Buy Our Book Here!

Thursday, 26 November 2015


Ken Berwitz

Barring some unforeseen circumstance, this will be the last blog of the day.  My beautiful bride and I are heading north to be with family.

So, this being Thanksgiving and all, I thought I would end with a few cartoons and pictures, from the large number of them compiled by's Steven Hayward.  

You can click here to see them all, but these are a few of my favorites:


Aflac Thanksgiving copyFacebook Thanksgiving copyCook Turkey copyPop Up copy

And, finally.......


Miss Turkey copy

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!

Hopelessly Partisan @ 14:00 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's Paragraphs Of The Day winner - by a mile - is columnist Larry Elder.  

I read his description of what happened when he decided to try and find out what "microaggression" means, and laughed out loud several times....albeit through gritted teeth.

Here it is:

On Twitter, I asked a pro-protest Occidental College student to provide a definition of "microaggression." He refused, instead sending a link to a PhD philosophy thesis on the subject. Repeat, a PhD philosophy thesis. The paper's definition:

"The overt nature of racism in the United States has morphed into an insidious, covert manifestation called racial microaggression. ... Though not often intentional in nature, these microaggressive behaviors have become pervasive in the lives of people of color. ... Extant research reveals the harmful and cumulative effects of racial microaggressions. ... Much research has been done on people of color's experiences with racial microaggressions; however, few studies have given attention to why some African American college students are able to excel in microaggressive academic environments while others do not." Oh.

The thesis's author conducted a study with 47 undergraduates, but only 35 completed the survey and were included in the data: "As a result of insignificant results, as well as predominantly male participants, secondary analyses were conducted based on demographic variables, which are salient for African American male college students." Oh.

The paper's takeaway: "Results indicated that students' backgrounds impact how they handle microaggressive behaviors." Seriously?!?

Congratulations, Larry.  You win going away.  Now, if only the clowns you are writing about would do the same.  For real....

And to everyone else:  be sure to use the link I've provided and read the "10 Tips to Survive Today's College Campus, or:  Everything You Need to Know About College Microaggressions", which Mr. Elder has at the end of his commentary. They saymore about the reality of #blacklivesmatter racists/haters than some commentators will say in their lifetimes.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:04 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

From our pal Relo Myra.  

I don't know if you will understand this, but I know my mother would have laughed.

Lee Wunsch's photo.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:47 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

If there is one thing we learn from the current "state of the art" in media reportage, it is that, when the perpetrators are Black, there is a good possibility that the reportage will pretend not to know their race.

We saw that yesterday, with Washington Post reporter Peter Hermann's article about a woman being attacked by teenagers, in which he told us that "Police had no description of the teens"....even though the first sentenced of the police report identified them as Black males.

Now, today, we have this - also written by Peter Hermann (and Dana Hedgepeth):

A large group of juveniles robbed a clothing store in Georgetown on Tuesday evening and stole $13,000 worth of items, according to D.C. police.

The incident happened just before 6 p.m. at the Diesel store in the 3000 block of M Street NW. More than 20 people went into the store and grabbed several items off the racks, police said. They stole four leather jackets, costing about $800, and an additional $12,000 worth of merchandise.

One person who worked at the store was said to have been pushed from behind by someone in the crowd. The employee was not injured, according to police. Police described the suspects only as juveniles.

The police had no physical description of the suspects other than that they looked young?  The store employees didn't see the thieves who were in front of their faces stealing those clothes? 

This reeks with dishonesty.  

And, to make matters even worse, the article goes on to indirectly attack the stores in that area over allegations that they racially profile.  If the race of the suspects were unknown, why would that have been there?

In yesterday's blog, I pointed out that when reporters intentionally avoid mentioning people's race, because of their race, that makes them racists.  

I therefore will ask the same questions for this article that I did yesterday:

Who is the racist?  

Is it Peter Hermann?  Dana Hedgepeth?  The copy editor who removed that information from Hermann's article?

Or is it all of them:  Hermann and Hedgepeth for pretending that there was no racial description of the suspects, and the copy editor for allowing the lie to find its way into print?

It seems to me that Peter Hermann, Dana Hedgepeth and the Washington Post owe us an explanation..

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:24 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from John King, of CNN.  And it is beautiful in its simplicity.

While talking about "retail politicians" - i.e. politicians who connected with everyday people - King said this:

...but one of the premier retail politicians in the country, somebody who knew how to go into a room, and you knew it. When Mario Cuomo was in a room, you felt it. When Bill Clinton was in a room, you felt it. When George W. Bush was in a room, you felt it. George W. Bush was a great retail politician, whatever you think about him.

Notice a difference there?  In Sesame Street language, "one of these things is not like the other".

King mentioned three politicians who, in his esteem, were excellent retail politicians.  Nothing about individual issues the public might have supported or opposed, just their talent for connecting with people.  And he couldn't do it without singling out, and effectively putting an asterisk next to, President Bush.

Does John King think everyone liked Mario Cuomo and Bill Clinton, and everyone disliked President Bush?  

Maybe everyone in his crowd did.  But the country is not comprised of John King's crowd.

To illustrate, the last time Mario Cuomo ran for public office - as the incumbent Governor of New York in 1994 - he lost his election. 

How'd George W. Bush do in his last election, Mr. King?  Do you know?  

As for Bill Clinton, popular though you may think he was, Mr. Clinton, he won the presidency in 1992 with just 43% (in a three-way race)....but in 1996's more conventional race, he still got just 49.2% - not even a majority. 

By contrast, Bush - who media spent four years assuring the public was a fraudulent President, in office only because of a wrongful Supreme Court decision - got almost 51% of the vote in his re-election campaign...which is less than one-half of one percent different than ultimate media-favorite Barack Obama got in 2012.

But you had to put that disparaging dig in there anyway, didn't you?  

I award John King Quote Of The Day honors for being the latest in a long, long line of media personalities to show how bias affects even the most inconsequential reporting.  

Way to go, John. You are the clear winner.......whatever anyone thinks about you.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:50 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

"I am, however, deeply disappointed that the Congress has again failed to take productive action toward closing the detention facility at Guantanamo.  Maintaining this site, year after year, is not consistent with our interests as a nation and undermines our standing in the world.":  President Obama, upon signing this year's defense policy bill.

President Obama took office on January 20th, 2009.  He did so with the promise that one of the first things he would do is close Guantanamo.

It is now almost 7 years later, and Guantanamo is still open.

So who's fault is that?  Congress, of course.

Has Barack Obama ever been responsible for any failure of his administration?  

The answer is no.  Just ask him.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:25 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

If President Obama were a Republican Governor and he could be accused of closing a couple of bridge lanes, you'd know about it.

But as President, the fact that he force-fed a health care system on us which involves about one-sixths of our entire economy, and it is failing big-time?  Strictly back-page news.

Excerpted from Richard Pollock's article at

Members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform want to know why half of the 23 Obamacare health insurance co-ops have failed, and they are demanding documents from the Obama administration that may offer answers.

An estimated 800,000 Americans are scrambling to find new health insurance coverage as a result of the collapses. It will cost federal taxpayers at least $1.2 billion. President Barack Obama spent $2.4 billion overall to establish the co-ops, which are intended to provide publicly-funded competition for private sector health insurers.

Chaffetz addressed Andy Slavitt, the acting CMS administrator who Obama nominated to serve as its permanent top official.

In his letter to Slavitt, Chaffetz writes, "With 2016 premiums rising by double digits in some states, and more difficulties predicted both for the Exchanges and co-ops, it is critical that Congress assess CMS' plans to protect consumers and safeguard billions in taxpayer dollars."

But in only two years of operation, half of them face financial insolvency, low enrollment and higher-than-expected medical expenses. Many co-ops quickly ran into the red as they tried to offer below market rates that failed to generate sufficient revenue to cover promised benefits.

Iowa’s Co-Opportunity Health, one of the first co-ops to fail this year, paid out $1.40 in medical costs for every dollar it took in as premiums.

Would I be wrong to think that this is major news?  

I ask, because the fact that ObamaCare has been in such grave condition is not new. What you just read is just the latest news about it. I have blogged about the failure of these co-ops for at least a month.

But in that time we have heard more about Charlie Sheen's sexual habits and Adele's new album than we have heard about the failure of ObamaCare - which, as I have pointed out so many times over the years, virtually every national poll shows that this country has never wanted.

Which - as it almost always does - brings us to media culpability.

Most mainstream media were supportive of ObamaCare.  The warnings about its problems were often treated as crank complaints by mouth-breathing right wingers.    

So now, as much of what was warned about comes to pass, what are they supposed to do?  Admit that its inherent problems were more than just some right wing fantasy?  Admit that the polls show far, opposition to ObamaCare is far more widespread than they assumed?  Admit that it has generated half the subscriptions that were promised?  Admit, in general terms, that there really were two sides to this story?

Yeah, right.

What has happened is that, instead of serious reporting about a huge problem with a huge program that eats a huge percentage of our resources....we get next to nothing.  

If you want to know about Charlie Sheen and Adele, read the papers and watch the news.  If you want to know about ObamaCare, head for alternative media.  Because that's pretty much the only place you're going to find real coverage of it.

Tell you what, guys:  if you're not going to report the facts about this unworkable monstrosity, can you at least stop calling it the "Affordable Care Act"?

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:18 AM   1 comment

Wednesday, 25 November 2015


Ken Berwitz

From our pal Special Ed Robin:

Al Rogat's photo.

Now that you've seen that list, would you like to see the list of Arab countries - wealthy or otherwise - which allow Palestinian Arabs to emigrate to and become citizens?

Ok.  Just look up.  

With the exception of Jordan (which, itself, is a Palestinian Arab state), there is not one on the face of the earth.

What do you conclude from this?  

Think about it.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 19:37 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

For years, we have been treated to the steady ratatat of  "journalists" assuring us that 97% of the scientific community believes in "anthropogenic climate change" (that's a big word meaning "caused by humans"....and, yes, the term used to be "athropogenic global warming", until proponents...including many recipients of large government grants to study it...realized that global warming has not taken place for a long time).

But that 97% appears to be fraudulent.

Want evidence?  Ok.  Click here.  Or here.  Or here.  

There is, however, a 97% figure that appears to be least to the extent that any political poll is real.

The latest polling data on this subject, from Fox News, shows that when people are asked to name the most important issue facing the country today, climate change generates all of 3% mentions - which means 97% consider other things more important.  

And before you scream bias, be aware that Fox's polling is done jointly by a Republican and a Democrat pollster.  (Try and find that at NBC, CBS or ABC).

From this, I conclude that a 97% claim may be real.....just not the 97% claim which all that grant money is being handed over to prove.

Oh, one other thing.  If you think this blog was written because I am an apologist for the oil industry, think again.  I am not.  Not even close.  Our home has had one form or another of solar energy for over 35 years (that is NOT a typo), and we converted from oil heat to gas.

This blog was written because I value both sides of the story being heard, so that people can make intelligent decisions.  No other reason.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 18:27 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Here are the first two paragraphs of J. K. Trotter's article for the (usually leftward, Democrat-friendly), which should disabuse even people in full denial mode....

Few journalists are more thoroughly connected to Washington's power elite than Politico's Chief White House correspondent Mike Allen. But as newly released emails between the veteran reporter and a former State Department official show, Allen's coveted access sometimes comes at the cost of his own credibility-as well as Politico's reputation as an adversarial news outlet.

Gawker has received another batch of Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines' emails with reporters while working for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Among Reines' more frequent correspondents, it turns out, is Mike Allen. In an email dated January 10, 2013 and addressed to Reines, then serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Allen floated the idea of interviewing Clinton's adult daughter, Chelsea, during an upcoming brunch hosted by Politico. Attempting to secure an interview with the daughter of a likely presidential candidate is, of course, far from unheard of. What makes Allen's ask unusual is that he appears to assure Reines that he'll produce totally positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton (bolding ours):

....and this beginning of the article is just the tip of the iceberg.  Read it all and see for yourself.

Let me end with a suggestion:  whoever is doing the seating arrangements at the next Correspondents' Dinner:  maybe putting Trotter and Allen at the same table would not be such a good idea.

Just a thought.....

Hopelessly Partisan @ 16:10 PM   2 comments

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 much more completely must President Obama's - and Hillary Clinton's - middle east "policies" fail before media call them out?

-Will Hillary Clinton's scripted debate win turn her campaign around?

-When will media report that the ahmed mohamed "clock" story was a complete hoax?

-When will media report that Zimbabwe admitted there was no "Cecil the lion" scandal?

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

Right down to:

-Does Donald Trump actually pay money to the person who does his hair?

-Could the movie "Truth" possibly be more untrue?

-When did they stop giving out speeding tickets on the Garden State Parkway?

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
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
   Town Hall
   Weekly Standard

About Us  
Blog Posts