article about San Diego Mayor bob filner at cnn.com.  

filner, a serial molester of women who, just 8 months ago,  moved his tired, repulsive behavior from the halls of congress (5 terms) to San Diego's city hall.

Seven women - so far -are accusing filner of making crude sexual comments and/or groping them.  One of them is Irene Jackson, filner's former spokesperson, who resigned, calling his behavior toward her "crude and disgusting".

So how is filner reacting to these charges?  He has informed the world that not only does he have no intention of resigning, but he expects the city of San Diego to pay for his legal defense.  I'm not joking, folks, he really does.  Read the article I've linked you to and see for yourself.

Clearly bob filner is a bottom-dwelling scuzzbucket of the first order.

Now that I have told you all about filner, I have a question:  did you notice anything missing from my comments?  Like, for example, which party he belongs to?

Well, that's not my fault.  My commentary is based on the CNN article.  And guess what?  It doesn't say. 

That's right.  An entire article about a former congressperson and current Mayor who stands accused of being a lecherous molester of women, and not one word indicating his political party.

Now what do you suppose that means?

Wait, give me a minute here, let me check from one of the, oh, thousand or so sources of this information which predate the news of filner's disgraceful behavior.

Hey, there it is.  He's a DEMOCRAT. 

How could CNN have left that out?  How could its only reference to a party be, in the next to last paragraph, that the Democratic Party of San Diego voted to call for his resignation - which, I am certain, the Republican Party would do as well, so it in no way defines who he is?

Musta been an accident, right.  Just like they accidentally leave out the party affiliation when they talk about Republica.....oh, wait.

And, yes, these are the same people who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them politically biased.


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!!