Buy Our Book Here!

Thursday, 03 September 2015


Ken Berwitz

A funny thing happened on my way through the New York Times this morning.  I found Peter Wehner - undilutedly conservative Peter Wehner - on the op-ed page.

I have no doubt the letters to the editor will skewer him in a day or two - partly because the readership of the New York Times is not exactly on board with undiluted conservatism, and partly because the Times' letters to the editor page barely ever shows two sides of anything....and even when it does, the other side is usually a sterile, unpassionate statement, rather than the more fleshed-out comments from people The Times agrees with.*

In any case, you can click here to read Mr. Wehner's piece.  But let me show you excerpts from just the beginning:

RIGHT now it looks very much as if the two major political parties in America are in a race to see which one can destroy itself first.

On the Republican side, Donald J. Trump not only leads but dominates the presidential race. Crude, erratic, unprincipled and unelectable, Mr. Trump, if he were to win the nomination, would do catastrophic damage to the Republican Party. But the Democratic Party, if it were to nominate Hillary Clinton, would be inviting a different kind of disaster.

Since the 2008 campaign, it's been pretty clear that she is, to put it mildly, not a natural political talent. Mrs. Clinton lost a nomination she was heavily favored to win. Her campaign was poorly managed, plagued by indecision, confusion and poisonous infighting...

Things haven't gotten any better for her since. In public Mrs. Clinton often comes across as inauthentic, charmless and brittle, and she is poor on the stump. When campaigning, one senses that for her it's an act of will rather than an act of joy. In these respects, she is the antithesis of her husband.

Excellent analysis.

The man can write.  And knows whereof he speaks. 

What a nice surprise to see it among the usual hard-left + one pseudo-conservative (David Brooks) lineup which usually occupies that page.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:34 AM   Add Comment

Wednesday, 02 September 2015


Ken Berwitz

Several days ago, I blogged about Kim Davis, the County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples, even though it was their legal right to get them.

She is still refusing to do so, and should be summarily fired.

But, that is not why I am blogging about Kim Davis today.  I am blogging because of the position taken on Davis's behavior by Republican  presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

In his own words:

"Thank God for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis standing firm against SCOTUS's gay marriage ruling".

Therefore Huckabee, like Davis, puts his personal religious and moral beliefs over the laws of the land, which apply to all of us regardless of our religious or moral beliefs.

This. to me, automatically disqualifies Huckabee from the presidency.

I do not want our country in the hands of a religious zealot who believes it is OK to put his beliefs above the law and force them on the rest of us.

Let Mike Huckabee go back to his Baptist ministry, or be a TV talk show host again. That is fine with me. But keep him far, far away from the White House.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 22:10 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Gwen Ifill is a supposedly neutral journalist who now toils for PBS.  Partly taxpayer-funded PBS.

This comes to us from Kristinn Taylor, writing for  See if you think it is worthy of being called neutral journalism:

Gwen Ifill, a star news anchor on the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System's Washington Week and PBS Newshour, took to Twitter on Wednesday to mock Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ifill retweeted an Obama administration propaganda tweet from the administration's @TheIranDeal Twitter account that itself mocked Netanyahu with a graphic based on a famous 'nuclear bomb' illustration Netanyahu used in an address to the United Nations

"Take that, Bibi", mocked Ifill, using Netanyahu's nickname.

Lovely.  Just lovely.

Partisan and childishly insulting to a head of state and about as relevant to professional journalism as O Soave Fanciulla is to a rap concert. 

In other words, so Gwen Ifill.

The truth is that Ms. Ifill is a hard-left, take no prisoners Democrat partisan.  And has been for many years.  You can go through several examples of why I say this in Matthew Sheffield's two year old article for (hint:  it has not changed at all since).  She is so completely, unconditionally in love with Barack Obama that it would not surprise me if, one day, she suggests he dump Michelle and they start picking out furniture together.

But....please do enjoy her, er, professionalism.  If you pay taxes, you are, in part, subsidizing it.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 17:36 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

This goes straight to the "you can't make this stuff up" file:

Excerpted from Barton Deiters' article at

The 87-year-old man police say was soliciting an undercover cop posing as a prostitute will not be prosecuted.

Howard Arthur Klein, likely the oldest person ever charged with this crime, was arrested by Grand Rapids Police around 10 p.m. June 26, near Broadway Street NW and Leonard Avenue, not far from his home.

Klein was arrested along with two other men and two women, the rest of whom were booked into the Kent County Jail. Klein was not taken into custody, due to his age, and was arraigned July 8.

Klein allegedly claimed he thought the woman he approached was someone he knew from church.

What church would that be?  Our Lady Of $100 A Throw Or $500 For The Night?

And what would the charge be?  Assault with a dead weapon?

I once read about an 87 year old guy who spent about 2/3 of a night with a hot hooker...before he "died in bed" in a way he probably had not envisioned.   It took the undertaker three days to get the smile off his face.  And another three to be able to close the coffin.

Ok, enough bad jokes from me. The next one is yours.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:24 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Donald Trump says that the nuclear "deal" with Iran includes an agreement that, if Israel should attack the nuclear capabilities, the United States and the European nations which signed on to the "deal" will do what is necessary to stop them.

Is Trump nuts?  Or isn't he?

Let's see.

Here is the passage that Trump is referring to, which can be found on page 142 of the "deal", which promises...:

"Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

In other words, if Israel, in mortal fear that a country which, to this moment, is committed to its annihilation and the death of all Jews everywhere, decides to do something to prevent it, the USA and European partners signing on to this deal, will provide training and workshops to help ..... Iran, not Israel.

Does it say we will go to war on Iran's side against Israel?  No.  But it does say that Iran is the side we will support.  Therefore Trump, therefore, is exaggerating the extent of what we promise Iran.  But he is dead right about the direction.

Now:  shouldn't we wonder how come Trump is so smart that he found this promise....but no one else seems to have done so - certainly not mainstream media?

The answer is that A LOT of venues picked up on it.  But not mainstream media venues.  They left it virtually unreported.  Just as they left Paragraph 36 virtually unreported - which says that Iran can, at any time, claim it is dissatisfied with how the USA and/or other countries are keeping up their end of things, and get out - with all that money released when the sanctions were lifted - in as few as 30 days. 

Click here and find a google page after google page loaded with them, all of which were reporting on this in late July, well over a month ago.  But - having checked the first three full pages, I can assure you that there is nothing from NBC, or ABC, or CBS, or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times or....etc. etc. etc., you know the rest.

Even without knowledge of these beyond-belief parts of the "deal", most people in the country are against it.

But imagine if mainstream media actually acted like journalists and let them in on what you just read about.  Where do you think support would be for the "deal" then?  And how many Democrat Senators voting in favor of the "deal" would have to reconsider their votes because of the resulting outcry?  Enough to insure that if the Senate voted it down and President Obama vetoed, they could override him?  It's an excellent bet the answer would be yes.

If so, it logically follows that the only reason this "deal" is going to pass is that mainstream media are intentionally withholding its worst parts from the public.  Or, put another way, keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.

And, yes, these are the same media people who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Oh, one other thing:  Trump also said:

"A baby could negotiate a better deal than that."

Very hard to argue the point....

Hopelessly Partisan @ 14:49 PM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's paragraphs of the day come to us from Frank Bruni, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times.

In today's paper, Mr. Bruni pleads with Vice President Joe Biden not to enter the Democrat presidential race.

When I started reading it, I expected it might be more an effort to clear the path for Hillary Clinton than anything else.  But that is not the case.  It turns out that Mr. Bruni really does have high regard for Biden, and sincerely feels that, if he runs, a) he will lose - because of the "uncorked, uncensored quality" Bruni holds in such high regard - which b) will unnecessarily tarnish the end of his political career.

Here are Mr. Bruni's last paragraphs:

Biden has twice before pursued the Democratic nomination and never won a single state. The last time, in 2008, he got less than 1 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and then quickly dropped out.

And while much about circumstances and about Biden has changed since then, what hasn't, at least not significantly, is the uncorked, uncensored quality that contributed to his troubles before.

He rolls his eyes. He reaches out with his hands. He talks and talks, in sentences that sometimes go too far, with words that haven't been weighed as carefully as they could be. The route from his brain to his lips is direct and swift. None of the usual traffic cones there.

Sometimes this is enervating. Mostly it's endearing. For better or worse, it's not the means to a promotion, not for this remarkable man at this remarkable time.

Though no one can be 100% certain, I am pretty confident Joe Biden is not going to take Frank Bruni's advice.  But I hope he comes across the above paragraphs today, because they are worth reading...

...which is why Frank Bruni wins Paragraphs Of The Day honors.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 11:49 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Senator Barbara Mikulski has announced she is supporting the Iran nuclear "deal".  That makes her the 34th Senator to announce support, which is enough so that if the Senate rejects the "deal" the two-thirds majority necessary to override his veto will not be there.

This frees up other Democrats to vote against the "deal" - possibly with the Democrat leadership's approval - because they are secure in the knowledge that it will pass anyway.   The "no" votes will shore up their base (low-information voters will be counted on to believe this was a sincere vote, rather than that it would have been a "yes" if Mr. Obama needed them).

In other words, it puts the sincerity of every eventual Democrat "no" vote in question.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

And even more interesting to hear from the Republican presidential candidates what they will do about this "deal" if elected.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 11:09 AM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

Two days ago I blogged about three professors at Washington State University (and who knows how many more), who specifically warned their incoming students that their speech was being censored in the class, and that there would be significant repercussions if they did not buckle under and work within the censorship constraints.

Here, from Peter Hasson's article at, which I quoted at that time, are what would be in store for students who decided that such censorship was not acceptable:

Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as "illegal alien," "male," and "female," or if they fail to "defer" to non-white students.

According to the syllabus for Selena Lester Breikss' "Women & Popular Culture" class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that Breikss considers "oppressive and hateful language."

The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, Breikss warns, includes "but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and - in extreme cases - failure for the semester."

Much like in Selena Breikss's classroom, students taking Professor Rebecca Fowler's "Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies" course will see their grades suffer if they use the term "illegal alien" in their assigned writing.

White students in Professor John Streamas's "Introduction to Multicultural Literature" class, are expected to "defer" to non-white students, among other community guidelines, if they want "to do well in this class."

In other words, either limit your speech to what someone else's idea of acceptable is, and, in one case, defer to other students based exclusively on race (welcome to the new KKK), or be punished with a lower grade, maybe removal from the class, maybe a failing mark.

Well, praise be!  The Washington State University administration has spoken up about this injustice!  You can read its entire statement by clicking here.  But let me show you the key paragraph, the one that is supposed to re-establish free speech at WSU and put those censorious professors in their place!

Over the weekend, we became aware that some faculty members, in the interest of fostering a constructive climate for discussion, included language in class syllabi that has been interpreted as abridging students' free speech rights. We are working with these faculty members to clarify, and in some cases modify, course policies to ensure that students' free speech rights are recognized and protected. No student will have points docked merely as a result of using terms that may be deemed offensive to some. Blanket restriction of the use of certain terms is not consistent with the values upon which this university is founded.

Wow!  That's some put-down! 

Telling students in so many words that they will be screwed over if they don't do exactly as the professor demands "has been interpreted as abridging students' fre speech rights"?  Hey hey hey, how could that possibly have been said any more strongly?

And "We are working with these faculty members to clarify, and in some cases midofy, course policies"?  Hooboy, I'll bet they're just shaking in their boots over that.

A question for the Washington State University administration:  Why were these professors not told that, based on the severity of their threats, they are on probation and will closely be monitored to insure that students are not punished simply for exercising their right to free speech?

Maybe the administrators would like to tell us how they intend to enforce what they did instead?  Suppose students who speak in ways the professors do not tolerate get lower grades, and the professors, whom they have...what was their wording?  Oh yeah....worked with to clarify and, in some cases modify, course policies tell them "Well, that's how I decided to mark the student.  The end" - the equivalent of "take your clarification and modification and stuff it.  What will they do about it? 

This is a classic case of a university bowing to the academic brownshirts who now infest, even overrun, so many of what used to reasonably be called institutes of higher learning.  This is what the tuition goes for at Washington State University (and the others). 

Is it money well spent?  You tell me.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:50 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

"Every 28 hours a cop kills a Black person".  That is the mantra you hear over and over from  #blacklives matter "leaders" and their apologists.

Let's, for the sake of discussion, forget the fact that this claim is false.  Let's pretend it is true and go from there. 

One killing every 28 hours is based on a total of 313 killings in 2012 (not all of them by police, even though #blacklivesmatter pretends they are - use the above link to see for yourself).

Statistically it is also true that there are something like 35 - 40 million interactions between police and civilians every year.  Taking the average of 37.5 million, this means there are over 100,000 such interactions per day. 

And police interactions are not the same as the general public has.  The nature of police work is that they proactively run towards the lawbreakers, the violent thugs, the armed lunatics whom the general public runs away from. 

So, of those 313 or so police killings of Black people, how many of them involve violent thugs, who have threatened, hurt or killed others, which is why the police were there in the first place?  The vast majority of them?  That's an excellent bet, especially given the dramatically higher incidents of violent crime among Black citizens than the general public.

Which leads to the other part of this story - the one #blacklivesmatter ignores completely - which is that, on an average day in the United States, slightly over 17 Black people are murdered - almost all of them by other Black people. 

That comes out to one Black on Black murder every 25 or so minutes.  Not hours, minutes.

When do the #blacklivesmatter frauds march against that?  Those people are just as Black and just as dead.  But the next march or protest about Black on Black violence you see from #blacklivesmatter will be the first.

And when do you see a march or protest about the White lives that are lost to Black thugs (there is far more Black on White murder/assault/rape than White on Black)?  Apparently that name means what it suggests:  To these racists, Black lives matter and non-Black lives do not.

From this, I conclude that #blacklivesmatter is a racist, anti-police hate group which doesn't give a damn about Black lives other than the ones that can further their efforts to promote racial strife and anti-police hatred.  

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:00 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Are you as tired as I am of hearing Hillary Clinton apologists try to BS away the email scandal by claiming the hundreds - probably thousands before we are through - of emails with classified material were not classified at the time?

This is a BS excuse, perfectly designed to convince the low-information crowd that Ms. Clinton is as innocent as a newborn babe (they're supposed to also pretend she didn't lie about how many phones she had, what was on them, and that the only reason she erased tens of thousands of emails was because they were about her yoga class and her daughter's wedding).

First off, no one in his or her right mind would believe the summary removal and scrubbing of emails from that server was an innocent act of getting rid of personal minutiae. 

You'd have to be comatose to buy that.

Secondly, even if the classified material were not marked as such at the time, does the Secretary Of State not know that she is ongoingly given material before it is classified?  That she sees things before some wonk at the State Department goes into redacting mode? 

You'd have to be comatose and chloroformed to buy that.

And thirdly, if hundreds, maybe thousands of emails could be marked as having classified information after the emails were sent and received, does the Secretary Of State not know that materials not currently classified might be at a future date?  That she is constantly being given this kind of information because she's the Secretary Of State? 

You'd have to be comatose, chloroformed and lobotomized to buy that.

Chalk the email scandal up as one of the good reasons that, despite the best efforts of media to run cover for her (until the last week or two, when even they can't play let's-pretend anymore), Hillary Clinton's approval numbers, and favorability ratings, have dropped through a trap door while her unfavorables have jumped through the roof.   

If you think Republicans are in disarray, you are right.  But if you think Democrats, with Hillary Clinton still, more or less, in the lead, are in better shape, you better think harder.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:29 AM   1 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:

-Could President Obama's Iran "deal" be worse?

-With Hillary Clinton sinking like a rock, what happens if/when Joe Biden jumps into the race?

-How much are the email and Clinton foundation scandals causing Hillary's downward plunge? What can she do to stop it? Anything?

-When does Zimbabwe stop whining about "Cecil" and take responsibility for giving hunters permission to kill lions...for $50,000 each?

-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 Tom Brady possibly come across as less honest? Less sincere?

-Will I win or lose my $10 bet with Toy Insurance Bob that the Yankees will win more games than the Mets this year?

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