Tuesday, 10 September 2013


Ken Berwitz

Well, the first returns are in.  And the decidedly Democrat-oriented politico.com is not buying John Kerry's absolute BS fairy tale that he initiated an "agreement" (who knows if it is real or not) by Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to an international body.

Excerpted from Kate Brannen's article:

Secretary of State John Kerry says he didn't misspeak Monday in London when he suggested a way for Syria to avoid a U.S. military strike.

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) asked Kerry, "You meant to say what you did, correct?"

 "I did," Kerry responded.

In response to a question then at a news conference about whether Syrian President Bashar Assad could do anything to avert U.S. military action, Kerry had said, "Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay."

He then quickly tried to down play his own suggestion, saying, "But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously."

Afterward, the secretary of State's aides dismissed his remarks as "rhetorical" and a mere "hypothetical statement" that was not intended to be a diplomatic opening.

Translation:  On Monday Kerry made a rhetorical, hypothetical comment about Syria turning over its chemical weapons, which he made a point of assuring us was not a serious proposal.  On Tuesday, after Vladimir Putin got an "agreement" from al-assad on turning the weapons over, Kerry made a U-turn and claimed he meant it seriously the day before.

What a liar this man is.  No wonder Barack Obama picked him to replace his previous liar, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State.


Ken Berwitz

Another web site makes mincemeat of John Kerry's BS.

Here is the first paragraph of Rosie Gray's article at buzzfeed.com:

The Obama Administrations explanation of how a Russian proposal to get rid of Syrian chemical weapons came to be has morphed rapidly in the past 24 hours from being portrayed as an unexpected slip-up to - in its new incarnation - a plan that U.S. officials were involved in as early as last week.

What a liar this man is.  No wonder Barack Obama picked him to replace his previous liar, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State.


Ken Berwitz

This lie is so big and so obvious that no one other than the most committed (maybe "should be committed is more accurate) Obamaniac will repeat it.  Not even Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media....I think.

Excerpted from Al Kopan's piece at politico.com:

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that a reported deal between Russia and Syria on chemical weapons was a potentially "positive development," and he credited the threat of a U.S. military strike with bringing it about.

"We see this as potentially a positive development and we see it as a clear result of the pressure that's been put on Syria by the fact that the president has been moving forward," Carney said on MSNBCs "Morning Joe" when asked about the breaking news.

What a hot steamy load of BS.

Ok, let's get this straight:

- Barack Obama sat back and watched bashar al-assad kill 100,000 Syrians over 2 1/2 years without doing a thing. 

-Only when al-assad may - may - have used chemical weapons to kill an additional 1,000 - 1,400 (we still don't know if it was him or one of the "rebel" factions, maybe an al qaeda or al nusra-infested one) did Obama call for any action at all. 

-And what he called for was nothing more than a round of bombing to degrade some of al-assad's assets:  not regime change, no boots on the ground, no sustained military action.  Exactly the kind of "war" that would be envisioned by a community organizer who never had to show actual results for anything. 

A BS slap on the wrist al-assad loudly and publicly derided him for. 

-Now, Carney, who is every bit as shameless a liar as his boss, is trying to sell the idea that yesterday's offhanded, rhetorical comment that we wouldn't bomb Syria if it turned over all its chemical weapons - immediately followed by Kerry's assurance that he knew they would not do it - is responsible for al-assad tag-teaming with Vladimir Putin and saying "ok, I'll hand them over" (which might or might not ever happen no matter what either of these two say).

No one in his right mind believes Obama or Kerry had a thing to do with this.  Not even the Accomplice Media who have spent the last five years dutifully seconding just about every other Obama lie. 

Or at least I don't think so.   With Accomplice Media, you never can tell for sure.

I'll stop now...and blog again when I read some of the media reaction.  Then we'll know.

steve schneider it will be praised as a brilliant obama foreign policy strategy. you can bet on it. (09/10/13)

Zeke .... Brilliant ! . . . Without going to war, Barry Obama has engendered Syria SAYING they will turn over all their poison gas to . . . someone. . . . .. . . . . This is the same Syria that signed the armistice of the 2006 Lebanon. THAT agreement prohibited the arming of Hezbulloh ---- Today, Hezbulloh has more missiles than most countries' armed forces. . . . Armaments shipped through Syria., , , , , , Conclusion: Syria will retain some / most of their WMD's. . . . (09/10/13)


Ken Berwitz

It isn't over yet.  But Obama is now claiming that his threat of bombing, which al-assad publicly laughed at, and a few minutes with Putin, caused Syria to cave in.

This isn't even a lie.  Lie does not do it justice. They'll have to invent a bigger word.


Now the speech is over, and Charles Krauthammer has nailed it just about perfectly.  Paraphrased, he said "The President got on every TV channel to say he is putting a hold on something the people did not want in the first place, and that he is going to deal with Vladimir Putin on initiative with al-assad, which is a farce".

We voted for a Chicago machine politician without any qualifications for the office, who has been in 100 miles over his head from day one.  And that is exactly what we have.


Ken Berwitz

Why, in the year since our people were massacred in Benghazi while Libyan forces - and, despicably, the USA itself - stood by and did nothing - have there been no arrests?

Well, read the begining of this New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt and Eric Schmitt for the reason.  And prepare to be outraged:

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.

But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration's efforts to arrest the suspects.

President Obama promised the day after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks to bring the killers to justice, and the fact that this has not happened has led Congressional Republicans to renew their criticism of the administration for its handling of the Benghazi episode as officials have made the case that Congress should authorize a military strike against Syria.

"You cannot have an attack on the mission, 12 months later identified a good number of the participants, and have absolutely no consequences for the taking of American lives," Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

In other words, we bombed Libya for over 6 months - longer than Barack Obama as Commander In Chief had any constitutional right to without congressional approval.  And the result - our payoff - was a "government" that apparently is barely functioning...except to make sure that the terrorists who attacked our Benghazi facility last year were freely allowed to do so,  our people were left unprotected during the attack - both by the Libyans and by our incredibly misfeasant State Department - which resulted in four deaths, and that the attackers have been allowed to walk free ever since.

That is what the Libyan "government is  fully capable of accomplishing.

I commend the Times for printing this article - albeit a year after the attack. 

But even as I do, I must ask why The Times has not been covering this absolute disgrace, this sick blow-off of the USA, for the entire year?  And where are the rest of our media?  Why have they buried this story...other than the obvious reason, which is that they are acting as an Accomplice Media on behalf of their lord and savior, Barack Obama?

The fact that I have to be giving accolades for this story, which is so little and so late - because it is more than almost any of the other media have done - is a disgrace beyond words.

These people may think they are journalists.  It may say "journalist" on their business cards.  But they are not journalists.  They are propagandists for an inept, incompetent administration headed by a man whose lack of qualifications for the job are more obvious every day.

Shame on them. Shame on them all.


Ken Berwitz

As you probably know, today is primary day in New York City.  And, on the Democrat side, it is widely assumed (with very good reason) that Bill de Blasio will get a lot more votes than any of his opponents (though possibly not the 40% he needs to avoid a runoff against the #2 vote-getter, who is likely to be 2009's unsuccessful candidate, Bill Thompson).

Today is also when National Review has decided to put up a truly scathing editorial about de Blasio, regarding his far-left politics, his kowtowing to the public sector unions and his apparent lack of concern (or lack of understanding) about what a threatened major tax hike to high earners would do to the businesses which make NYC run.

Here are the first few paragraphs - and, once you read them, please do yourself a favor and use this link to read the rest as well:

The last time a man of Bill de Blasio's political bent was entrusted with the mayoralty of New York, the city experienced 2,000 murders a year, anti-Jewish riots, economic stagnation, and a general sense of ungovernability. Unhappily, New York City Democrats are preparing to make Mr. de Blasio their candidate for mayor, which, the city's politics being what they are, and none of the Republican contenders being as charismatic as Rudy Giuliani or as rich as Michael Bloomberg, would make him the presumptive frontrunner.

The far-left element, never far from the surface of the city's Democratic party, has experienced a generation of frustration: No professing Democrat has occupied the mayor's office since Rudolph Giuliani was inaugurated on New Year's Day of 1994, and this period of Democratic exclusion from Gracie Mansion has been one of dramatic improvement for the city - economically, socially, and, above all, in terms of law and order. But the Left has been to a large extent watching the action from the outside, and there is a great deal of pent-up demand for punitive politics on the David Dinkins model. Mr. de Blasio has promised to satisfy that demand in full.

Does New York City really want Bill de Blasio as Mayor?  Or, more correctly, if Bill de Blasio wins the Democrat nomination is there any way that he could lose?   I'm sort of hoping the first answer is "no".  But, unfortunately, I'm about 95% sure the second answer is "no" as well.

To me, New York's best shot is that de Blasio gets less than 40% of the vote and loses his runoff to the (also well-to-the-left, but much more palatable) Bill Thompson. 

Stay tuned....

Oh, one other thing.  A lowlight of the National Review piece is its gratuitous mention that Bill de Blasio started life with the name Warren Wilhelm - which gives Mr. de Blasio a negative aura; as if he has some kind of dark, mysterious past.  In fact, "Warren" always was called by the nickname Bill (maybe as a play on the "Wilhelm part), and the change to his mother's family name of de Blasio - which occurred many years ago - is for a very plausable, understandable reason.  Sticking it in this piece was completely unnecessary.  And doing so without any explanation of why the name change took place was completely unfair.

Zeke .. . . . . . ." [Under Dinkins} the city experienced 2,000 murders a year, anti-Jewish riots, economic stagnation, and a general sense of ungovernability." . . . . . . . . . In a personal conversation with NYC Councilman Sheldon Leffler( during Dinkin's administration), he said, "NYC is so large that it is ungovernable" . . . . He did not originate that thought, but he sincerely believed it. . . .He was Chair of the Public Safety (Police) Committee. . . . . . (09/10/13)


Ken Berwitz

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial today about the Syria fiasco and how completely Barack Obama has been played, twisted, bereamed and made mincemeat by Vladimir Putin and his bosom buddy bashar al-assad.

Here are a few excerpts.  But you do yourself a major disservice if you do not click here and read it all:

What could be worse for America's standing in the world than a Congress refusing to support a President's proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD? Here's one idea: A U.S. President letting that rogue be rescued from military punishment by the country that has protected the rogue all along.

That's where President Obama now finds himself on Syria after he embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to take custody of Bashar Assad's chemical weapons. The move may rescue Mr. Obama and Congress from the political agony of a vote on a resolution to authorize a military strike on Syria. But the diplomatic souk is now open, and Mr. Obama has turned himself into one of the junior camel traders.

What a fiasco. Secretary of State John Kerry, of all people, first floated this escape route for Assad on Monday in Europe where he was supposed to be rallying diplomatic support for a strike. The remark appeared to be off-the-cuff, but with Mr. Kerry and this Administration you never know. In any case before Mr. Kerry's plane had landed in the U.S., Russia's foreign minister had leapt on the idea and proposed to take custody of Assad's chemical arsenal to forestall U.S. military action.

The White House should have rebuffed the offer given Russia's long protection of Assad at the United Nations-a fact noted with scorn on Monday by Mr. Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice. Instead Mr. Obama endorsed the Russian gambit as what "could potentially be a significant breakthrough." The Senate immediately called off its Wednesday vote on the military resolution. By Tuesday Assad had accepted the offer that he hopes will spare him from a military strike.

On second thought, fiasco is too kind for this spectacle. Russia has publicly supported Assad's denials that he used sarin gas, but we are now supposed to believe it will thoroughly scrub Syria of those weapons. We are also supposed to believe Assad will come clean about the weapons he has long denied having and still denies using.

Could this President be more overmatched?  Could he have been played more completely?  Could the United States look more feckless?  Weaker?

And we have almost an entire second term to look forward to, just like it.

God help us.


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote is from a 12 year old diary entry of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which was published in yeserday's New York Post, to Mr. Kennedy's understandably vehement denunciation.

There is a lot of material in those diaries, covering a lot of different Democrats.  But this one is head and shoulders above the others:

"Al Sharpton has done more damage to the black cause than [segregationist Alabama Gov.] George Wallace. He has suffocated the decent black leaders in New York.  His transparent venal blackmail and extortion schemes taint all black leadership."

How right he was then.  And how right he would be if he wrote the same words again today.

But RFK Jr. has a major problem:  since he diarized those thoughts, sharpton has become a kingmaker in the Democrat Party and an icon of the MSNBC left.  So now he is mortified that this has been made public, and is desperately trying to protect his standing with Democrats by claiming it was all a big mistake and al sharpton is the greatest thing since cracked wheat.

"Nothing in that diary was ever meant for publication. I have nothing but respect for Governor Cuomo, Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, all of whom have distinguished themselves as extraordinary national leaders over the past decade."

I'll leave for you to decide whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was being more truthful when writing his thoughts in a private diary he assumed no one else would see, or  when trying to make himself acceptable to al sharpton, who must of course be bowed to early and often by Democrats or they will be consigned to Yourarearacistland.

Either way, the diary entry has garnered Quote Of The Day honors.  My congratulations to you, RFK Jr. -- even if you're not able to openly accept them without bringing down the Wrath Of Sharpton on yourself.


Ken Berwitz

Nothing to do with politics, but....

My wife, whose eating habits average mine out (and therefore would greatly please Michelle Obama), has, for years, enjoyed Kelloggs Special K low fat granola with a "Touch of Honey" for breakfast.  That is, until a few months ago when Kelloggs changed the packaging from a conventional cereal box (somewhere in the 15 to 19 ounce range, I don't remember for sure) to one of those collapsable pouch thingies, weighing in at 11.3 ounces - and jumped the price up dramatically.

Even after doing that I was still buying it for her, because she likes the product itself.  But yesterday she told me she did not want it anymore.  The reason?  The pouch has a press-to-seal system which is extremely difficult to close - in part, I suspect, because bits and pieces of the granola get wedged in the groove.

I wish Kelloggs well and maybe this has been a great success for them.  But not in my house.

Personally, I think most granola is more like sugared gravel than food and, if I'm going to have a cold breakfast cereal, it is likely to be Wegman's Cinnamon Squares brand - which is delicious, relatively low in fat and sugar compared to other cereals, and costs less too.

Ok, end of rant about breakfast food...and back to the inedible rant of politics.

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!!