Wednesday, 04 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

About a year ago, give or take, I was "unfriended" on facebook by the former major league baseball player, then sportscaster, and more recently movie-maker of sorts, Billy Sample.

The reason?  I called him out on his unrelenting, often bizarre Israel-hating posts. 

After unfriending me, Sample put up a post that he was unfriending everyone else who supported Israel...which certainly made it easy for him thereafter.  No problem spouting hatred when everyone who can respond to it is nodding agreement.

Since then, I have periodically checked Sample's facebook page (being unfriended does not prevent you from seeing it, only from commenting on it).  And, not at all surprisingly, his hatred has not abated one bit.

Which brings me to the following item that was posted on his page Monday, the day before Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to congress.  I have decided to show it to you, and then comment on it.

Here is the item:

'The warped 'logic' of Zionism, that only corrupted media and politicians can try to pass off as logic. To any normal human being, the truth is obvious.'

And here is my point-by-point response - which Sample probably will never see, but is welcome to comment on if he does:

-Which country did Israel invade?  The only invasion of any countries in Israel's history have occurred as a reaction to Israel being attacked.  And if the reference is to Gaza, or Judea and Samaria (aka the west bank), you can add in the fact that neither of them is a country.

-The "apartheid walls" were built after a series of suicide bombers killed hundreds of innocent Israelis in shopping areas, restaurants and on busses - a little something which goes unmentioned here.  

Also unmentioned is that those same walls which keep terrorists out of Israel, keep the Palestinian Arabs - which comprise about 20% of Israel's entire population - in.  

That's quite an "apartheid" - keeping over 1.5 million of the people you're supposedly separating yourself from in the place where you are supposedly separating them from. Or, put another way, it is an obvious load of BS.

-Steal natural resources?  Which ones would those be?  Israel is notable for creating natural resources; for turning dessert land into thriving greenery.  Which Palestinian Arabs could do just by following Israel's lead.

As I have said many times in here, if Palestinian Arabs would stop trying to kill Israelis and start trying to learn from them, both sides would be 1000% better off.

-It is hard not to kill women and children, when Palestinian Arabs launch rocket and missile attacks aimed at Israeli population centers...from heavily populated civilian areas... 

...and when their brave "leaders" get in front of the cameras and instruct civilians - their own people - to stay put, even after Israel drops leaflets warning that an attack is about to take place...which some of them are happy to do voluntarily

When that happens, it shows that Israel, literally, cares more about the lives of Palestinian Arabs than their own "leaders" do.   Much better to have a body count of dead civilians Israel haters can use for propaganda purposes.

This leaves Israel with the choice of either protecting innocent Palestnian Arab lives by not firing back...thus allowing them to take free shots at Israeli civilians...or taking out the launch sites, inherently killing civilians to do so, and then having Israel-haters blame them for it instead of the real culprits.

-Israel's history is that it only attacks after either being attacked or if an attack is imminent (e.g. when four Arab armies massed their troops on Israel's borders in 1967).  By contrast, the hamas charter - which is now used by Fatah as well, since their "unity agreement" -  specifically calls for the annihilation of Israel and deaths of all Jews.  The one and only thing that stops them is Israel's (current) military superiority.

If Israel had wanted to annihilate Palestinian Arabs, it could do so at any time.  But it doesn't, does it?  This shows, with crystal clarity, the difference between these two cultures.

-The final words - a sarcastic reaction to the idea that Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors  - is my favorite part of this exercise in BS.  And it's not just because of the "thier" typo. 

Point of order:  Israel agreed to peace with Egypt in 1979.  It has not engaged in any military activity against Egypt since then.   Israel agreed to peace with Jordan in 1994.  It has not engaged in any military activity against Jordan since then. 

That is proof positive  - 36 years of it with Egypt, 21 with Jordan - that Israel can, and does, live in peace with Arab neighbors.  

And it is also proof that Arabs  - even Arabs who hate Israel, which Egypt and Jordan, I assure you, very much do, can live in peace with Israel. 

Now:  when have Palestinian Arabs ever shown they can live in peace with anyone?

This is the first blog I have written anything about Billy Sample's hatred of Israel in quite some time.  And unless there is a response to it which warrants something further, it will probably be the last one for quite some time as well. 



Ken Berwitz

This is an easy blog to write...because I'm not writing anything, just posting a series of links I pulled from the always-invaluable drudge report (



Private System Listed Under Mysterious, Untraceable Name...

Striking resemblance to longtime Clinton aide...

System said able to erase messages completely...

NYT: Email ruse thwarted information requests...

This is bad.  Very bad.  So bad that venues which have protected Hillary Clinton for years and years are not doing so now. 

Will it be enough to bring her presidential candidacy down - the one many (not all) of us assume she intends to run?

Will there be more revelations?  She better hope not, because they most assuredly would make her look worse, not better. 

Put another way, this scandal puts Ms. Clinton on a downhill  - make that a downHillary course...but one in which crossing the finish line would make her a loser, not a winner.

Keep watching...this is far from over.

Zeke . . . . . . . . . . . Couldn't happen to a more deserving harridan, shrew, termagant, virago, harpy, vixen, nag, hag, crone, dragon, ogress; fishwife, hellcat, she-devil, old bat, battle-ax, witch . . . . . . . . . . (03/04/15)

Zeke . . . . . . . . @ Josie and the Pussycats: . . . . . . . . . . Well, ' No Respect from You ' is hardly going to ruin anyone's day. . . . . You might, however, consider countering the charges that Hillary blatantly violated the law - - that is official misconduct. . . . . one more in an unbroken string of failures and mismanagements. . . . . . . . . . . (03/05/15)

Josie Keep dreaming. Zeke - such lovely words - you get no respect from me. (03/04/15)


Ken Berwitz

The following is a blog I wrote on January 1, 2009; over 6 years ago. 

Given that the "apartheid" BS is floating around again, like defecation in an unflushed toilet bowl, I thought it would be worth reposting...and hope you feel the same:


Ken Berwitz

Here is a short story from the Jerusalem Post.  It is about Israeli neighbors who huddle in a bomb shelter to protect themselves from the artillery fired at them from Gaza.  See if you notice anything unexpected:

In Beersheba, rockets bring Arab, Jewish neighbors together

Jan. 1, 2009

Beersheba looked like a ghost town Wednesday afternoon, as the sporadic wail of sirens and rattling booms of Grad rockets prompted many to stay within the relative safety of their homes, glued to their TVs and radios.

But in the city's Gimmel neighborhood - a heavily-Sephardi, working class bloc near the city center - people stood outside the entrance to a bomb shelter, passing the time with jokes and gossip while waiting anxiously for the next siren or boom.

"We didn't hear it this morning," Riki Yitzhak said. "The siren hasn't been working in this part of town at all, so we left our houses and came to the shelter. I'd rather stay here all day than go home."

Yitzhak explained that she and the others were crowded around the shelter's entrance and had just stepped outside to get a breath of fresh air.

"There are many more people downstairs," said a man who stood with the small crowd, his Hebrew peppered with an Arabic twang. "I'd say there are at least 50 people down there."

Down the flight of stairs and into the shelter's main room, it became apparent he had left out at least one unusual detail.

Sitting around the room, Jewish women pored over books of Psalms and other religious texts, while Arab women, dressed in traditional head coverings and long, modest dresses, sat next to them, knitting scarfs and caps for their young children who waited nearby.

"Look at this," Yitzhak said as she followed the crowd back down the stairs. "This is a mixed neighborhood - Jews and Arabs live here together, and we're all suffering from the rockets together. These women are scared just like we are, and they're our neighbors - we decided that we should all stay down here together."

Indeed, the Arab families, mostly Beduin, said they were happy to be with their Jewish neighbors in the shelter, and that they abhorred the rocket fire coming in from Gaza.

"What do I care about Hamas?" one of the Arab men asked, his anger visible. "This is my home right here, and they're firing rockets at it. Do you think they would stop if they knew there were Arabs living here?"

Others expressed their satisfaction with life in the neighborhood, until it was disrupted by the rocket fire.

"I've been living in this neighborhood for over 10 years," said Daoud Khaled, whose kids hung onto his pant legs as he spoke.

"I love it here, I want to keep living here forever. I have fantastic neighbors, and I'll tell you, in the Gimmel neighborhood, we're all in this together. There's no Arab and Jew here, we're all like one."

Miriam, who was standing nearby, chimed in: "We're like one big family, we get along," Then, switching to Arabic, she asked the woman sitting next to her, "How long have you been here? Eight years?"

The woman nodded, "Yes, eight years in the neighborhood."

"You see," Miriam continued, "we all get along just fine."

But aside from their stories of coexistence, nearly everyone in the shelter said they were scared, tired, and anxious to get back to their regular lives.

"Have you heard anything about when this is going to be over?" asked Muriel, a younger girl who said she had been in the shelter all day. "It's stuffy down here, and we want to go back up. But, how can we leave if more rockets are going to come down?"

Others tried to keep the mood light.

"Listen," one of the Arab men, Hamed, said. "We don't have to go to work today, the kids aren't in school, so we'll just enjoy each others' company. My wife just went to the house to bring candy; everything is going to be just fine."

Huh?  Jews and Arabs living together in the same area?  In peace?  Wait a minute, that must be propaganda, we all know it isn't true.  Jews and Arabs never live together in the Middle East.

Well it is true.  And you can find it all over Israel.  Beersheba, Haifa, city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood.

That is the untold story of Israel.  About one eighth of all Israelis are Arab - almost as many Arabs in Israel as Blacks in the United States.  And while there are tensions between Arabs and Jews, and areas within the country which are exclusively one or the other, the fact is that many Israeli Jews and Arabs live together in harmony.

Try to find that in any Arab country on the face of the earth. 

You certainly won't find it in "moderate" Jordan, which has never knowingly had one Jewish citizen.  That's not a sarcasm or an exaggeration, it is a fact.  Jordan was created and remains "judenrein" - no Jews allowed.  I bet most readers didn't know that any more than they knew how many Jews and Arabs live together in Israel.

Try to find peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Egypt.  Or Syria.  Or Lebanon.  You might as well look for a rainforest in the Arctic Circle.

Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, it should be noted, are the four Arab countries bordering Israel. 

If that gives you a sense that Israel is an oasis of tolerance and mutual respect in a desert of intolerance and know something most people have no idea of.

And if you're counting on our wonderful "neutral" media to educate you about it?  Keep looking for that arctic rain forest.  You have about the same shot at finding it.


Ken Berwitz

In case you are wondering why I call him Chrazy Chris.....

The latest reason is Chris Matthews' reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu being invited to speak before a joint session of congress and wowing them - virtually all Republicans and a majority of Democrats as well - with his common sense and logic. Mr. Netanyahu made no demands on the USA, set no ultimatums, and was extremely deferential to President Obama (which Obama will never, ever be to Netanyahu). 

What he did was to lay out his case for why it would be a mistake of monumental proportions to cut a deal with Iran - the terrorist nation that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and has lied ongoingly about keeping every component of every promise it has made regarding the initiation and progress of its nuclear capabilities.

So what does Matthews have to say about it?  Here's your answer:

I'll get to the heart of this speech now. This man from a foreign government walked into the United States legislative chamber and tried to take over U.S. foreign policy. He said, "You should trust me, not your president on this. I'm the man you should trust, I'm your true leader on this question of U.S. geopolitics. To protect yourself, you must listen to me and not this president." 

It was a startling situation, to allow someone to come in knowing that was going to be the message in the chamber of the U.S. Congress. This was a decision made by Boehner and certainly complied with by Netanyahu and his Ambassador Dermer. They went into the U.S. Congress to take over U.S. foreign policy today from the President. It's a remarkable day when the leaders of the opposition in Congress allowed this to happen. Think it through: What country in the world would let a foreign leader come in and attempt to wrest from the President control of U.S. foreign policy? And that's what the applause was about today...


-He did no such thing. He did what I described above, and

-Most Democrat congresspeople gave him the same effusive applause and standing ovations that Republicans did...but that, of course, goes unmentioned by Matthews. You're not supposed to notice.

If this doesn't explain why I call him Chrazy Chris, I give up.


Ken Berwitz

Suppose I told you that the first paragraph of Mike DeBonis's article in the Washington Post said "If Hill Republicans thought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Tuesday address would build broad support for having Congress review any nuclear deal with Iran, they thought wrong."  What would it communicate to you?

To me, it clearly communicates that Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech was a bust; that it failed to rally support for congressional review of any deal. 

Which is a bit surprising, since Mr. Netanyahu was treated like a world-class rock star when he walked into the room, was given thunderous applause and standing ovations throughout his speech, and was swarmed by congresspeople wanting to shake his hand on the way out.

So what went so wrong with Netanyahu's speech that all this was negated?

Well, here is the key part of the article explaining it:

On Tuesday evening, Menendez, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a fierce critic of the Iranian regime, went to the Senate floor to withdraw his support for the bill, suggesting that McConnell's move (to bring the bill to the floor next week) represented an effort to influence or derail the negotiations now underway rather than a bona fide desire to review whatever deal is reached.

"I can't imagine why the majority leader would seek to short circuit the process unless the goals are political rather than substantive, and I regret to say these actions make clear an intention that isn't substantive, that is political," Menendez said. "The majority leader is single-handedly undermining our bipartisan efforts."

Kaine, meanwhile, issued a statement calling the move to send the bill to the floor "contrary to the important interests at stake."

"Premature action also disrespects the ongoing work to build a broad coalition of colleagues in support of this bill," Kaine said. "Congress should weigh in on any Iranian nuclear deal that impacts the statutory sanctions we've enacted. But we need to demonstrate that our review will be thoughtful and deliberate rather than rushed and partisan."

Wait a minute.

That doesn't say a word about either senator withdrawing support of the bill itself.  The one and only thing it says is that Senator Menendez and Senator Kaine, both of whom avidly support the bill, feel Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing it through too quickly, and want a longer period of time for deliberations.

In other words, they do not in any way oppose the bill, they oppose Senator McConnell fast-tracking it.

Which means that the headline completely misrepresents reality.

But, not at all surprisingly, hard left sites like and, among many others, are gleefully picking up on that headline and pretending, as whomever wrote the headline was (it isn't always the article writer), that something happened which did not.

Congratulations to you, whomever you are.  I have no doubt you've fooled a lot of readers too.

And congratulations to the Washington Post editors who let it to as written.  Nice to see you're holding to your neutrality.....

free` Looks as if you are still having a problem with comments. The one above is from last month. Also the RSS is still down. (03/05/15)


Ken Berwitz

No need to add anything to this excerpt from Scott Johnson's excellent commentary at (if you use the link you'll see a video of President Obama's reaction as well):

Obama turned Netanyahu's speech into an offense against majesty. He refused to meet with Netanyahu while he was in town. He procured the absence of Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Kerry from the speech. He assured that his administration had no representation at the event.

Obama commented on Netanyahu's speech yesterday afternoon.  What a contrast with Netanyahu. Obama appeared petty, angry and petulant. He can't help it.

Obama dismissed Netanyahu's speech as lacking "viable alternatives." If there is no alternative to what Netanyahu argued was "a bad deal" with Iran, that means Obama finds rejection of a bad deal or achievement of a good deal to be unrealistic alternatives to his chosen path.

Obama thus starkly confirms Netanyahu's critique. Obama intends for us not to think too hard about what he has to say. We can foil him by exercising the power of critical thought.

That pretty much says it all.

End of blog.


Ken Berwitz

From our pal Hall Of Fame Jerry....and I laughed out loud when I saw it.

'New red light camera supplier for Belleville.'

Ok, back to politics where, all too often, things are done at breakneck speed without being checked by anyone.


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday there was a leak that the Justice Department - with great media fanfare - is about to issue a "scathing" report suggesting there is systematic racism in the Ferguson, Missouri police department.  The charges stem from, among other things, extremely high percentages of traffic stops and searches being conducted against Black citizens versus Whites.  I'll reserve judgment until the report is issued and we can all take a look at it.  I hope you do too.

But here is an interesting coincidence.  This leak has overwhelmed a report - not a leak, but the actual report - which not only exonerates Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown, but makes most witnesses who told police that Wilson was at fault to be either remarkably consistent in not seeing what was in front of their eyes, or flat-out lying.

From Matt Apuzzo's just-published article on the New York Times web site:

The Justice Department has cleared a Ferguson, Mo., police officer of civil rights violations in the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager whose death set off racially charged and sometimes violent protests last year.

The decision, which was announced on Wednesday, ends a lengthy investigation into the shooting last August, in which Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Mr. Brown in the street. Many witnesses said Mr. Brown had his hands up in surrender when he died, leading to nationwide protest chants of "Hands up, don't shoot."

But federal agents and civil rights prosecutors rejected that story, just as a state grand jury did in November. The Justice Department said forensic evidence and other witnesses backed up the account of Officer Wilson, who said Mr. Brown fought with him, reached for his gun, then charged at him. He told investigators that he feared for his life.

The report found that witnesses who claimed that Mr. Brown was surrendering were not credible. "Some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witnesses' own prior statements with no explanation," it said.

"Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and 'charging' at Wilson," it added.

"Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts."

In other words, the claim that Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown while Brown was surrendering to him, or running away with his back turned - which generated months and months of protests, arson, looting and general violence - complete with a "Hands Up Don't Shoot" narrative - was a complete fraud.  A lie.  A hoax.  A made-up crock of BS.

I have a question for you.  What if the situation were reversed?  What if the forensic evidence proved that Officer Wilson had shot Michael Brown while he had his hands up in surrender, after a bunch of White "witnesses" lied by saying no such thing happened?  What would media be saying about those witnesses?  About the lying racist Whites of Ferguson, Missouri?

Think about your answer.  Then look to see if it in any way coincides with how media will be treating this story as it actually has unfolded.  And keep thinking racism...just a different version of it.


Ken Berwitz

You had to know this was coming.

The New York Times has a lead idiotorial (that's an editorial with an idiotic premise) excoriating Benjamin Netanyahu and his speech, before a wildly enthusiastic joint session of congress yesterday.

Here is the first half or so of the idiotorial - in rust - with my comments in blue:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could not have hoped for a more rapturous welcome in Congress. With Republicans and most Democrats as his props, he entered the House of Representatives to thunderous applause on Tuesday, waving his hand like a conquering hero and being mobbed by fawning lawmakers as he made his way to the lectern. That's right. That's what happened. It means that, unlike Barack Obama, the people around him, and 50-60 left wing, mostly anti-Israel boycotters - all Democrats (whose seats were joyously taken by others), they have extremely high regard for Mr. Netanyahu and his message. To a President willing to listen and learn, this would be what Barack Obama would call a "teaching moment". Too bad he, himself, is unteachable.

Even Washington doesn't often see this level of exploitative political theater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended to challenge President Obama's foreign policy.  Challenging President Obama's foreign policy makes it worse?  Worse?  The fact that Israel's Prime Minister, who leads a country specifically targeted for annihilation by the people Mr. Obama's "deal" would allow to keep its nuclear capabilities is against its being allowed to keep nuclear capabilities is a problem to you? What did you expect Netanyahu's position to be?  That it's a great idea, and he'll send a few Israeli physicists over to help with the project?

Mr. Netanyahu's speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran's nuclear program.  The Times' definition of "nothing new": Netanyahu said the same thing he has said all along:  that allowing Iran nuclear capabilities is a gargantuan mistake - not only for Israel's well-being but the Arab states around Israel (which share his concern, as shown here). In other words, the problem, to Barack Obama and the New York Times, is that Netanyahu did not change his position, and agree with a "deal" that would put Israel and its Arab neighbors in mortal danger. That is stunningly ridiculous.

His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn't want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran's nuclear efforts. Uh, no. That is another stunningly ridiculous claim - and a dishonest one too.  He wants successful negotiations that protect his country, and laid out specifics on what the elements of such a deal would be. 

Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel's destruction. Gee, what an insight. The Prime Minister of Israel insists that Iran forego aggressive behavior - which, in this case, is its call for the destruction of Israel.  Who would have thought Israel could possibly take such a position.  What's wrong with those people anyway.

By the way, doesn't imposing new conditions and insisting that international sanctions not be lifted until Iran stops overtly threatening Israel, qualify as an alternative approach - you know, the one you said did not exist in the previous paragraph? 

Oh, and nice try on your clumsy attempt at disinformation - i.e. putting the threat to Israel 100% on hezbollah, not Iran (which you accuse of being nothing more than "hostile") if Iran's leaders were not the ones saying they are going to wipe Israel off the map. Another example of going beyond stunningly ridiculous to flat-out dishonest.

Mr. Netanyahu has two main objections. One is that an agreement would not force Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and would leave it with the ability to enrich uranium and, in time, to produce enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. Two, that a deal to severely restrict Iran's ability to produce nuclear fuel for a decade or more is not long enough. He also dismisses the potential effectiveness of international inspections to deter Iran from cheating. All correct. All 100% legitimate objections. But not to the Israel-haters in DC...or their likeminded pals among the New York Times editorial staff.

Do you need anything else to understand my use of the term "idiotorial"?

If so, here's a little more.  Further on we have this textbook case of New York Times naivete:

Despite his commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn't trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.

It's a problem that Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama? No, it's a problem that the New York Times does trust Obama - who has lied to our faces on one issue after another, continually, for 6 years. 

There's also a reference to a push-poll of just 700 respondents, who are "educated" on the issues before asking their opinion on the deal Obama is cooking up with Iran.  The poll would be a joke to the New York Times if it drew a conclusion the paper's "brain trust" disagreed with...but it is the holy grail in this idiotorial because it coincides with their views.

Remember when the New York Times was a great newspaper?  You must be very old.  I'm having trouble remembering when it was even a good one.

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!!