Tuesday, 15 October 2013


Ken Berwitz

I watched NBC-New York's newcast last night to see whether it would report that New Jersey US Senate candidate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, apparently is registered to vote from a home that he clearly does not live in - a vacant property at 435 Hawthorne Avenue in Newark. 

Charles C. Johnson, an investigative reporter for dailycaller.com looked inside the windows and saw that it was vacant, but that it was guarded by the police.  He then interviewed residents who confirmed that Mr. Booker does not live there (though one says he shows up "once in a blue moon" and last saw him there about four years ago):

The story also notes that the address Mayor Booker used to file for his senate run is not a residence at all; it is a P.O. Box.

This, of course leaves open the question of where Cory Booker does live.  Where does he lay his head at night?  Is it in New Jersey at all, or - as a couple of interviewees suspect - is it in New York.  And if he lives out of state, how exactly can he legally run for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey?

Obviously, we are talking about a highly newsworthy story.  And, just as obviously, the two key issues are 1) confirmation of whether Mr. Booker does or does not live where he claims to, and b) if not, where he does live.

So how did NBC news handle this?  New Jersey reporter Brian Thompson showed us video of Mr. Lonegan demanding to know where Booker really lived, and said Lonegan "based his charge on this just-released video produced by a prominent conservative conspiracy filmmaker". (Is that supposed to answer anything?  Or is the idea that we're supposed to discount the charge, based not on facts but on a sneering put-down of the person who shot the video?) 

Mr. Thompson then showed footage of Mayor Booker on the campaign trail and said he answered the charge "indirectly".  Mr. Booker's "indirect answer?  "Well, that's laughable...."  and then an attack on Lonegan's positions.  In other words, no answer whatsoever.  And, of course, no follow-up question about where he lived.

Here is a sampling of how some of the print media are handling this issue:

-The New York Times?  No report at all.

-The Newark Star-Ledger, New Jersey's largest-circulation newspaper?  An article which puts up the claims, but points out that other people claim to have seen Mr. Booker regularly around the 435 Hawthorne address.  Fair enough - but that doesn't answer anything, it shows only that there is a controversy over whethere he lives there. 

-The New York Post?  An article which claims that Booker no longer lived at 435 Hawthorne, he just moved to another Newark property he owns:  19 Longworth Street (FYI - 19 Longworth is a "murder house" which Booker bought for a song a couple of years ago):

But a source at the Essex County Board of Elections said Booker is registered to vote from another house, 19 Longworth St., which he owns.

Booker's campaign confirmed that the candidate moved from the Hawthorne house to Longworth a "a few week ago ago" and had changed his voting address before the deadline.

A Longworth neighbor confirmed to The Post that Booker was a resident.

"I saw him leave two weeks ago from next door with his boys," said Ayifo Aryeetui, 36, of 21 Longworth St., referring to Booker's security detail.

Do you really believe that a few weeks ago, in the heat of a US Senate campaign, Cory Booker suddenly decided to move?  How does that possibly square with the people near his supposed previous address who say they never saw him there before the "move"?  And what is the basis for believing he now lives on Longworth, other than one person who says he saw him there one time?

And this is before we go back to Charles C. Johnson's article, in which he claims that, like 435 Hawthorne, the 19 Longworth address is also vacant, other than for a police presence.  Johnson further notes that the Longworth address is not even listed on Mr. Booker's senate ethics disclosure.  Can anyone seriously believe he would not list his primary residence in that disclosure?

Here's a question for you:  why aren't a bunch of mainstream media people heading to the 19 Longworth Street residence so they can peek in as Charles C. Johnson claims to have done?  Take a picture or two?   See for themselves if it looks like the Mayor of the city just happened to move there during his senatorial campaign?  Ask which moving company he used and contact them for confirmation?

Or would that possibly lead them to a conclusion they are averse to reporting before Wednesday's election takes place?

This smells.  This smells to high heaven.  And media which are not quickly investigating it - before, not after tomorrow's special election - are not media at all.  They are Cory Booker campaign workers.

Zeke .... ..... .... Democrats are such LAZY Liars. . . . . Don't even TRY to make the Lie Believable. . . . . (10/15/13)


Ken Berwitz

Last year my wife and I looked forward to watching each episode of "Homeland" - Showtime's series about the who and how of keeping the USA safe from enemies, foreign and domestic.

This year, however, it seems to have, as the saying goes, "jumped the shark", with plot lines and situations which seems - at least to me, preposterous.

And now this:  Intelligence Officer Carrie Mathison (played very capably by Claire Danes) who has been railroaded into a mental hospital for reasons too involved to explain in a short blog, is visited by a lawyer, representing a "partner", whose name and motives remain unknown - but will help get her out of the mental hospital.  The lawyer tells Mathison  "we're on your side".

At this point, Mathison becomes very agitated, sarcastically says "Where have I heard that before", accuses the lawyer and his partner of thinking she is ripe to be "turned", and then says this to him:

"Well, I'm telling you no.  So whoever the hell you're working for, the Syrians, the Israelis, the Iranians, you tell them that.  You tell them I would rather die in here"


It's bad enough that the show has gone off the deep end plot-wise.  But can someone explain to me why it was necessary to lump Syria, whose unelected "President" has killed over 100,000 of his own people in less than three years, and Iran - one of the most, if not the most prolific exporters of terrorism around the world, with Israel?

Even if you believe Israel is an occupier of Palestinian lands and is terribly mistreating Palestinians - neither of which I would agree with, by the way - how does that even begin to stack up against what Syria or Iran are doing?   

And that is before we get to the fact that Syria and Iran are enemies of the United States, while Israel is one of our very staunchest allies. 

That said, I congratulate whoever wrote that line for his/her successful attack on Israel.  Mission accomplished.  But next time, how about trying to deal in something a tad closer to reality?  Who knows, maybe it would help stanch the show's downward trajectory.


Ken Berwitz

Did you think the Obama administration has sunk as low as it can go in its effort to inflict needless pain on the people of this country so it can "prove" how disastrous the government shutdown is?

Well it has sunk even lower.

Now the 9/11 memorial in Shanksville, PA, where passengers forced the plain to crash in a field rather than hit its target, has been closed by the  (I suspect) heavily coerced National Park Service. 

Click here to read Katie Pavlich's account and see pictures.  Prepare to be disgusted.

FYI, the memorial sits in an outdoor field.  There is absolutely no reason of any kind to close it, and a near certainty that it costs more money to do so than to just keep it open.

That's how low this disgrace of an administration has sunk.  And, yes, if it can find a way to hit a new bottom in the future, you can count on that happening too.

Just as you can count on Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media to blame this on Republicans -- which is a demonstration that, in this case (among others), mainstream media have sunk just as low as the administration.

free` Ken wrote; " ...mainstream media have sunk just as low as the administration.." -------------------------- Even lower, we expect politicians to stretch the truth or even lie. Media on the other hand is/used to be the institution we rely/relied upon to sort through the BS and give us the real facts, the truth. At least that is what I thought they were there for. Maybe that has never been so and now because of the internet and C-span, we can see the media for what they have always been. (10/15/13)


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, our accountant was nice enough to pass along two paragraphs of a terrific quote, which came from an excellent speech that was made on the floor of the senate, on March 16, 2006. 

But I am not posting just those paragraphs.  There is so much excellence in this speech that I am posting it all - in the hopes that if, by some minor (ok, major) miracle President Obama comes upon my blog, he will read it.

With apologies for its length, here is the speech I am referring to:

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

Terrific.  What worthwhile words.

Now:  want to know who uttered them?  Ok, I'll tell you.

They came straight from the mouth of the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.  Who, in his first five years as President, increased our deficit twice as much as President Bush did during the same period of time ($7 trillion versus $3.5 trillion).

Boy how I wish President Obama would have listened to that guy.......

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!!