Monday, 09 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

We've all heard President Obama tell us that our bond with Israel is unshakable, that he is fully supportive of Israel and will do whatever it takes to keep Israel safe and it is an eternal friendship, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, we have also all heard President Obama tell us that, with ObamaCare, if we like our current insurance plan we can keep it, he will not grant amnesty to illegal aliens because he has no constitutional authority to do so, etc. etc. etc.

So is Mr. Obama telling the truth about his relationship with Israel or is he lying to our faces again?

Victor Davis Hanson, writing for, has just put out a superb commentary on this subject.  I will show you a the beginning of his piece below, but I urgeyou to use this link and read the entire commentary as well:

Even some Democrats in Congress have come to the conclusion that after the brouhaha over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before Congress, President Obama wants to radically downgrade the long American special relationship with democratic Jewish Israel - and perhaps has a dislike of the idea of Israel. Add up the administration's initial disparagement on the matter of Israeli settlements, untoward administration remarks during the Gaza War, its assumptions that a future autonomous West Bank had a right to insist on becoming Judenfrei, its downplaying the Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry's various editorializing about Israeli supposed overreactions, the constant hectoring of Israel, and rumors of a slowdown in military aid to Israel during the Gaza war, and so on and so on.

These acts seem to fit into a prior landscape of the administration's anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli supposed slips, gaffes, and smears.

Beyond the above - which is 100% accurate - Mr. Hanson goes into detail on a series of specific incidents since Barack Obama became President - over a dozen of them (and, as he points out, it is only a partial list).  He prefaces each incident with the words "I thought it a bit strange"....which is meant to convey sarcasm.  And, believe me, it succeeds.

Again, I urge you to use the link I've provided and read them all. 

Then please use the information to think about how truthful President Obama's assurances regarding Israel are. It just might give you some useful tools to make an assessment...and to understand why it was so necessary for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before congress last week.


Ken Berwitz

Here we go again.

-Last August we had Michael Brown - a budding young music entrepreneur and soon-to-be college student, a gentle giant who was gunned down in cold blood by a White cop while he had his hands up in surrender and was saying "don't shoot"...

...except he turned out to be a thug who had just robbed a convenience store, roughed up the store owner, smoked enough weed to register 2 1/2 times the legal limit to drive a car in states where it is legal, was stopped while walking in the middle of a street rather than the sidewalk...and, based on the forensic evidence, was shot while going after the police officer, possibly trying to get his gun.  Forensics also showed the claim that Brown was shot to death while his hands were up in surrender was patently false.  We still have no idea what his juvenile police record was, because the parents, who assured us what a sweet, gentle young man he was, have refused to allow them to be made public - something they would have been screaming for if the claim were true.  The officer, Darren Wilson, had an unblemished 6 year record with not one complaint ever filed against him regarding racism or anything else.

-Months later, we had Eric Garner, another "gentle giant", who was just standing on a street corner not bothering anyone, when a cop hassled him and choked him to death...

...except he turned out to be a serial miscreant (over 30 arrests) who was being arrested - again - this time for illegally selling "loosies" (individual cigarettes) without a license.  We were told that he was grabbed and intentionally choked to death on the scene, but the video clearly shows that a take-down occurred only after the police tried to talk him into peacefully surrendering, and he refused - at one point physically pushing away the officers....and that Garner was both alive and able to say "I can't breathe" a number of times after the officer's arm - which was in "choke" position for only a few seconds - was no longer at his neck area.  Garner did not die at the scene, he went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance while en route to a hospital and was pronounced dead an hour later.  It turns out his inability to breathe was probably brought on by his asthma, heart disease and obesity (about 350 lbs).  His family stated that there was no racial element to the incident...and, in fact, the ranking officer at the scene was, herself, Black.

-And now we have Tony Robinson a 19 year old recent high school graduate, headed for technical college, who was a sweet young man; a great friend, always there for you, but shot to death on Friday for no reason at all...

...except, what we know so far is that, just months ago, Robinson pled guilty to felony armed robbery.  The shooting occurred after police received a report that he had assaulted a "friend", tried to strangle someone at a gas station, was running in and out of traffic, and ducked into a house.  When the officer arrived and entered the house, he states that he shot defensively after Robinson assaulted him (hardly a stretch given the reasons he was there).

There are several things common to these incidents.

-All three were Black;

-All three are dead;

-All three have generated marches and protests by people - most of them, I assume, well-meaning - who are convinced these were racial incidents, and who chant "Black Lives Matter".

For the record, today is the 7-month anniversary of Michael Brown's death ( last August 9th).  That's 212 days.  And, if the most recent statistics I have seen bear out, it means that, since then, roughly 3,550 Black people have been murdered in the United States - with a disproportionately large number being young men (like Michael Brown and Tony Robinson) being killed by other young Black men (like Michael Brown and Tony Robinson).

Have you seen any marches, or protests for those 3,550 Black victims?  Even one?  Any protesters marching through high-crime Black neighborhoods where the majority of these murders take place, chanting "Black Lives Matter"? 

Does this mean that "Black lives matter" only when a case - however, flimsy - can be made that the life was taken in a racial incident, but Black Lives don't matter if there is no opportunity for racial agitation involved?

That, I think, is a very fair question:  one which mainstream media are not going to be asking.

But I am.  And you should be asking too.

(Anon) " Ferguson Became Symbol of an Ill Plaguing the U.S. " - - - - - - - the lead article in the NYT shown below in the 'Selma and the Missing President' item in this blog. . . . . . . . . (03/09/15)


Ken Berwitz

I consider Barack Obama a disastrous President.  I think he is inept and incompetent.  I do not trust him to tell the truth about anything.  I believe he regularly ignores the constitution.  And I especially oppose the negotiations he and John Kerry, his useless choice as our Secretary of State (Obama is two for two on that score) are conducting with Iran. 

But that does not, in any way, justify the undermining of Presidential authority by Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans, who wrote to Iran's leadership advising them that, without congressional approval, any agreement they came to with Mr. Obama was subject to immediate reversal by the next President.

Did they express some understandable  righteous anger? Yes they did. But, by so doing, they essentially told the radical lunatics of Iran that no agreement from this President was worth the paper it is written on.  Which is another way of telling them to ignore it.

And, even worse, they undercut the authority of the Presidency itself. 

Yes, I know that there is a legal basis for the information this letter passed along.  And, yes, I know that Iran's leaders would be ignoring any agreement they made regardless of whether the letter was sent.

But this action bespeaks a deep disrespect - not just for President Obama personally, but for the office he holds.

Even if I can justify the content of their letter on factual grounds (which I can)....and even if I can make the case that Barack Obama's years of running the presidency like a tinhorn dictatorship have brought on this reaction (which I can), it is the wrong thing to do.  Dead wrong.

I have often argued in here that you cannot fight racism by creating more of it.  Similarly Senators cannot fight an imperial presidency by staking out its own imperial turf as well.

I understand why they did this.  But its result is to hurt the country still further than Obama has hurt it.

I deeply regret their actions.  I hope, in retrospect, they do too.  And I hope we see no more of it in the future.

Shar Well said. Thank you. (03/10/15)


Ken Berwitz

Feel like a little light reading?

Try this lineup, which I just pulled from the (invaluable)

ISSA: Clinton could face criminal charges...
'Huge gaps' in email record...
White House: Obama corresponded via her personal account...
WASH POST: Will Hillary's experience be liability?
FT: Clinton fatigue...
Left sounds off...
NYT: Bright days for Clinton are darkened...
'Family foundation accepted millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms'...

As you read these links, listen very closely.  You just might hear that proverbial fat lady starting to clear her voice.

She is getting ready to sing because the email scandal is deepening and darkening.  Even mainstream media whose stock in trade is propping up the Clintons at every turn (The Today Show comes to mind) aren't trying to protect her.  And even the Clintons cannot charm, finesse or threaten their way out of it. 

My personal favorites (none of them sung by ladies who could ever be called fat) are either Un Bel De Vedremo from Madame Butterfly (especially Angela Gheorghiu's performance) which would remind Ms. Clinton that some things are unattainable no matter how much she wants them, Madelyn Renee's version of Musetta's Waltz from La Boheme (which sounds a lot like ah, go home), or - given the relevance of its title to what the email scandal means to her prospects -,  the spectacular Leontyne Price version of Pace Pace Mio Dio from La Forza Del Destino (The Force Of Destiny).

Any one of those three would at make Ms. Clinton's exit worth listening to.....a lot more than the BS she will inevitably be serving up about the emails in an effort to save her political future,  I assure you.


Ken Berwitz

I'll make this short and sweet:

Today, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed "right to work" legislation into law, allowing people who work in places where there is a union to decide for themselves whether they want to join rather than being forced to do so.

Wisconsin is now the 25th state to have such laws, with 25 still allowing the forced unionization of all employees in such places.

This leads to the question of how unions are thought of these days, compared to previous times.

Well, In 1957, Gallup showed 75% of the country favoring unions versus 14% against them.  Today it is 53% - 38%.

And in 1957, Gallup showed that 62% favored "right to work" laws which made union membership voluntary rather than compulsory, versus 27% who supported compulsory membership. Today it is 71% - 22%.

Why has the country turned this much against unions?  Is it because the country has changed, because unions have changed, or a combination of both?

Given the Wisconsin legislation, and the anti-union shift shown in the above data, that's a question worthy of discussion.  I hope we see some of it in the days to come.

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!!