Thursday, 12 September 2013


Ken Berwitz

As you probably remember, last month Republican National Committee Chairperson Reince Priebus threatened to boycott any Presidential debates in 2016 at NBC and CNN.  The NBC reason was that the network had announced it would be doing a mini-series on Ms. Clinton's life next year, starring the beautiful, sexy Diane Lane.  That, coupled with NBC's rich history of giving little other than love to Ms. Clinton throughout her career was a bridge too far for Mr. Priebus.  Here is what he said in an August 5th press release:

"It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," said Chairman Priebus. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing. I hope Americans will question the credibility of these networks and that NBC and CNN will reconsider their partisan actions and cancel these political ads masked as unbiased entertainment. If they have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor."

Did he have a point?  Was this just a silly, meaningless temper tantrum based on nothing?

Well, here is your answer, excerpted from Kyle Drennen's blog at

"In news briefs on Tuesday and Wednesday, NBC Today anchor Natalie Morales touted: 'Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be given the National Constitution Center's Liberty Medal for her years in public service and her work on human rights." The two segments totaled 36 seconds of air time.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the network morning show only managed to offer a couple mentions, totaling 10 seconds, to the anniversary of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans - a major security failure that occurred during Clinton's tenure at the State Department.

When Priebus made his threat, NBC gave us days of feigned shock, whining about how unfair it was, that NBC News and NBC's entertainment division have nothing to do with each other, blah blah blah, yada, yada,yada.

Then they prove that Priebus was 100% right, by doing this.  And - though not mentioned in this specific blog, they prove it again by not at all covering the fact that current Secretary of State John Kerry - another NBC favorite - is refusing to allow survivors of the Benghazi attack to be interviewed by media. 

What would these survivors say that Kerry doesn't want us to hear?  Without the interviews, and without media, such as NBC, demanding access to them, I guess we'll never know, will we?

I don't know if the NBC-Hearts-Hillary min-series is still a live project.  But, frankly, Reince Priebus has every reason in the world to tell NBC the boycott stands, regardless of whether its idea of Hillary Clinton - Diane Lane - plays her or not.

I hope he does just that.


Ken Berwitz

Last October, Seaside Heights, New Jersey, was one of the very many shore towns in New Jersey and New York decimated by hurricane sandy.  Who can forget the images of devastation, especially of that roller coaster, sitting so far out in the ocean? 

Well, Seaside Heights rebuilt.  A new boardwalk, new versions of a lot of the stores.  And it did have a season of sorts this year - though, truth be told, revenues were down significantly. 

Today, a fire started near the Kohr's frozen custard stand at the south end of the boardwalk.  While unpleasant and damaging, it seemed to be relatively minor, and the fire department appeared to have it pretty much under control.

Then all hell broke loose.  We don't know for sure what happened - maybe it hit a fuel line (by tomorrow we'll probably have a much better understanding of the cause).  But suddenly almost all the boardwalk, almost all the stores, and even structures as much as one and two blocks inland, were engulfed in flames.

This is a complete disaster. 

So far there are no reports of fatalities.  While we hope the final count of deaths and injuries is zero we, of course, don't know for sure. 

What we do know for sure is that a lot of people have lost everything.  Again.  For the second time in less than a year. 

My heart goes out to the residents, business owners, employees and everyone else connected with this star-crossed town. 

Can Seaside Heights ever rebuild?  I suppose the answer is yes.  But there ae no guarantees.  Who, for example, will provide the insurance?  Any of the companies that took two major baths there in 11 months? 

Let me end by saying that I am 99% certain this fire was inadvertent....but I must admit there is a nagging 1% which wonders about fires that start at the end of the season after a bad year. 

God I hope that 1% is wrong.


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Jay Leno, who said this on his Tuesday night show:

"It's still a little warm, but you can tell fall is coming...The leaves are changing faster than the White House position on Syria"

Any doubt about why he wins Quote Of The Day for that comment?

I didn't think so.


Ken Berwitz

Have you read, or heard about, Russian President (or is it USSR's getting harder and harder to tell the difference) Vladimir Putin's op-ed essay in today's New York Times?

I'll show you a few excerpts below in rust - with what Putin appears to really be saying in blue - .and you can see for yourself how, after weeks of Barack Obama fumbling, floundering, and contradicting himself, Putin has taken control of this situation and emerged as the world leader Obama will never be:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syrias borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. In other words, your threat to bomb Syria - for no apparent reason, since you say there will be no attempt at regime change, no ground troops and your own Secretary of State defines the extent of what you would do as "unbelievably small" - is beyond ridiculous, would provide no benefit to anyone, and could cause more violence and death.  Do you have a screw loose, or what?

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.  In other words, you have been supporting, and supplying weaponry to, al qaeda and other terrorist groups - without a clue that, if they were to take over from al-assad, however bad things are in Syria now, they would be 100 times worse.  Do you have a screw loose, or what?

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.  In other words, you are a mindless warmonger and we are benevolent peace brokers.  Do you have screw loose, or what?

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack - this time against Israel - cannot be ignored.  In other words, you were ready to bomb Syria for poison gas al-assad did not use - which, in reality, would have helped the people who actually did use the poison gas.  Plus, you are endangering your ally Israel in the process.  Do you have a screw loose, or what?

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.  In other words, if you bombed Syria, you would do exactly what you accuse al-assad of:  you would murder innocent civilians.  Do you have a screw loose, or what?

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.  In other words, you should learn from me, a peaceful citizen of the world, and stop acting like a mindless warmonger, itching to kill, kill, kill.  Do you have a screw loose, or what? 

Is it not clear how completely Vladimir Putin has outmatched, outwitted and generally made mincemeat of Barack Obama?

Simply stated, he has exposed Mr. Obama for what he is:  a Chicago machine politician, with no qualifications for the Presidency, who is in 100 miles over his head.

And - lucky us - we have the "pleasure" of enduring this inept, incompetent, lying President and the inept, incompetent, lying people around him, for another 3 1/2 years. 

Here's a thought:  maybe if Putin decides to recreate the Soviet Union - only for peaceful purposes of course - he'll offer us a chance to be one of the SSRs.  Given who is running our country right now, we'd probably accept the offer too.

Zeke .... .... .... Well, at least Vlad-the-Impaler was not getting his info from the O'Bagy Lady that John Kerry (aka Swift-Boat-Johnny) used as a source. . . . . . .. The O'Bagy Lady was fired by the Think Tank that employed her because she really does not have a PhD, as claimed. . . . . ... . . . But, she IS listed as the "Political Director" by the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a Muslim Bro'hood lobby. . . . . . . (09/12/13)


Ken Berwitz

I'm sure you have heard of the AFL-CIO union, and its millions of members.

I'm sure you are aware of the millions and millions of union members' dues it spent to elect Barack Obama twice, to promote the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as ObamaCare, and how much organizational effort it put behind getting likeminded voters out to the polls so they could be as sure as possible ACA would be put in place.

Well, they got what they wanted.  Or did they?

Excerpted from Kevn Bogardus's article at

The AFL-CIO, after three days of closed-door meetings and heated discussion, spoke out for serious changes to ObamaCare.

On Wednesday afternoon, the nation's largest labor federation adopted a resolution outlining what it said are serious flaws in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that could potentially hurt union members' health plans. The move by the AFL-CIO sets unions up for a clash with a president who was reelected with labor's funds and ground troops during the 2012 campaign.

Some of the biggest names in labor went to the microphones, including D. Taylor, president of Unite Here; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers President Ed Hill; and Sean McGarvey, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, who opened the discussion.

"But we will be damned if we are going to lose our health insurance because of unintended consequences in the law. It needs to be changed. It needs to be fixed. And it needs to be fixed now," bellowed Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers' International Union of America, to standing ovation.

Well, well, well.  After moving heaven and earth to inflict ObamaCare on us, now the AFL-CIO and its various leaders have decided that there are "unintended consequences" which might cause them to lose their health insurance.  So the law has to be fixed to mollify them. 

In other words, the AFL-CIO (and it is far from the only union up in arms about this) is now in full CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode, trying to figure out how ObamaCare can be changed so that they get the good parts and are not stuck with the bad parts. 

The rest of us?  I guess we're on our own.

ObamaCare is a monstrosity.  It is a community organizer's vision of how to fix things:  namely, by taking as much as possible from producers and handing it out to everyone else, while not worrying at all about what will happen down the road - i.e. how tens of millions of new health care recipients, disproportonately unable to pay for their health care, will get quality health care from the same number of doctors, nurses, hospitals there were before (and who, not incidentally, will be paid less for the services they provide, which will probably diminish the number of new people coming into the health care field).

And now the AFL-CIO is crying in its beer because it got what it bargained for, and doesn't like it?  Because it wants a re-do to fix union members' health plans...but not everyone else's?  I'm supposed to be sympathetic to this?

Don't count on it.

Oh, and in case you are wondering just how much taxpayer money it might cost to "fix" ObamaCare to the Union's satisfaction, read this, excerpted from Michael Bastasch's article at

A "fix" to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act proposed by unions would force taxpayers to pay nearly $190 billion to extend subsidies to union health plans, according to an analysis by the American Action Forum.

"Should the administration move to accommodate their union supporters, we estimate it would cost nearly $190 billion over 10 years," wrote American Action Forum health-care analysts Emily Egan and Conor Ryan.

Reminding you again:  These are the same people who demanded that ObamaCare be enacted.  Now that they don't like it, their fix-it "plan" is to tax everyone else to the tune of $190 billion dollars over 10 years. 

Yeah, that's going to make it just perfect. But, if it doesn't? Just tax 'em some more. 

Hey we're the unions, Barack.  You OWE us.  And here we are to collect.

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!!