Tuesday, 31 December 2013


Ken Berwitz

On Sunday, the New York Times published an "investigative report" (at least what passes for one at the Times these days) by its Cairo Bureau Chief, David Kirkpatrick. 

In it, Mr. Kirkpatrick worked very hard to try and convince us that the deadly attack on our Benghazi facility was not a premeditated action spearheaded by al nusra, an al qaeda-affiliated terrorist group, but mostly due to an obscure video no one ever heard of - a claim that has been derided and debunked by countless sources across the political spectrum.  Even President Barack Obama, after lying about the video for weeks and sending his acolyte Susan Rice out to lie about it as well, eventually stopped trying to sell this ridiculous load of BS and admitted it was a terrorist attack.

But, nonetheless, due to people like David Kirkpatrick, the story is still out there.  And if people are buying it, there is little doubt that it will help the presumed presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State when the Benghazi attack took place.

Well, one of the people not buying it is columnist Wes Pruden, who took a run at Mr. Kirpatrick's claims in yesterday's Washington Times.  He does an excellent job too. 

While I urge you to read the entire piece, let me post just a few of his more salient points:

Transparency, the current vogue word for truth-telling, is usually a good thing, unless you're trying to fool all the people some of the time, like spending 7,000 words to resurrect a fairy tale in Benghazi, all to give a helping hand to a lady in distress.

The New York Times understands that Hillary Clinton is likely to be the only credible hope the Democrats have for 2016 and that she already needs lots of remedial help. The Times huffed and puffed to deliver an excuse for betrayal in Benghazi, meant to second Mrs. Clinton's famous alibi for her tortured misfeasance as secretary of state - "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

It's important to Hillary and her presidential campaign, now in its early planning, to repeat the con that al Qaeda was not in any way involved, because Mr. Obama was supposed to have killed al Qaeda graveyard dead when he dispatched Navy SEALs to terminate Osama bin Laden with extreme prejudice.

Benghazi remains the most toxic example of feckless incompetence and criminal impotence in the face of crisis that will be the legacy of Barack Obama's presidency. Hillary Clinton was part of that, and she shares the legacy of Benghazi that will haunt her for the rest of her life. Ours, too, alas.

Most people I have spoken to, regardless of how they feel about Hillary Clinton, assume out of hand that she Clinton will be the Democrats' candidate for President in 2016.  Me?  I'm not so sure - partly because Ms. Clinton was also the no-doubt candidate of 2008 (which obviously didn't happen) and partly because I have this visceral hunch, admittedly based on nothing specific, that she has physical problems which will preclude a presidential run.

But, regardless of whether Ms. Clinton runs, she remains a person with 40 years as a public figure and - other than successfully cultivating a media cheering section which loves her to pieces - virtually no accomplishments to show for it. 

In fact, a very good argument can be made that the disaster she oversaw in Benghazi is the single biggest accomplishment of those 40 years.


Ken Berwitz

This blog is written in case there is anyone left who still believes that there is no such thing as voter fraud.

Excerpted from John Fund's piece for nationalreview.com:

New York City's Department of Investigation (DOI) has just shown how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. Its undercover agents were able to obtain ballots for city elections a total of 61 times - 39 times using the names of dead people, 14 times using the names of incarcerated felons, and eight times using the names of non-residents. On only two occasions, or about 3 percent of the time, were the agents stopped by polling-place officials. In one of the two cases, an investigator was stopped only because the felon he was trying to vote in the name of was the son of the election official he was dealing with.

Ballot security in checking birth dates or signatures was so sloppy that young undercover agents were able to vote using the name of someone three times their age who had died. As the New York Post reports: "A 24-year female was able to access the ballot at a Manhattan poll site in November under the name of a deceased female who was born in 1923 and died in April 25, 2012 - and would have been 89 on Election Day." All of the agents who got ballots wrote in the names of fictitious candidates so as not to actually influence election outcomes.

Fund goes on to cite the James O'Keefe videos of people committing overtly obvious voter fraud and getting away with no problem at all - which I blogged about over a year ago.

Does voter fraud exist?  Of course it does.  Pretty much everyone knows it does, too; even the lying frauds - virtually every one of the Democrat - who demand that there be no requirement of a valid ID for people to cast their ballots.

There is one reason and one reason only to demand that people vote without an ID, and that is to make it easier for voter fraud to take place.

Pretty much everyone knows that too.  Don't you?


Ken Berwitz

Every December, the Media Research Center compiles a list of "notable quotables", in which they remind us of the year's most ridiculous/outrageous/idiotic comments made by leftward "journalists" and commentators (yes, there is a lot to choose from on the right as well, but for this blog I'm only doing the left).

If you want to see the entire range of notable quotables, use the link I've provided above.  Ditto if you want to see what MRC has chosen as the most outrageous quote of the year.  Hint:  it came from Martin Bashir and resulted in him losing his show on (where else?) MSNBC.

But this blog is being written to celebrate (if that's the right word) what I consider to be the single most idiotic quote of the year - one that I did not know about until reading it at MRC's web site(probably because it was made during the height of the Hobby Lobby furor, when my attention was, to say the least, a bit diverted).

It comes to us from Ed Schultz  a nasty, malevolent supposed leftist (I say supposed because he started his political commentary career as a conservative, so I don't know if the switch was real or just because he was able to make more $$$ on the other side.  ).  Schultz said the following words about the ObamaCare web site during his September 30 show on (where else) MSNBC - just hours before it was launched:

"This is the Web site folks, HealthCare.gov. If you go to this Web site, you will find out how easy it is to read, how easy it is to navigate all the information, all the basic questions, and all the direction you need to take to get involved, to get health care. This is a great guide, if I may say, for any of you out there who feel so confused by all of these right-wing commercials that are just permeating through your television screen."

So how'd that launch thingie work out, Ed?   

Are you laughing at what a fool Schultz made of himself by jumping the gun and telling us how fabulous the ObamaCare web site was before knowing what he was talking about?  Me too.

Are you not at all surprised that Ed Schultz would comment on something - the ObamaCare web site or anything else, for that matter - before knowing what he was talking about?  If so, me too again.

And will you be at all surprised if, despite how idiotic this comment made him look, Schultz will continue to do so in 2014?  If so, that's three out of three.


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).  Ms. Norton, a hardline Democrat, major Obama supporter and lover of ObamaCare, was on (where else?) MSNBC.

When asked if it was realistic that ObamaCare would meet its 7 million sign-up goal by March 3, here is what Ms. Norton had to say, :

"Oh, sure!

"Look what you saw, you saw. You saw double the number that had signed up on just the days before January 1st. We all do the same thing. Last minute. And when that fine is gonna kick in, you're gonna see people trottin' to sign on like you've never seen it before.

"Let me tell you what tells me (this might happen). What we have been battling now is first, every time the house couldn't think of anything else to do it had a big debate on, on repealing ObamaCare. So there are millions of people out there who think it was repealed. So there was no way to break throught that, that very easily. Then comes the debacle of a web site, which seemed to confirm that it must have been repealed or it should have been repealed. Now, for the first time, after weathering the most negative propaganda campaign from within the congress in history, and the worst web site, we're able to get out what really is happening."


Let's review.  According to Ms. Norton:

-People tend to do things at the last minute - hard to argue with that.

-The threat of a fine will cause people to be "trottin' to sign on like you've never seen it before".  Keep in mind that the fine is far less than the cost of the insurance, and you can sign on at any time, even if you have pre-conditions, so if a major health care cost befalls you, the fact that you had opted to pay the fine and no health care premiums until then is no problem at all.  Does that bode well for Ms. Norton's assessment?  No, of course not.

-The web site was a debacle.  No argument there.

-Congress (wrong, Ms. Norton: only the house) conducted the most negative campaign in history against ObamaCare - which is absolutely ludicrous.  The house, and the senate, have had countless battles every bit as negative as this, and more so.

-But now we are beyond all that and ObamaCare supporters are "able to get out what's really happening".  Which, of course, is why all the latest polls, conducted this month, show the public continues to think of ObamaCare as an unadulterated disaster.

I award Eleanor Holmes Norton Quote Of The Day honors for her herculean effort to make this unpopular, unworkable monstrosity look like it is on the cusp of being a huge success.  It takes a lot of political hackery, a lot of delusion, and a lot of just plain BS to try making that case...and Ms. Norton apparently has a surfeit of all three.  My congratulations to her for showing them all so clearly.


Ken Berwitz

Let me end 2013's blogging on a positive note.

I wish everyone a very happy new year, and a very happy, satisfying, 2014!!!


Ken Berwitz

David Shepard "Shep" Smith is a news anchor at Fox News Channel (FNC) - he hosts "Shepard Smith Reporting at 3PM on weekdays.

Mr. Smith apparently is bisexual:  he was married to his college sweetheart, Virginia Donald for 6 years, then divorced.  If the reports I have read are correct, he is now involved in a relationship with a male producer at FNC.

What you have just read is nobody's business but Shepard Smith's.  So why am I posting it here?

Because enough of the snarky jerks who have it in for anyone associated with Fox News Channel have outed him at other blog sites - the latest being Josh Barro at businessinsider.com, (who does it by innuendo; he hasn't got the courage to mention Smith by name),  that I thought someone who a) has no problem with FNC and b) has no problem with people who are gay, should mention it too.

Tell me: does what you now know about Shep Smith's sexual orientation (assuming you didn't know it already) change one thing about how he reports the news?  Nope.  

Does it demonstrate that FNC, which the left condemns regularly as a bunch of mouth-breathing neanderthals, does not hire and fire news anchors based on their personal sexual orientations?  Yep. 

But don't expect any bouquets to FNC from the Josh Barros of the world for the network's openness in this regard.  That would spoil their little narrative about Fox, wouldn't it?

What a bunch of hypocrites they are.


Ken Berwitz

You won't need me to explain that title.  Just read the following excerpts from an article published by Agence France Presse and posted at breitbart.com:

Italy's highest court has overturned the conviction of a 60-year-old man for having sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the verdict failed to take into account their "amorous relationship".

Pietro Lamberti, a social services worker in Catanzaro in southern Italy, was convicted in February 2011 and sentenced to five years in prison for sexual acts with a minor.

The verdict was later upheld by an appeals court.

But Italy's supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider "the 'consensus', the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl's feelings of love".

An 11 year old girl's "feelings of love" for a 60 year old pedophile? What else does the Italian supreme court think 11 year olds are competent to make decisions about? 

 Will they let them drive cars? Drink liquor? Join the Italian armed forces? 

Does this get any sicker?

I can almost hear Amanda Knox saying "Yep, that's the Italian judicial system, all right."


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I wrote a "Real Racism" blog about hard leftist Melissa Harris-Perry and her just-as-hard-leftist panel tossing sarcastic, insulting taunts at Mitt Romney and his family over the fact that one of Romney's adopted grandchildren is Black. 

At that time I called them smug, sanctimonious, racist jerks.  Because they were.

Well, after countless other web sites had the same reaction, a now-contrite, chastened Harris-Perry has this to say, via her twitter account:

"I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family.

"As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/ Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise."

"I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices"

It, of course, is up to Mitt Romney and his family to accept or reject that apology. And, knowing what I do about the Romneys, I would put the odds of them accepting it at about 100%.

Speaking for myself, I am trying to give Melissa Harris-Perry the benefit of the doubt.  But given that she is no stranger to this kind of snide, left-wing, sanctimonious garbage, and given that her show is on (where else?) MSNBC, which revels in snide, left-wing, sanctimonious garabage, I have to admit I'm struggling with it.

Let's just leave it at the fact that she might be sincere, and the hope that she, in fact, is.


UPDATE:  FYI: MSNBC, the network, has issued no statement, not one word regretting if the comments Melissa Harris-Perry (or other panel members who are also apologizing) came across as offensive.  Nothing.

Just as MSNBC, the network, issued no statement when Martin Bashir told his audience Sarah Palin would be "an outstanding candidate" for someone to defecate in her mouth, and urinate on her face and in her mouth.

If there is a lower class, more shameful network in television history you'll have to tell me which it is, because I have never come across one.

How proud NBC must be to have this festering pus pimple as its sister network.  How proud NBC must be to pay its President, phil griffin - the "man"  who would be issuing apologies if MSNBC had the decency to do so - a king's ransom for offering this kind of programming under its banner.

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!!