Buy Our Book Here!

Friday, 31 July 2015


Ken Berwitz

Baltimore State Attorney Marilyn Mosby has cells ready for each of the Baltimore 6 - the police officers she is charging with various felonies related to the death of Freddie Gray.

Does she have one ready for herself?  Because if what you are about to read is true, there is every reason for charges - serious charges - to be filed against her.

From Kevin Rector and Allison Knezevich's article at the Baltimore Sun:

Prosecutors have information indicating that Freddie Gray "attempted to injure himself" during a previous arrest, but have intentionally withheld it from their criminal case against the six Baltimore police officers charged in Gray's apprehension and death in April, the officers' attorneys said in a court filing Thursday.

"Based upon information and belief, the State's Attorney's Office was informed of this fact, yet failed to disclose to the Defendants any statements, reports, or other communications relating to this information," they wrote.

In their filing Thursday, the defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld "multiple witness statements from individuals who stated that Mr. Gray was banging and shaking the van at various points" after his arrest April 12, as well as "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."

The defense attorneys also said that Mosby failed to disclose her office's participation in a "private meeting" with Assistant Medical Examiner Carol Allan before receiving Gray's autopsy report, which ruled his death a homicide.

They also said Mosby was told by police that a knife found on Gray was spring-assisted - and thus illegal - before she brought charges against the officers.

In announcing the charges on May 1, Mosby said the knife was legal, and Gray should not have been arrested.

Is this true? 

We already knew that Mosby either lied about spring-action knife Gray had or was ignorant of Baltimore's laws making it illegal.

But did Freddy Gray have a history of intentionally trying to injure himself while in custody - maybe because he was high on the drugs he was selling, or maybe because he figured it might get him a lawsuit against Baltimore and a fat settlement at the end of the rainbow?  Did Marilyn Mosby have this information, so obviously critical to the case given that gray died of injuries inflicted while he was in police custody - and intentionally withhold it from the defense attorneys?

And did did freddie gray do exactly this while in police custody on April 12th?  Are there witnesses who said he did, who Mosby has kept under wraps?

I have to believe that if these allegations are true, these are serious actionable offenses which Mosby must answer for - after either immediately resigning her post as State Attorney or, at the very least, recusing herself from this case.

Stay tuned.  This could get very hot very fast.


Hopelessly Partisan @ 18:54 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

How big is Hillary Clinton's email scandal?

Read this excerpt from John Solomon and S. A. Miller's article at the Washington Times and then you tell me:.

The U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account contains hundreds of revelations of classified information from spy agencies and is taking steps to contain any damage to national security, according to documents and interviews Thursday.

The top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committee have been notified in recent days that the extent of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was likely far more extensive than the four emails publicly acknowledged last week as containing some sensitive spy agency secrets.

A U.S. official directly familiar with the notification, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the notification of possibly hundreds of additional emails with classified secrets came from the State Department Freedom of Information Act office to the Office of Inspector General for the Director of National Intelligence.

Simply stated, this scandal is:

-Huge and getting bigger.

-Ugly, and getting uglier.

-Damaging and getting more damaging - not just to the Clinton campaign but to the country.

Hillary Clinton inevitable?  Believe me, she's evitable..



Hopelessly Partisan @ 13:30 PM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

From George H. W., - the first President Bush - who did a successful skydive at age 90, but had an in-home accident and broke a bone in his neck a few weeks ago:

"Who knew jumping out of planes was safer than getting out of bed?  Thanks to all for your kind get-well messages."

I love it.

FYI:  Mr. Bush is expected to fully recover.  That is great news. 

Looking forward to your 95 year jump, Mr. President.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:42 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

I was up early this morning, and watched about 15 minutes of "Morning Joe".  I could barely believe what I was hearing. 

Joe Scarborough, and his dyed-in-the-wool Democrat co-host Mika Brzezinski, and everyone else on the panel, was absolutely skewering Hillary Clinton for her lies about the emails on her personal server...and the fact that she told lie after lie even though there was virtually no doubt that information would soon come out disproving those lies.

Then they referenced the just-released Quinnipiac poll, which shows Ms. Clinton's favorability at an all-time low for that poll (just 40%, to 51% unfavorable) and the borderline-devastating finding that just 37% see her as "honest and trustworthy" versus 57% saying she is not. 

Even on the issue of "caring about their needs and problems" - the hallmark of her entire campaign so far - 52% say she does not.

The "Morning Joe" people, at least during the segment I watched, stuck almost exclusively to her email problems.  But, if that 52% saying she doesn't care about their needs and problems is accurate, it exposes a far deeper problem. 

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for upwards of 30 years.  This is not some snapshot imagery of a newcomer that can be wiped away with a few slick ads and clever turns of phrase in a stump speech.  This is where people have come to, and settled on, about her. 

Tell me what Hillary Clinton can do after all this time, to make people like her?  To make people think she is honest?  To make people think that she truly cares about them? 

And let's remember that is before a major alternative jumps into the Democrat race - while it is still mostly Bernie Sanders. 

What happens when a real opponent - Joe Biden, for example - jumps into the race. What happens when a serious candidate - other than the curiosity and entertainment value of Donald Trump - emerges?  What happens when they start talking about, reminding people about, why they find Ms. Clinton so unfavorable after all this time?

Hillary Clinton inevitable?  Believe me, she's evitable.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:35 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

One of the best analyses I have read about how President Obama and John Kerry are trying to sell the unsalable nuclear "deal" to people other than the low-information and far left crowd, comes from Daniel Greenfield - a regular contributor to

And, unfortunately, it is also one of the most disturbing.

Mr. Greenfield is no practitioner of understatement.  He bluntly says what he thinks and, in truth, sometimes goes overboard in his presentation.

But not in this excerpt - which is why it is so disturbing:

Too many Democrats are still sitting on the fence. Some have come out against the deal. So the White House is looking for weak points in a potential coalition against the deal.

Its opening move is a classical "Divide and Conquer" strategy that tries to split pro-Israel Democrats from Republicans. The Democrats are being told that a rejection of the deal means war with Iran. If they don't back the deal, they will be warmongers. Those who oppose the deal with Iran will face the same anti-war coalition that targeted those Democrats who supported Bush's overthrow of Saddam.

The deal is too unappealing to be sold on its merits, so it is instead being presented as the only alternative to a war. Obama and Kerry love nuance when it comes to finding all the positive sides to making deals with Iran or the Taliban, but quickly abandon it at home in favor of a polarized argument in which opponents of their latest terrorist appeasement are warmongers and traitors.

Jewish Democrats, in particular, are being told that Israel and Jews will be blamed for such a war.

John Kerry has already come out and said that Israel will be blamed. That's nothing new for the Democratic Party. It wasn't that long ago when Senator Hollings was claiming that Bush had invaded Iraq and passed tax cuts for the "Jewish vote". To Jon Stewart, Obama referenced the Iraq War and suggested that the people against the deal "are not going to be making sacrifices" if there is a war.

Will it work? 

Will Jewish Democrats - and non-Jews who support this "deal" - allow themselves to be contorted into some kind of "I can't go against it, people would think I'm a Republican" rationale?  Does that really scare them more than a "deal" in which we have caved in to Iran on every significant issue? 

Are they really going to pretend that Iran - a country that has lied about its nuclear program for years, and broken every agreement it has ever made since the lunatics took over in 1979 - would abide by a deal to stop creating nuclear weaponry; that this would be when they suddenly became honest and honorable?  

Sadly, for a good many of these people, the answer is yes.  I experienced it first-hand in a facebook discussion I had last night with a long-time friend who fits right into this category. 

Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry are two inept, incompetent, overmatched men who have been outwitted, outplayed, and made fools of by people who hate us and publicly wish us, and Israel, death.  It is staggering that there are people who would put political posturing - the stupidest reason of them all - ahead of recognizing this fact.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:10 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Revelations put Clinton in crosshairs of broadening inquiry into whether she mishandled classified information

Officials reviewed five classified emails and determined they included information from five intelligence agencies

State Department officials warned there could be hundreds of classified emails

That's pretty grim news about Hillary Clinton, isn't it?

Must be from one of those mouth-breathing conservative looney-tunes web sites. We all know you can't trust them.....

.....oh, wait. It's not from any such source. In fact, those are the sub-heads from an article published today, by the decidedly mainstream McClatchy Group. An article that makes Ms. Clinton's claims about what was and wasn't on her server look even more dishonest than they already did - which is going some.

Most mainstream media are still in PHM (Protect Hillary Mode). But McClatchy deserves credit for deciding it is a journalistic enterprise, not a propaganda arm of the Hillary For President campaign.

And if McClatchy keeps scooping the others, who knows? At some point they just might have to decide they're journalists too.

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:46 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

This is an easy blog to write. But a hard one to accept.

From Chuck Ross's article at

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to shift blame for the failure to detain an illegal alien who was briefly apprehended by sheriff's deputies in Ohio three weeks ago and is now accused of murdering a 60-year-old woman during a crime spree on Monday.

On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for DHS told The Daily Caller that Lake County sheriff's deputies had declined an offer to personally interview the illegal alien, 35-year-old Juan Emmanuel Razo-Ramirez, during a suspicious person stop on July 7.

But the federal agency's claim comes a day after Lake County sheriff Daniel Dunlap said in a press conference that Border Patrol told his deputies during that stop three weeks ago not to take Razo-Ramirez, a Mexican national, into custody.

Razo-Ramirez reportedly admitted to shooting Margaret Kostelnik in her home on Monday. The killing came hours after Razo-Ramirez allegedly tried to rape his niece, a 14-year-old girl, and then shot a 40-year-old woman in the shoulder in a park near Kostelnik's house. After killing Kostelnik, who worked for 27 years as the assistant to the mayor of nearby Willoughby, Razo-Ramirez was apprehended following a brief standoff with police.


DHS and the Border Patrol argue over which of them should be blamed for allowing the illegal alien on the streets where he murdered an innocent woman. Meanwhile, an innocent woman is dead, another innocent woman is shot and a 14 year old girl was almost raped.

Actions have consequences. Allowing a tidal wave of illegals into the country with little or no vetting of any kind (why else is the Obama administration so dilligently hiding what it does with them) has consequences.

What makes me so sure of this? Well, since 2012, according to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, 664,607 applications were approved. And, as Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner tells us:

Of those granted amnesty, at least 49 had gang ties, six had a possible link to terrorism and 3,959 had indicators of fraud. Just 43,375 have been denied.

That's a total of 707,982 applications. the 43,375 rejections total about 6%. If you honestly believe that 94% of the illegal aliens since 2012 would pass a serious vetting process, you are on crack.

But, then again, what's the difference? If mainstream media do not report stories like this, how would anyone know? And where else have you seen this information other than here, and the links I've provided?

Put another way, we all know about Cecil the lion. We all know about a cop being arrested for killing a Black driver after stopping his car. But this? Bury the story. It makes Barack Obama look bad, and we can't have that, can we?

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:44 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Camille Paglia, an educator, writer and social critic who - unlike all too many of her peers, retains an open mind and sees things on an issue by issue basis rather than funneling them into a predetermined conclusion.

Here is what Ms. Paglia has to say about the dilligent - desperate - effort by mainstream media to bury the Planned Parenthood videos showing Directors of their facilities conversationally discussing, among other things, how the formed babies they kill in the womb are carefully crushed so that individual organs can be cut out and sold:

"At what point will liberals wake up to realize the stranglehold that they had on the media for so long?

"Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that's simply not true. Liberalism has sadly become a knee-jerk ideology, with people barricaded in their comfortable little cells. They think that their views are the only rational ones, and everyone else is not only evil but financed by the Koch brothers. It's so simplistic.

"Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released.

"It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it.

"Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials.

"But here's my point: it is everyone's obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world."

Allow me to raise the same question Ms. Paglia raises: how can you honestly say you have knowledge and understanding of an issue unless you consider all sides of it? And how can you consider all sides of it if the source of your knowledge suppresses one of those sides?

I award Camille Paglia Quote Of The Day honors - both for saying out loud what so many of her similarly leftward counterparts will not, and for trying her best to know what she is talking about - as so many of her similarly leftward counterparts will not - rather than reciting the party line.

How tragic that this is a cause for praise, rather than an inherent expectation.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:42 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

As you probably know, Dr. Walter Palmer is the Minnesota dentist who went on a "lion hunt" (I don't know what else to call it) in Zimbabwe, and killed "Cecil The Lion", a popular, iconic animal there.

Palmer claims that he did everything right - got the permits, worked with the guides, etc. - and had no idea this was anything other than an anonymous lion. I have no idea of whether he is telling the truth - maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

Since then Palmer has been attacked unmercifully by animal lovers around the world. I would not be surprised if his dental practice will be severely damaged, and he is more or less in hiding.

I have a few questions:

-Is it really legal to kill lions in Zimbabwe? Are there really guides who, with the government's consent, take rich "hunters" around to shoot them dead so they brag about what great sportsmen they are to whoever is not repulsed by the "sport" they engage in?

-Isn't it true that, if Palmer had not killed Cecil in particular, he would have his trophy, Zimbabwe would have gotten the money he paid to get it, the guides would have been compensated for their work, and everyone would be happy......except for the unlucky non-Cecil lion, that is?

-If so, why are these people attacking Palmer in particular? Is he the only one who goes hunting in Zimbabwe?

-And why are they not attacking Zimbabwe itself? How does the country which, apparently, is allowing the Walter Palmers of the world to go there and hunt down animals which have no defense against them, not get the - I have to say it - lion's share of the blame? Without Zimbabwe's acquiescence, this would not have happened.

I have a few more questions - these directed at Dr. Walter Palmer and anyone else who goes on these "hunts":

-What in the world is inside of you that would make you want to do this?

-What happened to you that would make killing for the sake of killing so attractive? Did you have some kind of trauma when you were a child with your stuffed "Leo"?

-Killing for the sake of killing - not for food, not defensively, just to watch another creature die and give some taxidermist a payday - is about as disgusting to me as anything can be, but you apparently do it without thinking twice.  What kind of man would do that?

What kind of a man are you?

Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:40 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

As promised, here is another blatant example of media partisanship - this one regarding the IRS scandal - which mainstream media have done their level best to suppress and bury for well over a year.

Excerpted from today's report at

Judicial Watch announced that U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department's excuses for not following his July 1 order were "indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd." He asked the IRS' Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas,"Why didn't the IRS comply" with his court order and "why shouldn't the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt." Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, "I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt."

Yesterday, Judicial Watch released the first batch believed to be newly recovered emails of Lerner. The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

"Indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd"? And then some.

We have the ludicrous spectacle of the IRS simultaneously claiming it has done nothing wrong, and doing absolutely everything it can in every way possible to avoid turning over documents that - if the IRS were telling the truth - would either be irrelevant, or would exonerate it.

It seems self-evident that the only reason the IRS would do this is if it was NOT telling the truth, and that lois "liar" lerner and her pals DID conspire to prevent 501(c)4 applicants with names that suggested opposition to President Obama's policies from getting tax exemptions, or being able to appeal rejections.

In your wildest dreams, could you ever imagine these same media giving, say, the Bush administration a free pass on this, the way they are giving one to Obama & Co.?

Regardless of your position on the IRS scandal, this should tell you everything you need to know about how today's mainstream media puts partisanship - its preference for one side of an issue - over journalism.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:39 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:

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

-What really happened to Harry Reid? Did his brother Larry beat the crap out of him?

-Will the email scandal and the massive contributions from foreign countries hurt Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016?

-Can the eric holder DOJ scare Senator Menendez into silence?

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

Right down to:

-Did American Sniper's box office success teach Hollywood anything?

-Does anyone other than a few gossip columnists care about anything Lena Dunham says?

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