Buy Our Book Here!

Friday, 27 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

The New York Times, ever on the lookout for material its editorial board can write an idiotorial about, has hit a mother lode today.

Here is its idiotorial on bowe bergdahl - in rust, with my comments in blue.  You decide who is making more sense:

No Need to Prosecute Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

It won't be hard for military lawyers to argue that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl violated military regulations when he slipped out of a remote outpost in Afghanistan in 2009 and became a Taliban prisoner for five years.  What a remarkable opening insight:  someone who deserts his post can be accused of violating military regulations.  Who would ever have thought that without the New York Times?  Great job so far.

They would have a tougher time explaining why it's worthwhile to prosecute a soldier the Army recruited despite significant concerns about his psychological state and who endured years of torture and privation during his captivity. We're still talking about the deserter, right?  As a general matter, the American military has good reason to punish service members who desert. However, it should exercise discretion in extraordinary cases. Sergeant Bergdahl's is certainly one.  Extraordinary?  Ok, I'll bite.  How so?

Sergeant Bergdahl, who joined the Army in 2008, was among the legion of recruits who were granted eligibility waivers to join the military during a period when it was struggling to attract applicants because of the multiple lengthy deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan that were common. His attempt in 2006 to join the Coast Guard was short-lived; he was discharged 26 days into basic training because of concerns about his psychological state. Before Sergeant Bergdahl walked out of his base in Paktika Province on June 30, 2009, it was clear to some of his family members back home, and some of his comrades in Afghanistan, that he was emotionally distressed and at times delusional. Citing an Army investigative report, his lawyer, in a letter to the military, describes his client as "naive and at times unrealistic."  This is your "extraordinary"?  He wanted to be in the military so badly that upon being discharged from one branch he enlisted - as in he proactively wanted to be - in another branch?  That and his lawyer's defense strategy?  You've got some case there. 

Oh, by the way, you are lying about the circumstances of his discharge.  The article you link us to says that "According to Coast Guard records, Bergdahl left the service in early 2006 with an 'uncharacterized discharge' after 26 days of basic training. The term applies to people discharged before completing 180 days of service. No reason is specified in such discharges, and a Coast Guard representative said no further information was available."  That does not say he was discharged because of his psychological state.

The entire basis for your claim is that, also in the article it says "Bergdahl was discharged from the Coast Guard for psychological reasons, said close friends...".  Not one source is named.  Have you considered the possibility that "close friends" might be making excuses for bergdahl?  Uh...nope.  Do you realize how ridiculous this makes you look?

In a statement about the conditions of his detention, released by his lawyer on Wednesday after the Army's announcement that it had filed charges, Sergeant Bergdahl says he was chained to a bed, locked in a cage, shackled and at times beaten. He had sores from his shackles and became skeletal as a result of poor nutrition and chronic ailments.  Might be true, might not be.  We're talking about a deserter trying to save his skin. What basis do you have for believing the deserter?  Nothing other than the deserter's word and his condition at that point in time...which might have occurred in just the last few weeks of his time with the enemy when they were threatening to kill him if they didn't get their taliban buddies back?  I guess not.

When Sergeant Bergdahl returned home last summer after the Obama administration agreed to release five Taliban prisoners "prisoners"? That's all they were? How about five senior taliban commandos who you can bet your bottom dollar will be killing again in short order? God you are exchange for his freedom, it soon became clear that many people in the military harbored deep animosity toward him. Some called him a coward and argued that he put troops in Afghanistan in harm's way as they devoted significant resources and energy to searching for him. This anger is understandable.  That's all you see here?  Understandable anger?  Uh...reality check, guys.  He DID put his troops in harm's way - that's what happens when you desert your post and leave it unguarded.  Significant resources and energy WERE devoted for searching for him.  There are credible reports that 6 of his fellow soldiers died in the effort.  But all you see is some kind of anger issue?  I don't have the words to express my contempt for you.

But trying him for desertion and misbehaving before the enemy - for allegedly engaging in misconduct that endangered his unit - stands to accomplish little at this point.  A conviction would most likely deprive a traumatized veteran of benefits, including medical care, which he will probably need for years. A dishonorable discharge would make it harder to rebuild his life as a civilian.  Poor baby!  Give the little sweetheart an honorable discharge, his full pay, and make sure he gets the best possible medical care as he rebuilds his life?  Nah, I have a better idea.  How about trying him for what he allegedly did and, if convicted (which you know damn well is a major likelihood), throwing his ass in jail for the rest of his life.  I realize that would hurt his, and your, wiwoo sensibiwities, but, hey, that's life in the big city.

A trial would publicly raise important questions about how Sergeant Bergdahl was allowed into the Army and whether there were missed opportunities to avert the crisis his capture created. Those questions, however, should be addressed outside of a courtroom.  The Times' grand finale:  the deserter isn't to blame, it's the army.  Would you expect more from a New York Times editorial board?  If so, you don't read many of their editorials.

There you have it.  Who is making more sense;  The Times or me? Your call.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:59 AM   Add Comment

Thursday, 26 March 2015


Ken Berwitz

If what you are about to read is true (a big if, because we don't know for sure yet), a final "deal" with Iran has been struck, which is:

-breathtakingly, devastatingly stupid,

-worthless as a deterrent, and

-which will result in Iran posing an overt threat to countries of the Middle East - not just Israel, which is #1 on Iran's hit list, but other Middle East countries as well - as well as the entire rest of the world.

Excerpted from Adam Kredo's article at Washington Free Beacon:

The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran's program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.

I look at those words, and cannot believe my eyes.

If this accurately describes the "deal" in its final form, I ask myself with a mixture of incredulity and disgust, whether Barack Obama and John Kerry can possibly believe they have accomplished anything but the furtherance of Iran's road to nuclear weapons...along with a huge belly laugh to the Ayatollah and his pals in the process.

But then I remember that Barack Obama told us, just today, he has absolutely no apology to make about trading bowe bergdahl for five senior taliban commandos, and that John Kerry thought it was a brilliant gesture to bring James Taylor to France so he could sing "You've Got A Friend" to serious international leaders. This makes me realize that the answer is yes; it is 100% possible.

There are people - a dwindling number, but they're still out there - who have spent over 6 years conjuring up ways of justifying/explaining the ineptitudes and incompetencies of Obama & Co. I wonder how many of them will see this as the final breaking point; the end of any way they can abide the pathetic joke that is our current administration.

I can only hope that it is a great many. Maybe so many that even the shameless Obama and Kerry will be forced to back away from a "deal" like this.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 20:25 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Call me a hopeless cynic, but I am suspecting that most children are happier alive than they would be dead - either dismembered or snuffed out with a saline solution, or some other equally decisive manner.

With this possibly mistaken view of things in mind, I would like to call to your attention a new "children's book", written by abortion fan (I mean that literally, not sarcastically) named mary walling blackburn, titled "Sister Apple, Sister Pig".

It is about a little boy who, through discussing things with his loving Papa, understands that it was a wonderful thing that Mama aborted his older sister.  Because she would have been a disaster for the family.  So, instead, she's a "happy ghost".

Think I'm kidding?  you can read this "children's book" by clicking here.

Or, you can get a sense of its warmth and tenderness by reading this passage:

Lee tells Papa:

"I'm not sad that my sister is a ghost! If you kept my sister,

You would be tired, and sad, and mad!",


"Why?" wondered Papa


"Because we would be wild and loud and

Sometimes we would fight.


Mama might be scared that she could not

Buy enough food for us.


Mama might not have enough time to read to me, to paint

With me, to play with me, to talk with me...."

Isn't that lovely?

And later on, there is this delightful repartee: 

" Lee's Uncle asks:

"Why is your sister a ghost, Lee?"

"Mama had an abortion before she had me."

Lee explains to Uncle. 


"Sister is a happy ghost" Lee assures Uncle.

I doubt you'll be surprised to learn that nowhere in the book does little Lee realize, or is he told that, because Mama and Papa wanted one child, not two, it was just as likely that :

-He would have been the one who was aborted. 

-He would have been the one whose existence - in the real world that is - would have caused Mama and Papa to be tired, sad and mad, because he and his sister would have been wild, and loud and sometimes would fight. 

-Oh, and he also would have been the cause of their family going hungry because Mama wouldn't have enough money for food.  Or enough time to read, paint, play or talk to his sister because he was there too. 

I'll just bet Lee would have been thrilled with "happy ghost" status instead of his sister.  After all, it is wonderful.  mary walling blackburn says so.

Would you buy this "book"?  Read it to your child? 

I'll say this much.  The subject matter matches the book.  They're both abortions.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 18:15 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Whew.  Saved by a D - assuming you don't spell that well.

Did you know that the word "whore" has more meanings than a woman who engages in promiscuous sex?  In a business or social context, a "whore" is somebody who forgoes integrity and fairness to get a desired result.

With that in mind, please read the following excerpt from at article at

A team of Hillary Clinton "super volunteers" warned a New York Times reporter on Wednesday against using words about Clinton that they deem to be "sexist."

The group, "HRC Super volunteers," wrote Times reporter Amy Chozick, the paper's Hillary Clinton reporter, and put her on notice regarding "coded sexism."

Sexist words, according to the group, include: "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled," "over confident," "secretive," will do anything to win," "represents the past," and "out of touch."

"You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism," the group reportedly wrote her.

What a coincidence.  Pretty much every criticism of Hillary Clinton anyone ever makes is "sexist" and, therefore, taboo.

Now I would like to speculate on what will happen if Ms. Clinton is asked about these devoted supporters.  My guess is that she will give us that braying donkey-laugh she uses so often (there's another no-no for the super-volunteers) and point out that she has no control over individual groups or what they would have the media do. 

If she says that, she will be right.  But she will not be demanding that they stop either. 

Hey, rank has its privileges.  And few have been more privileged (or, for that matter, more rank) over the past 30 years than Hillary Clinton. 

Besides, who're you to disagree with me?

Hopelessly Partisan @ 13:31 PM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from President Barack Obama.

Here is what he had to say about last year's trade of five taliban leaders/commandos for the deserter, bowe bergdahl:

"I make absolutely no apologies for making sure we get back a young man to his parents."

Please don't tell me you're surprised.   Please don't tell me you would expect Barack Obama to apologize for anything.

If Mr. Obama is averse to apologizing for giving up five mass murderers for a deserter, maybe he would be a bit more amenable to apologizing to the families of the soldiers who died trying to find that deserter.  Or to the families of the people the five taliban leaders killed.  Or to the families of the people who they will kill in the future - and make no mistake, they will kill again. 

I award Barack Obama Quote Of The Day honors for showing us again, as if we needed the latest demonstration, of just what kind of a man he really is.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:06 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) was accused last year of trading political favors for monetary and social favors from a fabulously wealthy Florida eye doctor named Saloman Melgen (sometimes spelled Melges). 

For a year, the Department of Justice under the disgraceful Obama toady and sock-puppet eric holder has not acted on those charges.

Weeks ago Menendez came out full-blast against the "deal" President Obama and John Kerry are cooking up with Iran.

Suddenly the Department of Justice has filed charges against Menendez.

Now Menendez appears to be the make-or-break vote on whether Loretta Lynch is confirmed as holder's replacement.

Menendez says he is "undecided".

Would the dropping of charges (probably not simultaneous, but a promise to do so afterwards so it is not as obvious) be the cost of getting that vote?

And how bad does this reek - at both ends?

Stay tuned.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 11:31 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

From Jordan Schachtel's article at

The Pentagon has declassified a document that was once labeled "top-secret," which goes into sophisticated detail about Israel's nuclear weapons program. The document was released quietly just prior to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 3 speech to a joint session of Congress.


Israel has never officially confirmed or denied the existence of a nuclear weapon's program within its borders.


The Pentagon declassified sections covering Israel's nuclear program, but "kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document," Israel National News reported.


The 386-page top-secret memo, titled, "Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations," goes into great detail about how Israel turned into a nuclear power in the 1970s and 80s.

There seems to be little doubt that Barack Obama's ego is as huge as his skin is thin.  That is the quality of the man, and the country's bad mistake for electing him twice as President.

But when that ego and that thin skin translate into a series of actions against the state of Israel - our staunch ally and the only democracy in the entire region - presumably because he doesn't like its democratically elected Prime Minister, a line is crossed.

And when it entails selectively giving away secrets of this nature, it is more than that.  It is a sick perversion based on hatred.

I can't wait to see this man out of office.  And I pity every supporter of Israel who still is more interested in making excuses for his actions than giving a damn about the danger he is putting Israel in.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:51 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Not surprisingly, there are now people - just a wild guess:  Obama supporters who hate the idea that media are now reminding voters that his trade of bowe bergdahl for five taliban commanders was both illegal and a disgrace - who are calling for bergdahl to be released for "time served" - i.e. the five years he was with the enemy.  And don't doubt that there will be media people happy to agree with them.

They can all go to hell.

bergdahl deserted his guard post to seek out the taliban.  That endangered every man his guard post was supposed to protest.  It is nothing but good luck that they are still alive, every one of them.

The "time served" was time he spent proactively, voluntarily, going to the enemy.  That was not captivity, that was the decision he himself made.

And, most importantly, his desertion caused the army to go out looking for him.  Forgetting the time and resources put against the effort, military personnel died while trying to find this deserter.

If what I just wrote can be proven wrong, then I will write a retraction.  But since the chances of that happening appear to be somewhat less than a snowball's chance in hell, I don't expect to do so.

I hope bergdahl rots in jail for the rest of his miserable life.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:05 AM   3 comments


Ken Berwitz

About that GermanWings Airbus 320 flight #4U9525, which crashed, killing all on board...

When we found out that one of the pilots left the cabin and was locked out, I assumed the crash was no accident, but that it was not necessarily caused by the co-pilot.  Conceivably, when the pilot left, a terrorist might have entered, locked the door and overwhelmed/killed the co-pilot.

Now information has just been released indicating that, based on the "black box" audio, it was the co-pilot who intentionally crashed the plane.

We also now know that the co-pilot had only 633 hours in the air.  In the USA, you can't be a co-pilot without at least 1,500 hours.

But even more troubling, the name of the co-pilot has not been released.  Why?  Is there something about the co-pilot they don't want us to knows?

More as it becomes available.


UPDATE:  According to an article at London's Daily Mail, the co-pilot was a 28 year old man named Andreas Gunter Lubitz.  The Daily Mail also reports that the plane was brought down manually, then crashed into the mountain, over a ten minute period, during which Lubitz said not one word, even as the captain was banging on the cockpit door demanding to be let in. Still no word about his personal life - but I would think it likely we'll be hearing about that before the day is out.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:26 AM   Add Comment

Multi-Year Archive
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

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. Such as:

-How does President Obama deal with a completely Republican congress?

-How will Harry Reid like watching Mitch McConnell take the bills he sat on for years and send them to the senate floor?

-Will the fact that almost everyone Hillary Clinton campaigned for lost hurt her prospects for the 2016 nomination?

-Have we gotten ahead of the ebola crisis? Can we?

-When will media talk about how many new jobs created in the Obama years are part-time rather than full-time?

Right down to:

-Is Lena Dunham finished?

-Will Alex Rodriguez ever play major league baseball for the Yankees (or anyone else) again?

-Why does the lightpost at 59th St. and Amsterdam Avenue have two one-way traffic signs, one directly over the other, pointing in opposite directions?BR>
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!!


Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Democracy Now
Democratic Underground
Media Matters
Talk Left
The Huffington Post
Think Progress


  Drudge Report
  Real Clear Politics
  The Hill


   American Spectator
   Daily Caller
   Free Republic
   Front Page Magazine
   Hot Air
   National Review
   Power Line
   Sweetness & Light
   Town Hall

About Us  
Blog Posts