Tuesday, 24 February 2015


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, while talking about the imbecilic comment by State Department/Obama spokesperson Marie Harf that we have to fight terrorism by delving into the "root causes" (we're not supposed to know that it has anything to do with radical Islam, you see) and finding good jobs for the terrorists .

  I doubt you'll need much analysis from me to explain what Mr. Sekulow is trying to say:

"Now we know why apocalyptic jihadists rule vast stretches of the Middle East, beheading and burning alive all who oppose them.  Because it's too hard to start a business in Syria.

"At least that's the verdict of State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, who declared earlier this week that fighting the Islamic State terror group, or ISIS, means focusing on 'root causes,' like economic conditions that make it easier for young Muslim men to pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business.  She was roundly mocked for this statement, but was only giving voice to the president's own ideology.

"This is the language of an anti-poverty program - more suitable for the war on poverty launched in the 1960's by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson.  This is not the language of war ... And it betrays willful ignorance of the facts and of the nature of our enemy.

"There is no significant connection between poverty and jihadist terror.  Of the 10 poorest nations in the world, only one - Somalia - is on the global index of the Top 10 most affected by terrorism."

Harf-witted BS like that must not go unanswered.  And you don't get answers much clearer - or more accurate - than what Mr. Sekulow has said...which is why he wins Quote Of The Day honors.

Mr. Sekulow:  please continue to speak up.

Ms. Harf:  please, please, please shut up. 


Ken Berwitz

I can't say I'm a big fan of Ted Cruz.  He is well to my right on political issues and dramatically to my right on social issues. 

But when he's right - meaning correct - he's right.

And Senator Cruz is right about his decision against supporting Loretta Lynch to replace eric holder as Attorney General.

Here are his reasons, excerpted from his commentary at politico.com.  See if you agree:

Personally, I wanted to support Ms. Lynch's nomination. Six years of Eric Holder has done enormous damage, and Ms. Lynch's service as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York has earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor. However, the answers she gave at her confirmation hearing are, in my view, disqualifying for serving as our nation's chief law enforcement officer.

When asked how she would be different from Eric Holder-the most partisan attorney general our nation has ever seen-she could identify no meaningful way she would differ from him.

When asked whether she would defend President Obama's illegal executive amnesty-which Obama himself acknowledged, 22 times, he had no authority to undertake and which a federal court has just enjoined as unlawful-she responded affirmatively, saying that she thought the Administration's contrived legal justification was "reasonable."

When asked the limits of "prosecutorial discretion," the dubious theory President Obama has put forth to justify his executive amnesty, she could give none.

When asked if it would allow the President to extend amnesty to all 12 million people here illegally ... she refused to answer.

When asked who has "more right to a job," a U.S. citizen or a person here illegally, she responded, "I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here."

When asked if a subsequent President could use "prosecutorial discretion" to order the Treasury Secretary to no longer collect any income taxes above 25 percent ... she refused to answer.

When asked if a subsequent President could use the same theory to exempt the State of Texas from every single federal labor law and environmental law ... she refused to answer.

These are extreme, radical positions.

When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department's view (rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court) that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every American, without probable cause ... she refused to answer.

When asked if she agreed with the Holder Justice Department's view (also rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court) that the First Amendment gives no protection whatsoever to a church's or synagogue's choice of pastor or rabbi ... she refused to answer.

When asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, if that citizen posed no imminent threat ... she refused to answer.

And when asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS's targeting of citizens for their political views-a prosecutor who was not a major Obama donor, as is the current lawyer leading the "investigation" ... she refused to answer.

This is breathtaking-and brazen.

No senator who takes his or her oath of office seriously should vote to confirm such a nominee.

Is Senator Cruz correct to feel that a person holding these views, and unwilling to answer those kinds of questions, should not be confirmed as Attorney General?

Personally, I couldn't agree more.

Now: how much of this testimony - this damning testimony - have you seen or read in mainstream media venues?  Little or nothing, like me?

Y'know, you could almost get the impression that these folks do not want you to know who Loretta Lynch is...so you won't raise any firestorm about her possible ascension to the Attorney General position.

Why do you suppose they might withhold negative information about an Obama appointment?  Could it possibly be media bias?

That's like asking if 15 degree below zero temperature and a 40 mile per hour wind could possibly be a reason to wear an overcoat.

Shar Let us not forget how controversial Alberto Gonzales was as Attorney General. Eric Holder may only be the most polarizing Attorney General in history to the most proven to be biased of the news media, i.e. Fox News. But then, the beat goes on doesn't it? And to quote another classic - we didn't start the fire. (02/24/15)


Ken Berwitz

Did you hear that there were 90 random abductions in Syria? 

According to Suleiman Al-Khalidi's article at Reuters:

Islamic State militants have abducted at least 90 people from Assyrian Christian villages in northeastern Syria, a monitoring group tracking violence in Syria said on Tuesday.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said they carried out dawn raids on rural villages inhabited by the ancient Christian minority west of Hasaka, a city mainly held by the Kurds.

And what a coincidence that they all are Christian. 

Hey, why are you looking that way?  What's wrong with you?  Of course it is a coincidence  It must be, since we all know that ISIS doesn't base its actions on religious grounds;  no less an authority than President Obama told us so. 

Don't you remember that random attack on a kosher grocery in Paris, which occurred Friday afternoon - exactly the time it would be crowded with shoppers preparing for Shabbos, the Jewish Sabbath, which started at sundown?  Wasn't that a coincidence too?

On the other hand, maybe it's just an inadvertent mix-up.  I mean, since President Obama calls it ISIL instead of ISIS, it could be that he thinks these are different people; nice people who would never impose their Islamic beliefs on anyone else, or use Islam as the basis for murdering people in the most gruesome ways they can think of.

Say, I have an idea. 

How about if President Obama stops trying to sound smarter than everyone else by calling it ISIL instead of ISIS - the way he tries to sound smarter than everyone else by pronouncing it TAHL-ee-bohn instead of taliban, stop pretending that radical Islamic groups are neither radical nor Islamic, and start worrying more about doing something to stop them, than flaunting his self-perceived intellectual superiority?

Wasn't ISIS the group Mr. Obama sneeringly referred to as a "jayvee squad" just one year ago?  Isn't the sad reality that, in fact, ISIS has shown the world the jayvee squad is Obama & Co. instead?  And aren't people are dying because lying about the strength of radical Islam instead of acting against it has caused ISIS, al qaeda, etc. to become hugely powerful and concomitantly more murderous?

Less than two years of this nightmare to go.  I count the seconds.


Ken Berwitz

How does Israel find itself in an alliance - temporary, I assure you - with Saudi Arabia, the wahabi Islam capital of the planet?

A common enemy, that's how.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Saudi Arabia is floating the idea of allowing use of its air space for Israel to attack Iran.  The price?  Israel has to promise that it will try to make progress in a peaceful settlement with Palestinian Arabs - which sounds suspiciously like nothing more than a vague pretext which can be used to explain the Saudis' "accommodation" with Israel to other Arab states.

 (I put the word accommodation in quotation marks, because it isn't really an accommodation at all.  Since the Saudis are every bit as fearful of Iran as Israel, it is a chance for them to get the benefit of an Israeli strike without having to lift a finger.)

The J-Post article goes on to point out that Saudi Arabia is not the only Middle East Arab state worried about Iran gaining nuclear capability...thus, presumably, not the only Middle East Arab state which would not mind at all if Israel decimated the nuclear facilities there.

And if that were to happen?  Then Israel would be the one condemned at the United Nations - most probably joined  (at least publicly) by the Arab-state beneficiaries cited above - who, in the absence of the Iran nuclear issue, could then go back to hating Israel and rooting for its demise.  In other word, back to business as usual.

Like I said:  common enemies make strange bedfellows.


Ken Berwitz

ESPN, one of the remaining cable venues still willing to put up with Keith Olbermann, has suspended him for the rest of the week because of some nasty, sarcastic tweets he tossed at Penn State students.

You can read the exchanges by clicking here.

I have to wonder what, exactly, ESPN thought it was getting with Olberman.  Didn't his experiences at Fox, and MSNBC, and the late, unlamented Current TV, tell them something?

Keith Olbermann is an extremely intelligent, extremely articulate, extremely knowledgeable...and extremely obnoxious, extremely insulting pain in the anal cavity.  The folks at ESPN didn't know that?  That's like not knowing that Derek Jeter was liked by Yankee fans.

Well, he's gone from ESPN for the rest of the week.  And, if history is any indicator, the game clock is again ticking on his tenure at a cable venue.  I'd say midway through the fourth quarter, with little chance of overtime.

For whatever it is worth, I offer Keith Olbermann a guest editorial here, on any subject he cares to delve into - including what he thinks of me.  I guarantee no censorship of any kind...only a possible rebuttal on a separate blog.

I concede writing something here is a major downgrade from where Olbermann has been.  But, hey, I figure he's running out of alternatives.

Tick tock tick tock tick tock


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political....

Here is a quick driving insight.

If the car in front of you is a van, with:

-one or more religious symbols,

-one or more "be nice" stickers (e.g. "let's put the civil back in civilization" or "remember please and thank you" - like the one that was in front of me before I got to where I'm posting this),

-has matchstick-images of mommy, daddy, the kids and one or more dogs and cats,

-and it is doing more than three miles an hour over the speed limit....

....it's a good bet the van is stolen.

Ok, back to politics, where stealing is not a car issue, it is an art form.


Ken Berwitz

Well, it only took three years.

Today, the eric holder-led Department of Justice gave up.

It tried.  God knows, it tried.  But it could not make a viable case against George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Any more than it could make a viable case against officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.

Black lives matter.  But sometimes Black lives are lost due to the actions of the Black people who lose those lives.

If eric holder really gives a damn about Black lives - if he really thinks that Black lives matter - maybe he can tell us what he has done over his years as Attorney General to stem the tidal wave of Black murders - an average of slightly over 17 per day based on the most recent statistics - most of which are young Black males killing other young Black males.

Do those lives matter? 

Or do Black lives matter to the eric holders of the world only when they can be exploited for racial politics ---which is a nice way of saying that if Black people are kept in a state of racial agitation they may come out in greater numbers to vote for Democrats?

free` Zeke, Hillary Clinton explained why you are wrong on this issue and every other issue that you know about. Here is the interview Clinton gave on NET Takeover -- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained that “different media” are dividing the country, making it impossible for people to even have a conversation with each other. Clinton made her remarks yesterday in an interview with Re/Code’s Kara Swisher. She criticized America’s “partisan bunkers” for getting in the way of confronting tough issues like racism, sexism and homophobia. “Nobody wants to associate with anybody who doesn’t agree with them politically,” she said. “You can’t have a conversation, people won’t listen to each other, they listen to different media, and those different media (outlets) tell different stories about the very same thing that you’re watching unfold in front of your eyes.” ---------------------- End of Clinton Remarks. So you see we need to go back to just the left-wing reporting. Hope that has cleared up the your disagreement with Warren, he must read and watch the correct media, while you and I are morons. (02/25/15)

Zeke . . . . . . . . . . Well, the US Attorney General (Eric the Red) doesn't agree with you. . . . . . . . The FACTS are that Martin jumped Zimmerman and was pounding his head against the concrete sidewalk. . . . . . . (Just a friendly Knockout Game). . . . . . . . . . Zimmerman did not stand a chance, especially when Martin started reaching for the gun. . . . . . The situation was "him or me" - - - and Martin is solely responsible for that situation. . . . . . . . . . (02/25/15)

Warren This is a OJ level tragedy. Zimmerman will pay for this the rest of his life in the court of public opinion. As he should. (02/24/15)

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!!