Saturday, 07 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political...

How can you order a Fajita and not know it's hot?

Well a New Jersey man, Hiram Jimenez, filled with the spirit of that woman who sued McDonald's years ago because she put a cup of hot coffee between her legs and the spillage made a booboo, has attempted to sue Applebee's, because he ordered a Fajita - which, having been to a New Jersey Applebee's or two, I know to come out loudly, visibly, sizzling, crackling, smoking hot.

Mr. Jimenez, decided to pray over his food before eating it. (Me?  I'd be praying it didn't permanently scar my esophagus ont he way down...or, if it's spicy enough, a different part of me on the way out).

But when he bent over to do so, a bit of the sizzling, crackling oil popped up and hit him in the face.  This, Jimenez claimed, caused him to knock the plate on his lap and sustain burns to his legs (and who knows what else....I just hope the food wasn't exciting him at the time).

So what did he do about it?

According to the article,

He filed suit seeking damages on the grounds that he suffered "serious and permanent" injuries "solely as a result of (Applebee's) negligence when he came in contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition, specifically, 'a plate of hot food'."

In other words, Jimenez sued Applebee's because it did not advise him that a sizzling-hot plate of fajitas

(Using that logic, I think I'm going to sue the local pizza place, because the last time I had a slice some marinara sauce dripped on my shirt...and they didn't advise me that pizza had marinara sauce on it.  Solely their negligence, you see.)

But, in court, the news was not good for Mr. Jimenez. Unaccountably, a trial judge dismissed his suit on the grounds that he should have surmised, without being warned by the restaurant, that a dish of hot fajitas

My god, look at what they expect the general public to do these days!  Do they think we're all scientists?

Well, this did not sit well with Mr. Jimenez. So, as any reasonable person might expect, he appealed the dismissal. 

But the appellate panel tossed it out as well.  Amazing.

The silver lining in this dark cloud for Hiram Jimenez is that he now knows that there is some "jit" In a fajita...which, presumably, he was unaware of until this incident.

And we are once again reminded that our legal system opens the door to idiotic lawsuits  -- which, unlike this one, sometimes result in wins for the idiots who bring them.

Ok, back to politics, where if you substitute an "sh" for the "j", you've all too often got the special of the day.

Zeke . . . . . . . . .Here are some additional imaginary facts : . . . . . While the unfortunate individual bent his head in prayer, the sizzling fajita platter melted his toupee (in the midst of his praying), ruining it. . . . . . Now his head resembles HEAVEN, for there's NO PARTING there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (03/07/15)

Zeke . . . . . . . . .Here are some additional imaginary facts : . . . . . While the unfortunate individual bent his head in prayer, the sizzling fajita platter melted his toupee (in the midst of his praying), ruining it. . . . . . Now his head resembles HEAVEN, for there's NO PARTING there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (03/07/15)


Ken Berwitz

Sometimes you read this stuff, and all you can keep thinking is that they're peeing on your head again and telling you it's raining.

Here are the first four paragraphs of today's "exclusive" in the New York Daily News.  See if what is said in those paragraphs squares with any reality you are aware of:

An internal NYPD study found no link between the sharp drop in street stops and a rise in shootings, the Daily News has learned.

Shootings rose 6% in 2014 compared with the year before as the number of stop-and-frisk encounters dropped to a record-low 46,235 - a staggering decrease from the high of 605,328 in 2011.

Shootings are up again - about 20% in 2015 through Sunday - but the NYPD said the study doesn't prove a link between the increase in shootings and fewer stops.

"We weren't able to find anything definitive,"said Deputy Commissioner Stephen Davis, the NYPD's top spokesman.

"Everything we found would suggest there wasn't a correlation."

There you go.  Stop and frisk encounters are next to non-existent, compared to previous years.  And shootings are way up - even as other crime statistics drop.  But "there wasn't a correlation".

Feel the, er, rain showers?

If you believe this, I have a controlling interest in Apple to sell you.  Cheap. 

But, then again, what's there to complain about?  bill de blasio was elected Mayor of New York City in a major landslide.  And, to his credit, he never campaigned on anything but what he is doing.

In this world, you get what you pay for.  And New Yorkers are paying.  Dearly.  I hope they remember as much the next time election day rolls around.

Zeke . . . . . . Mayor Che de blasio ordered all patrol officers to undergo a 2 day sensitivity training program in the wake of the Eric Gardner incident. . . . . . . It featured relaxation, backing off from confrontation, and reasoning with violent individuals. . . . . . . $35 million plus overtime to cover for the classroom hours. . . . . . . . Reactions were: "stupid", "waste of time", "no relation to the real world", "all feel good, nothing useful" . . . . . . . . . but Mayor Che DID SOMETHING . . . . . . . . . (03/07/15)


Ken Berwitz

Just when you thought it was safe to take the State Department seriously again...

...Marie Harf is put in front of reporters.

Here, via excerpts from Chuck Ross's article at, is the latest example of what she brings to the table:

One question posed to Harf concerned an internal 2011 Department cable bearing Clinton's e-signature informing staffers that for security reasons they are expected to use official email accounts to conduct business. As we know now, Clinton was not following those very same instructions.

"I think everyone can read it at if they'd like to," Harf said in response to the question about the cable, sarcasm dripping from her voice.

"I mean...," she began to say as she looked around the room at other reporters appearing to look for laughs at her joke.

"That was in no way an endorsement," she clarified.

Perhaps realizing she had gone too far, Harf told the reporter, "I don't mean to be flip about it, but let me check."

Hooboy.  What can you say to that?

For the record, as Chuck Ross pointed out in his article, it was the New York Times, not Fox, which broke the email story.  Funny: she didn't have any snarky comment about that.

Is there a bigger embarrassment to the State Department than Marie Harf?

Uh....wait. I just thought about the fact that this is the Hillary Clinton/John Kerry State Department....and retract my question.


Ken Berwitz

Any real racism sickens me.  But this particular example of it sickens me to the core of my being.

This weekend there will be major ceremonies commemorating the 50th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" - the peaceful march in Selma Alabama during which Black citizens, asking nothing more than being given the same rights afforded to anyone else - particularly the right to vote - were set upon and beaten by the police, under the direction of a racist police chief and to the cheers of racist White citizens whom, the filmed accounts show, loved every minute of it.

So what does a racist bunch of morons - calling themselves "friends of Forrest" do?  they put this billboard up within site of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where much of the carnage took place 50 years ago - and where most of the commemorative activities will take place this weekend:

'Despicable!': People have hit out at this poster erected this week by Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where hundreds were attacked on Bloody Sunday in 1965. It features KKK founder Nathan Forrest

And that "keep the skeer on 'em" quote?  It was forrest's slogan, encouraging likeminded "people" to frighten slaves, and their abolitionist supporters, into submission.

You want real racism?  Try and find a more disgusting example of it.  I dare you.

I am not a lawbreaker by nature or intent.  But if I had a match, some gasoline, and access to that sick display of hatred, it just might wind up looking like one of those burning crosses the "friends of forrest" crowd love so much in about two seconds flat.

Real racism.  It comes in all forms from all sources.  No one is immune to it or from it.  Certainly not a bunch of ignorant racist scumbags who can't get over the fact that Black people are (gasp!) actually supposed to be treated like people.


Ken Berwitz

Hillary ain't Bill.

That is why, however tortuously it dribbles out, the real Benghazi story is being told.  And, for Ms. Clinton's presidential hopes, that is bad news.  Very, very bad news.

Here is the latest, excerpted from Catherine Herridge's article at

Emails obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton's principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton's side for decades.

The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.

Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.

The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video - but that was never updated that night.

Obfuscate. Deceive. Censor. Lie.

Yep, that has Hillary Clinton's imprimatur all over it.

Bill Clinton would have somehow deflected all this.  And a large segment of the public would have loved it too:  as I have said before, Mr. Clinton's single greatest talent has always been convincing people that if he  gets away with something, they are somehow winners. 

But Hubby Bubba's talent has certainly not rubbed off on his wife.  Where Bill was a great liar, who could charm and finesse his way out of trouble, Hillary's stock in trade is to give the world a wide-eyed, open mouthed look of surprise, and a loud, braying donkey-laugh that is supposed to communicate there's nothing wrong, there's no problem at all, it's a big, silly, inconsequential joke. 

And when she was an appendage to Hubby Bubba, that strategy worked just fine.

But Bill Clinton is not the main event any more.  In fact, given his apparent involvement in the sex parties hosted by billionaire convicted pedophine Jeffrey Epstein, Hillary will be lucky if he just disappears into the muck and mire for a while - leaving her to deal with the new information about Benghazi and the big-and-growing email scandal (which touches on Benghazi as well) - the scandal  that mainstream media, for a change, are not letting her off the hook on.

In other words, there may be no way out.

I have always been skeptical about Hillary Clinton making a run for the presidency - in no small part because she may not be physically up to it.  But add in the new information (with more sure to come) on Benghazi, and the email scandal?  Her prospects of running - and winning, even if she does run - look dimmer and dimmer by the nanosecond.


Ken Berwitz

Yeah, I know I've written several blogs about the fact - or, at any rate, what I consider to be the fact - that if Democrats can't run Hillary Clinton, they are in huge trouble.

But Investors Business Daily's great political cartoonist, Michael Ramirez, has trumped my blogging by creating this - which tells the story with virtually no words at all:


Funny, and dead on target.  What an excellent combination. 

Thank you, Mr. Ramirez.  Thank you again.


Ken Berwitz

I blogged about this last month, at which time I hoped that reality would prevail, others would do the same, and the lie

that's right, the lie

that Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the invitation to speak before congress before President Obama was informed about it would be put to rest.

Well, it is still being tossed around, like a dead fish.

So let's try one more time.

The White House was notified of the offer before Netanyahu accepted it.

Again, in case you didn't see it the first time:  The White House was notified of the offer before Netanyahu accepted it.

And in case you think this is just me blowing smoke, we have the New York Times, which initially bought into the phony claim that Obama didn't know, issuing the following no-doubt embarrassing correction:

Correction: January 30, 2015

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner's invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

And we have the Washington Post, via David Bernstein's grudging analysis, coming to the same conclusion.

Got that?  Two of the most Obama-friendly newspapers out there acknowledged that the claim Obama was not made aware of the invitation was BS. 

And that, folks, is before we discuss the fact that, while demanding perfect protocol from John Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama has a rich history of ignoring protocol - especially with Netanyahu - at will. 

In other words, this claim is not just a lie, it is a hypocrisy too.

Less than two years of Obama to go.  Maybe the next President, whomever he or she will be, can find a reason to stand with one of our staunchest allies in the world, instead of on it.

free` Stand up for our allies? Hell I just want one that will stand up for our own country!!! (03/07/15)


Ken Berwitz

Remember when President Obama admonished Benjamin Netanyahu not to speak before a joint session of congress, because the Israeli elections were just a couple of weeks down the road and, as a matter of policy, he did not want the USA to play a part in those elections?

Well, this is from the same man, just a week or so before those elections take place - as excerpted from Daniel Bassali's article at Washington Free Beacon:

The White House used an article written by a known plagiarist to attack the credibility of the leader of America's closest ally in the Middle East.

Even though the president insisted the U.S. and Israel were strong, the White House National Security tweeted "Interesting take from FareedZakaria on why PM Netanyahu's predictions on #Iran have been wrong for 25 years," and included a link to the article.

In a stunningly political and petty move, the White House essentially accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of fear mongering for more than two decades.

The White House's use of Zakaria raises red flags. CNN and Time magazine suspended the embattled pundit and editor for plagiarism on a gun control article he wrote in 2012....(and there was) a crushing report detailing 26 examples of Zakaria continuously plagiarizing in dozens of episodes of his CNN show by ripping off other sources.

FYI - in addition, be advised that Fareed Zakaria has been an Israel hater, and fawning Barack Obama adorer, for years.

This is the action of a White House committed not to interfering in Israel's elections? 

I wonder who decided it would be a great idea to send out such a snide anti-Netanyahu tweet.  Maybe it was the brainchild of Jeremy Bird, Mr. Obama's 2012 field director, who was sent to Israel with a team of operatives to try and get Netanyahu defeated (which, I am hoping, will backfire on them big-time). 

Evidently, in the world of Obama, the existence of Bird and his flock, in Israel, trying to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu's re-election campaign, does not count as interference....but Netanyahu explaining to congress why Israel fears that its existence as a nation will be threatened by a bad Iran "deal" does.

My thanks to Daniel Bassali for providing this information...and my disgust at mainstream media for happily spending weeks talking up the disdain President Obama, and many of his fellow Democrats, displayed toward Netanyahu making his speech, but not a word about this childish, petulant "nyah nyah nyah" garbage from the White House.

Less than two years to go until this nightmare of an administration is over (unless, of course, he uses his phone and his pen to unilaterally declare a third term).  I count the seconds.

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!!