Monday, 23 September 2013


Ken Berwitz

I just put on the TV to see if anything was happening in the Kenya shopping mall massacre, and now standoff.

I surfed to MSNBC.  And there was Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne responding to reports - not yet confirmed - that at least several of the terrorists are from the USA, and Peter King's comments about the danger they may pose to us.

I did not tape it so the words are not verbatim:  Dionne assured us that King was just politicizing the situation, that there is a "vast" Somalian community in the USA, that "these are hard working folks", though, yes, there might be a tiny minority involved in this kind of activity - the implication being that it is too little to be seriously concerned about.

This is exactly the kind of blindness to terrorism I talked about yesterday.

First off, if some of the Somalian terrorists are from the USA, you damn well better be worried that it can happen here - and for exactly the same reason that it is happening in Kenya:  i.e. they are Muslim fanatics whose purpose is to kill non-Muslims.  In case Mr. Dionne has not noticed, most of the people in the USA, thus most of the people who frequent major shopping malls, are not Muslim, presumably including friends and family of his. 

Secondly, who is E.J. Dionne to generalize about people of Somalian ancestry who have come to this country?  On what basis is he able to tell us about their group ethos?  How is this different from calling Black people lazy, Jews cheap, or Italians mafiosi?  Does this man know what racial and/or national stereotyping is?  Does he like the kind of people who engage in such stereotyping?  Great company you've put yourself in, E. J..

Then we have Dionne's claim that the USA has next to no domestic Somali terrorists, if any at all.  Again, how would he know?  Can he produce a definitive study or two?  I thought not.

And this cornucopia of PC is telling us that Peter King is politicizing the situation?  Holy excrement.

Look, I don't always agree with Rep. King.  But I have great respect for him as a plain-talking realist who would not pull punches to make political points about an issue like domestic terrorism. 

Can anyone seriously say the same about the E.J. Dionnes of the world?


Ken Berwitz

The TV, which was on to find out what was happening in the Kenya shopping mall massacre/standoff, is now off.  (FYI:  the latest report is that they are down to one gunman who is trapped....but no one knows for sure if that is true).

While I had it on, however, I watched an interview on Fox News with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).  He talked about how he felt the ObamaCare issue should be handled, and what the Kenya situation might mean to us domestically.

I wish I had taped Mr. Graham's comments, but I did not.  I will, however, try to find a recap of what he said on line, and will post verbatims if I do.

But let me say, in general, that everything I heard from Mr. Graham made sense.  Everything he said about the proper way to go about removing ObamaCare, the way to get vulnerable Democrats on board next year, the home grown terrorism which is likely brewing on our own shores and the kind of danger we potentially face because of it, was logical, realistic, and 100% worth hearing. 

Yet reports are that a large number of Republicans, particularly among conservatives, have a major problem with Lindsey Graham. 

I do not at all understand why. 

Not only do I agree with most of what I hear from Mr. Graham, I only wish he had the organizational support to make a run for President.  In my opinion he puts most of the alternatives on both sides of the aisle to shame. 


Ken Berwitz

lois lerner - aka lois liar (at least in this blog), is "retiring". 

And less than two weeks after information came out about emails of hers which appeared to make it clear she was specifically targeting 501(c)3 applicants with names indicating they disagreed with her boss, Barack Obama.  Imagine that......

As you may remember, lerner/liar, who, until May, headed the IRS tax exempt division, was brought in to testify to the house oversight committee about her actions there.  She told the committee that, while she was as innocent as a newborn babe, she was pleading the fifth, like a common criminal. 

Since that "testimony" lerner/liar has been on paid administrative leave.  What does paid administrative leave mean?  Think about spending five months doing nothing, but being paid your full salary and not losing any vacation time.   That's what it means.  That has been her "punishment". 

But now that new information has come out which makes it even clearer that she was neck-deep in what amounts to criminal activity on behalf of Barack Obama and, more generally, the Democrat Party, suddenly administrative leave has quickly morphed into retirement.

Could this possibly stink any worse?

The answer is yes.  Enter sarah hall ingram.

Did you know that ingram, lerner/liar's predecessor, headed the tax exempt division when this sickening practice started?  And did you know that she has visited the White House 165 times since Barack Obama became President? 

What do you suppose she talked about with the Obama people?  Baseball?  Tiddlywinks?  The new fall fashions?

The reason sarah ingram hall makes this stink even worse than lerner/liar is that, unlike her, hall was not put on administrative leave at all.  She was PROMOTED and now stands to be in charge of the IRS's handling of ObamaCare.  Like a good little amoral partisan soldier.

I wonder if Obama & Co. think that pushing lerner/liar out will somehow end scrutiny of what happened.  Or of the fact that they apparently used the IRS to put the status of hundreds of groups in limbo, and get this administration past last year's election. 

I wonder if ingram, who it would seem to me must be every bit as dirty as lerner/liar, will continue to be ignored by Obama's Accomplice Media, thus keeping her in one of the most important power positions of our government.

If decent people - regardless of political affiliation - are not demanding that ingram be summarily dumped from that position, and that both she and lerner/liar be hauled before the committee to either answer questions or be nailed for contempt, there's not much hope left for us.


Ken Berwitz

Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt had what effectively was a dictatorship.  There was a cold, tenuous peace with Israel which held for three decades.  And the Muslim brotherhood was banned. 

Then, when protests erupted in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Barack Obama decided to nose into Egypt's internal affairs by taking the anti-Mubarak side, and was material in his being deposed. 

Mr. Obama's expectation was that the educated, English-speaking "freedom and democracy" people mainstream media loved to interview in the square - which (amazing coincidence here) also happened to be the easiest interviews -  were going to take over and there would be peace, love and harmony. 

What actually happened was that, when elections were held, Egypt's majority - which was anything but those well-fed, well-bred folks media found so easy to interview - elected Mohamed Morsi, a member of the formerly banned Muslim brotherhood.

Unfortunately, Morsi, a la hugo chavez in Venezuela, decided that his legal election to the presidency was license to ignore the laws of the land and unilaterally impose his will on the country:  i.e. he began acting as if he were an unelected dictator.  And his actions focused on using his Muslim brotherhood beliefs to turn Egypt from being relatively secular - certainly by Arab standards - to a shari'a law state. 

Ironically, if Morsi had attempted this while improving Egypt's near-moribund economy, he'd probably still be in office today.  But he attempted it instead of addressing Egypt's economy, which went from awful, to disastrous, to places that they have not invented adjectives for.  It became so bad that even many of his religious Islamic supporters turned against him.

So the military stepped in, and overthrew Morsi.  He is now cooling his heels in custody, awaiting trial for whatever the military intends to pin on him.

But since Morsi did win in a free election, many Egyptians were (understandably) outraged that he had been removed.  And we again had huge protests in Tahrir Square; this time with Morsi's Muslim brotherhood adherents very prominent in them.

The military moved in to quash the protests. 

So far, over 1,000 deaths have been reported - with the actual total probably a lot higher.

And now an Egyptian court, operating within the military-rule framework, has banned the Muslim brotherhood.  Just as it was banned under Hosni Mubarak.

The bottom line?  Over two years of turmoil and violence....with the result being that Egypt - at least for this moment - is in considerable part right back where it started from.

In the old Warner Bros. "Looney Tunes" cartoons, one of the several punch lines which were used again and again, occurred when a character did something which proved to be completely futile.  The object of that futility would say, with an exaggerated, insinuating tone, "Was this trip really necessary?"  It usually got a good laugh.

Sadly, sometimes cartoon punch lines are played out by real people in real situations. 

It looks more and more like Barack Obama's foreign policy fiasco in Egypt provided the world with one of them.

(Anon) Then, when protests erupted in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Barack Obama decided to nose into Egypt's internal affairs by taking the anti-Mubarak side, and was material in his being deposed. --------------------- Ken, you should mention that the original protesters were trained and financed by the obama state dept. Here is one source, but there are others. --- (09/23/13)


Ken Berwitz

My wife and I intensely care about our two beautiful grandchildren, whom we have been watching since Thursday, while mom and dad were out of town.

Now we are starting our recovery.

If anyone thinks this is in any way a complaint, believe me when I tell you it is not.  May it happen again and again and again.


Ken Berwitz

This is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Sarah Palin.

It is a demonstration that the people who hate her guts have not lost their taste for it.

Click here to read the CNN article titled "Sarah Palin:  Hillary Clinton ill-suited for president", then go to the comments section.  You'll see what I mean.

Zeke .... .... Ken - the link does not work (09/23/13)

Ken Berwitz Zeke - sorry about that. It's working now. (09/23/13)


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Rob Quinn's article at USA Today

In what police are investigating as a hate crime, a Columbia University professor was badly beaten on a New York City street Saturday by a mob that apparently believed he was a Muslim.

Police say Prabjot Singh, a 31-year-old Sikh, was attacked just blocks from his home by a group of more than 20 young men on bikes who called him a terrorist and shouted "Get Osama!" Singh, who was saved when passersby intervened, was left with injuries including a fractured jaw, reports the Columbia Spectator.

I hope you don't think the racism here lies only in the fact that a mob attacked Mr. Singh because it wrongly thought he was a Muslim.

It goes far deeper than that.

The racism here would exist every bit as much if the mob was correct and Mr. Singh was a Muslim.

For people ignorant enough to believe that every Muslim in the USA is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, beating the next Muslim they come across would at least be logical, in that, although dead wrong, at least they are operating consistently within their ignorance level.

But for people who are not ignorant, and know this is not even remotely near true, it is nothing other than a bunch of racist thugs acting like the racist thugs they are. 

Please, for your sake, be a member of the latter group.

Real racism. It comes in all forms, from all sources. No group is immune to it, or from it. Certainly not a bunch of ignorant goons who think that beating a Muslim - any Muslim will do - somehow makes them better than the radical Islamists who use exactly the same "logic" to attack non-Muslims.

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!!