Wednesday, 25 September 2013


Suppose someone who was in charge of a  dirtier-than-dirty operation told you that she didn't do a thing wrong.  But she was pleading the fifth.  And then she told you that she would be willing to testify, provided she was given immunity from the crimes she told you she did not commit.

Would you have a problem with that?

If so, you have a problem with lois lerner/liar, the former head of the IRS's tax exempt division.  Because that is exactly what she has done.

Excerpted from Patrick Howley's article at, via

IRS scandal figure Lois Lerner is negotiating through her lawyers with Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about possibly gaining immunity to testify again in the committee's investigative hearings.

"The Chairman did not adjourn the hearing, he recessed it. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena. The Committee has not made any offer of immunity to Ms. Lerner. The Committee has, however, indicated a willingness to listen to any offers from her attorney about what she would testify to if it was offered," Oversight Committee adviser Ali Ahmad told The Daily Caller.

I have a question for lerner/liar that I'd love an answer to, but will never get.  Who the hell does she think she is?

Anyone with an even partially functioning cerebrum who has at all followed this story knows that she is a liar.  That she has been lying to our faces all along.  And now she is going to do the committee a favor and testify - in return for a) immunity and b) the ability to decide what she will and will not testify about?

Screw her.  

I say haul lerner/liar into the committee chamber, remind her that by making a statement of "innocence" the last time around she no longer has a right to plead the fifth, and start asking questions. 

Then, if this miserable, lying snake does not answer them fully, nail her with every contempt charge available under the law.

Enough is enough.  This has been going on far too long.  Time for Rep. Issa to stop issuing strongly worded statements, which media ignore and the lerner/liars of the world have been laughing about.  Time for him and the rest of this committee to DO something.

Zeke testing testing ...... (09/26/13)

Zeke Comments are NOT WORKING for the most recent items posted (09/26/13)

Zeke ... testing, testing, testing (09/26/13)


Ken Berwitz

Bill De Blasio, the Democrat nominee for Mayor of New York City, is a life-long far leftist.  There is no way anyone can deny this - even De Blasio himself doesn't work too hard at trying to do so.

Illustratively, we found out this week that De Blasio and his newlywed bride spent part of their honeymoon in Castro's Cuba - a direct violation of US travel policy.  It turned out that even their children did not know about this

And, also this week, it came out that, in his earlier days, Mr. De Blasio was an avid supporter of the socialist/communist Sandinista movement in Nicaragua.

What effect might this information have on the Mayoral race?  Possibly a large one, given that almost exclusively among major US cities, New York has had no problem electing non-Democrats to the Mayoralty:  in fact, the last elected Democrat was David Dinkins, who served from 1990 to 1993.

Obviously, therefore, Mr. De Blasio would appreciate a bit of help to brush away any political reaction to this far-to-the-left-of-left association. 

Enter the New York Times.

Today, the Times published four letters to the editor about the De Blasio-Sandinista connection.  And guess what?  Every one of them is sympathetic to Mr. De Blasio.

How sympathetic?  Well, the heading for these letters is "Portrait of de Blasio as a Young Idealist" and the on-line intro says that "Readers cheer the early activism of Bill de Blasio, a New York mayoral candidate."

Keep in mind, of course, that the Times does not publish every letter it gets; these are the ones it specifically selected.

And what do these letters say? 

-We have letter-writer Mitch Horowitz remembering how he was involved with the same causes and how wonderful they were,

-Barbara Weinstein assuring us that the excesses of the Sandinistas were nothing compared to the USA's shameful Central America policy,

-Dr. Gary Slutkin enthusing over the similarity between how Sandinistas provided health care, just like he did in Somalia, 

- and Marc Edelman, who starts his letter with "Viva de Blasio!". 

In this regard, a special thanks to the Times, for picking four letter-writers with clearly Jewish names. 

If the Times' idea was to reassure Jews that they all are in left wing solidarity together, it didn't being one of countless living proofs it is not so.  But it certainly gave the anti-Semitic crowd - the ones who "know" that all Jews are a bunch of pinko communists - some major nourishment.

Do you find it as hard to believe as I do that 100% of the sentiment regarding De Blasio's history of support for Sandinistas is positive?  If so, then you should be as disgusted with this obvious "we have your back" display by the Times.

But don't expend all your disgust over this one example.  It is a virtual certainty that there will be more just like it in the 5 1/2 weeks to Election Day.


Ken Berwitz

Did you know that there may be a connection between aaron alexis, the Washington DC Navy Yard shooter, and Islam?

Read this paragraph from Kyle Eppler, Pete Williams and Erin McClam's article at NBC News and decide for yourself:

Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Alexis created a webpage with the name "Mohammed Salem," but they said he never did anything with it. They said they had found nothing else that might indicate any interest in violent jihad or even in Islam.

First question: have you seen or heard this anywhere else?  I'm betting the answer is no.

Second question:  how prominently is this possible connection being presented in the article?  Answer:  It is buried as paragraph #21 out of 36.

Third question:  while there is no necessary connection between alexis' creation of the "Mohammed Salem" web page and Islamic jihad,  is it not at least newsworthy enough to report, so that people might make up their own minds?  If so, how come, other than this single, bare-bones mention, virtually no other mainstream media are doing so?

But they sure as hell are reporting about Ted Cruz's 21 hour "filibuster", aren't they?  And they sure are speculating about how self-serving this must be for him, aren't they?

Still wondering why I have so much contempt for mainstream media?  I would hope not.


Ken Berwitz

This is one blog I don't even have to write.  It has been done for me.

Read these excerpts from Avik Roy's article in Forbes Magazine and you'll understand why:

For months now, we've been waiting to hear how much Obamacare will drive up the cost of health insurance for people who purchase coverage on their own. Last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally began to provide some data on how Americans will fare on Obamacare's federally-sponsored insurance exchanges. HHS' press release is full of happy talk about how premiums will be "lower than originally expected." But the reality is starkly different.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

Finally, with less than a week to go before the exchanges are supposed to go on-line, HHS has released a slim, 15-page report and a press release that summarize some of the premium data.

"Premiums nationwide will also be around 16 percent lower than originally expected," HHS cheerfully announces in its press release. But that's a ruse. HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like-in 2016-to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect.

Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin agrees. "There are literally no comparisons to current rates. That is, HHS has chosen to dodge the question of whose rates are going up, and how much. Instead they try to distract with a comparison to a hypothetical number that has nothing to do with the actual experience of real people."

I love that part about "16% lower than originally expected".  See how the Obama administration shamelessly plays "let's pretend" to get the fraudulent, pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes result it wants you to think is real?  If that doesn't infuriate you from head to toe, congratulations:  you are a perfect foil for the ObamaCare people; just what they dream about.

ObamaCare is a monstrosity.  It is a disaster.  Most of the country does not want it, as poll after poll after poll clearly shows. 

But mainstream media - i.e. Obama's Accomplice Media - want it.  So we don't get this kind of information from most of them.

After all, isn't nationalized health care -the ultimate goal of ObamaCare - that wonderful model so many of them think is working so well in Canada, and therefore would be peachy in the USA too.

Well, here, from the most recent Fraser Institute Report, are a few realities of Canada's health care system which might intrigue you.

Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10

Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 17.7 weeks

between referral from a general practitioner and elective

treatment in 2012.


Patients wait longest for orthopaedic surgery (39.6 weeks)

and wait least for medical oncology treatment (4.1 weeks).


After an appointment with a specialist, Canadians wait

approximately 3 weeks longer than what physicians believe

is "reasonable" for elective treatment.

"You have cancer.  So I'll get someone to see, maybe next month".  Is that how you would like health care to operate here? 

It is long past time for the Republican Party - and whichever Democrats (I suspect there are more than a few) who realize what ObamaCare is, to grow some gonads and do something about it.  In the immortal words of Warden Norton of The Shawshank Redemption, "Not tomorrow.  Not after breakfast.  NOW".

free' Ken, did you see the report that says obamacare is already missing 67 million dollars? They don't know where it went. (09/25/13)


Remember Wendy Davis?  She is the obscure Texas State Senator who filibustered a piece of abortion legislation which she had little or no chance of stopping.  The legislation passed, and she was declared a major hero by mainstream media - a champion of women's rights.  Based on this "triumph", she is now actively running for Governor.

Remember Ted Cruz?  He is the US Senator who, in essence, filibustered the ObamaCare legislation to prevent a vote which he has little or no chance of stopping.  He was declared an idiot by mainstream media, a stupid, teabagging moron, an embarrassment.

And these "journalists" wonder why people call them biased???????

Holy excrement.


It can't have been the Democrats, right?  So it must have been the Republicans.

Excerpted from Mary Williams Walsh's article in the New York Times (the bold print is mine):

Detroit's municipal pension fund made undisclosed payments for decades to retirees, active workers and others above and beyond normal benefits, costing the struggling city billions of dollars, according to an outside actuary hired to examine the payments.

The payments included bonuses to retirees, supplements to workers not yet retired and cash to the families of workers who died too young to get a pension, according to a report by the outside actuary and other sources.

How much each person received is not known because payments were not disclosed in the annual reports of the fund.

Detroits pension trustees, and their lawyers, were unavailable on Wednesday to comment on the extra payments.

Joseph Harris, who served as Detroit's independent auditor general from 1995 to 2005, said the payments were approved by the pension board of trustees, and it would have been useless for the city to have tried to stop them during his term.

"It was like dandelions," he said. "You just accept them. They were there, something you've seen all your life."

When asked on what legal authority the trustees made the payments, Mr. Harris said, "My understanding was, it had to be approved by city council, and council was under the belief that the money was there - that the pension funds were earning the money, with the consideration that in bad times the city would be making up the difference. I hate to say that. Ultimately, the fund has to be funded by the taxpayers.

It was like dandelions?  This is an explanation?

Ultimately, the fund has to be funded by the taxpayers?  What taxpayers?  Just about everyone who actually pays taxes ran away from this debacle of a "city" years ago.

So who is to blame?  

Since we all know it can't be Democrats - I mean, why would they have anything to do with its current situation, given that they've only run Detroit as a one-party fiefdom for the past half century?  

So I guess it must be Republicans.

Either that or the guy who puts down dandelion killer.


Ken Berwitz

Sometimes the most hated people are the ones who, by showing how deeply principled they are, show others up for their lack of principles.

I don't know if I agree with what Ted Cruz is doing, and it is a very long shot that it will work, even a little bit.  But I greatly admire him for doing it.


Ken Berwitz

How did President Barack Obama's day go at the UN yesterday?

Well, if you read the lead editorial in today's New York Times, he made a forceful, thoughtful positive speech, clarifying his international views and his vision for the future.  Really good day.

If you read Maureen Dowd's column, however, you find out what a disaster it was - and how ironic is it that the mostly Obama-loving Dowd is the one providing at least a modicum of honesty about how bad things were for Mr. Obama, thus for us.

A few excerpts from the Dowd column:

The man formerly hailed as a messiah was having a bad day.

The Iranians snubbed him. The Brazilians upbraided him. Ted Cruz fauxlibustered him. And you just know that, behind the scenes, the Russians were messing with him.

With the welcome exit of the provincial Iranian fruitbat, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could the country W. declared part of the "axis of evil" reach out to the country smeared as the "Great Satan" by Ayatollah Khomeini? Obama administration officials at the U.N. on Tuesday explained to reporters that there would not be a bilateral between President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, or any sort of "formal meeting."

"We're not prepared for heads of state to negotiate or presidents to negotiate on the nuclear issue," an official said, speaking on background. An "encounter" would be permissible. Not a long one, but an "informal, brief encounter."

"So," a reporter asked, "like a handshake?"

"Yes, that type of thing," the official replied. "Exactly. On the margins here."

Except that, after the White House spent a week suggesting that there could be a press-the-flesh moment, Rouhani snubbed Obama. And not on the margins.

Poor President Obama, trying to figure out if the Russians and Iranians are offering trick or treat to America on W.M.D., as he lurches about with a foreign policy played out extemporaneously and ambivalently in "Obama's brain and Ben Rhodess mouth," as The New Republic's Leon Wieseltier puts it. (An internal Israeli government document, The Washington Post reported, dismissed Rouhani's charm offensive as "smile but enrich.")

And poor Hillary Clinton, having to watch as the diplomatic breakthroughs, albeit haphazard and possibly illusory, happen on John Kerry's watch, making her tenure look even more like that of a globe-trotting good-will ambassador.  

Does that look like a good day to you?  For either current President Obama or would-be President Clinton?

It is a measure of how far our country has fallen in international esteem under Barack Obama, that the head of a country which supports and abets terrorism throughout much of the world does not think it is worthwhile to even pretend there is any reason to deal with him - therefore, us.

It is a measure of how low our expectations have become during this woefully inept, incompetent administration that we have gone from Hillary Clinton - a useless Secretary of State whose main accomplishment in four years was overseeing the Benghazi massacre, ducking hearings about it for four months, then whining "what difference does it make" why it happened - to John Kerry, who is happy to play diplomatic patty-cake with people who hate our guts, congenitally lie to our faces, and could not care less if they make good on anything they say to us.

And it is a measure of how low the New York Times has sunk that this comes across as a good day for the President, thus the country. 

(The next blog will also talk about what a left-wing doctrinaire joke The Times has become.  Stay tuned.)

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!!