Buy Our Book Here!

Wednesday, 01 July 2015


Ken Berwitz

There is a report at that keith olbermann, who, professionally speaking, has burnt more bridges than the allies during WWII, is being told to knock off the commentaries he is so fond of making...the implicit threat seeming to be that, if he persists, his contract will not be renewed when it runs out next month.

If you are surprised at all by this, you don't know much about keith olbermann.  And that is directed not only at readers of this blog, but at the ESPN people who hired him.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:11 PM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Nicholas Winton, "The British Schindler" - a man who, singlehandedly, saved over 650 Jewish children from the nazi holocaust - has died at the remarkable age of 106.

You can read all about how he was able to do so by reading Naomi Koppel's article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. 

If you do, you'll find that Mr. Winton became aware that some of his fellow Britons were working to get Czechoslavakian Jews out of the country before the nazis took over, no one was making provisions for the children.  So he singlehandedly convinced the British authorities to accept the children as long as foster homes were found...which he also took upon himself to do.

Because of Nicholas Winton, hundreds and hundreds of Jewish children were spared certain death at the hands of hitler's minions.  His is a story of amazing dedication and selfless humanitarianism which should not, and cannot, go unnoticed.

Thank you Mr. Winton.  Thank you, sir, for what you did.

May you rest in peace.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:42 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

TV Land, the Warner Bros./Viacom-owned cable station, has pulled The Dukes Of Hazzard" from its lineup of shows, because the Dukes' car has a confederate flag on it.

The confederate flag, you see, is too offensive to be shown.

According to Kip Jones' article at, "WB announced the move as major retailers Walmart, Amazon, eBay, and Sears all introduced bans on the sale of Confederate flag merchandise in the wake of Dylann Roof’s Charleston, SC shooting rampage at a black church"

I have a question for TV Land:  Are you going to be turning down advertising from every retailer which sells che guevara merchandise?

che guevara, apart from being a heartless mass-murderer, was a stone-cold racist who thought of Black people as unhygienic and indolent (lazy).  An exact quote, straight from his "Motorcycle Diaries" (bold print is mine):

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles. Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."

That racist enough for you? 

And will you be turning down advertising from every retailer which sells nazi merchandise (I'm assuming I don't have to put up any quotes to refresh your memory about what nazis did)?

Because, if so, there goes the sanctimonious Amazon.  And ebay.  And Walmart.  And Sears.  See, every one of those four sells che guevara merchandise.  And two - amazon and ebay - currently sell nazi merchandise as well.  Both Walmart and Sears also used to sell nazi - Sears as recently as late last year.

The hypocrisy and sanctimony of TV Land - and of Amazon, ebay, Walmart, Sears, and, I am guessing, a whole bunch more just like them - is so thick you wouldn't need a knife to cut through it, you'd need a chain saw.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:05 PM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Last night, the State Department - which Hillary Clinton used to be in charge of - dumped 3,000 more of her emails - including at least two dozen which are now classified, but used to not be.

Here is what Michael Schmidt, who writes for the Clinton-loving New York Times, had to say about this:

"What happened last night, was actually kind of interesting. The State Department went back and said they classified two dozen of her emails, portions of them, saying that information in them was now classified. They said it wasn't classified at the time but had to be redacted in the emails.

"Now if you recall she has said there was no classified information on the emails, but people at the State Department have said to me that they thought it was hard to believe that of all these 55,000 pages that she had, that she didn't have anything sensitive. And apparently it's sensitive enough now to not be disclosed."

So - if you believe the Obama State Department (which, if true, is a sad commentary on you) - emails that went out on Hillary Clinton's personal server, which numerous 6th graders with a talent for computers could have hacked into and read, contained classified information.....i.e. information that was fully available to them then, but now, we are told, has subsequently become a no-no.

If that is true, this makes an already-huge scandal an even bigger one.

And what if it isn't true?  What if what really has been redacted is information showing that Ms. Clinton made decisions that were damaging to our country?  To our representatives in places like, oh, Benghazi, Libya?

I'll hold back (yes, this is holding back) until these thousands of emails have been fully sifted through to write more about this. 

Don't expect anything good from what they show.  And don't expect anything good from the subsequent email dumps either.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:48 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

There is certainly no shortage of media bias to blog about.  But some examples are so astonishing that you wonder if the purveyors of that bias think their audience is a bunch of brain-stems.

Here's one of them.

Yesterday, on CNN's "New Day" show, its wonderful "neutral" on-air talent reported results of the latest CNN/ORC poll.

One of the questions asked in this poll was: "Do you think relations between blacks and whites in the U.S. have gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed the same since Barack Obama became president?"

Here are the responses - for this wave of polling,  the previous wave - four months ago (February 12 - 15, 2015), and the first time it was asked - over 5 years ago (May 16 - 18, 2009):

June 26-28, 2015  

Response     All Americans       Blacks         Whites


Gotten better          20%             33%             17%                      

Gotten worse          43%             35%             47%

Stayed the same    36%             32%             35%

No Opinion                *                   *                   *


Feb. 12-15, 2015


Response     All Americans       Blacks         Whites


Gotten better          15%             25%             11%                      

Gotten worse          39%             26%             45%

Stayed the same   45%             47%             44%

No Opinion               1%               2%               *


May 16-18, 2009


Response     All Americans       Blacks         Whites


Gotten better          32%             37%             30%                      

Gotten worse            6%               2%               6%

Stayed the same   59%             60%             61%

No Opinion               2%               1%               3%

What do those data say to you?


How about that, at the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency - whether as the result of actual events or just due a positive "halo effect" for Mr. Obama - there was a great feeling that relations between Black and White citizens were improving...


...but by February of this year, that era of good feeling had evaporated and was now decidedly negative ....


...and as of this week, it had marginally improved over February, but was still far to the negative?


Does that appear to be a reasonable analysis?


Well, here - according to Brad Wilmouth's article at the invaluable source of uncovering media bias,, is how CNN New Day co-host Jim Acosta reported it:

 One reason why that is, the President is getting better marks for how he's handling race relations. That is up five points. You see it there at 55 percent. Five points higher than it was last month. And people are also feeling better about how the President is handling race relations overall: 20 percent say they are better under President Obama, up five points from earlier this year.

Can someone tell me where that 55% came from? 


Assuming Mr Acosta is incapable of adding 20% and 36% together, it appears that he combined the "gotten better" and "stayed the same" results.  In other words, Mr. Acosta is telling his viewership that people who say race relations have neither gotten better or gotten worse somehow count as a plus for Mr. Obama. 


Why would that be?  Why would no improvement at all count in the plus column?  Why does it not simply stand by itself?  And, if it doesn't stand by itself, why is it not just as logically in the negative column as in the plus column?


Oh, and just in case you think Acosta's amazingly dishonest analysis (along with his co-host, Chris Cuomo, who had no problem with what he said) was a one-time little accidental "whoopsie", be advised that Acosta repeated exactly the same BS two other times during the show.  Please use the link I've provided above and see for yourself.


To summarize, the data show that: 

-At the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency,  32% of the country said race relations had gotten better since he took office versus 6% saying they had gotten worse -- a difference of +26%;


-by February of this year, just 15% of the country said race relations had gotten better versus 39% saying they have gotten worse -- a difference of -24%, and a difference of -50% from the beginning of his presidency;


-and now, 20% of the country says race relations have gotten better versus 33% saying they have gotten worse -- a difference of -13%, and a difference of -39% from the beginning of his presidency.

This is what CNN is selling as good news...and hoping its viewership is sufficiently dumbed-down to believe it.


It is the equivalent of saying that a baseball team which had a 5 - 20 record for its first 25 games, then went 8 - 17 for its next 25 games, was now playing good ball.


I talk a lot about media bias in here.  This is why.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:27 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Here is a question I have asked more times than I care to remember, but which, somehow, I never get an answer to:

When does our government, and our mainstream media, start blaming Mexico for the border mess?

And when do they start calling Mexican President Enrique Peno Nieto to account for not only doing nothing to fix what is broken in Mexico, but stating that he is "indignant" that the USA might try to secure its borders?

I am now going to repost a blog I wrote on February 27th, 2014.  I do this partly because my point of view remains exactly the same today and partly because it shows that, 15 months later, Mexico still has done exactly nothing about this situation - and the Obama administration has done nothing to pressure them either:


Ken Berwitz


Do yourself a favor: Don't be eating or drinking anything when you read this.

Excerpted from Julia Symmes Cobb's incredible article at

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said he is "indignant" at the United States' deportation of Mexican migrants and described U.S. lawmakers as demonstrating a "lack of conscience" in failing to pass immigration reform.

In a television interview aired late on Wednesday Pena Nieto said he and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the issue during their meeting at a North American leaders' summit held last week in Mexico.

"Yes it makes me indignant, and it makes Mexicans indignant," Pena Nieto said in the interview, when asked whether deportations angered him.

"There's a lack of conscience, something which shouldn't only alert and worry Mexicans, it should also worry the American government and they should take up the issue," said Pena Nieto.

Pena Nieto added that he sees a willingness on the part of the Obama administration to change immigration laws, and that reform which provides a path to citizenship should "have the backing and aid of the various political forces" in the United States.

A bill that would have provided ways for the approximately 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally to obtain citizenship recently stalled in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

Can you believe this man's hypocrisy?

I have two words for enrique pena nieto. Propriety causes me not to post the first word, but the second is "you". I assume readers can do the math.

And now I have a question for him: what, exactly, does Mexico do with illegals who come across the Mexican border? Do you welcome them with open arms -- or do you send them right back to where they came from? We both know the answer, don't we?

enrique pena nieto is indignant that we don't take millions of his own people the way he and his government never would (for any other country's people)? What a disgusting, blatant hypocrite he is.

Now, let's discuss how pena nieto and his government treat the exact same people he professes to be "indignant" about.

Why, President pena nieto, do you think almost 10% of Mexican's entire population has chosen to cross the border illegally, to live in the shadows - often being exploited with low pay, squalid living conditions and no protection from employers happy to exploit them? Why do you think they prefer this kind of existence to living in their own country as legal citizens?

Because Mexico is providing them with the ability to earn enough to support their families and live in dignity?

Let's remember that Mexico is no third-world country. It has vast natural resources, and thriving industrial, agricultural and tourist industries. Therefore, the one and only reason Mexicans who seek work come over that border is because their own country treats them like dirt and could not care less.

You're indignant, President pena nieto? I don't give a damn. Because I'M indignant.

I'm indignant at your disgusting treatment of millions of Mexican people which causes them to flee their homeland and come here. And I'm especially indignant that you think the USA, not Mexico, is responsible for their well being.

I will end the way I started. Think of two words, Mr. President - the second of which is "you".

That is what you get from me, because it is what you deserve.

Mexico gets no free pass from me.  Does it get one from you?  If so, why?

Consider that a question to readers of this blog...and to every member of the Obama administration, right up to the top.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:24 AM   Add Comment

Tuesday, 30 June 2015


Ken Berwitz

How many times have I written about the likelihood that, if a "deal" is struck with Iran that allows it the means to create nuclear weaponry, Israel will be forced to consider a military option?  How many dozens of times?

From Ari Yashar's article at

As world powers and Iran reach a deadline Tuesday - which may be extended - for talks on the Islamic regime's nuclear program, Israel is taking steps to prepare for a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities so as to defend itself from the impending threat.

Iran has refused to allow inspections of its covert nuclear sites and declared it will use advanced centrifuges as soon as a deal is met, meaning the leading state sponsor of terrorism could potentially obtain a nuclear arsenal within weeks, all while getting billions of dollars in sanctions relief through a nuclear deal.

The Hebrew-language Walla! reported Tuesday that it has learned from a foreign source that IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot has appointed Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Golan to head a special team tasked with examining the military options against Iran.

The team would explore what kind of striking options are available to Israel after a deal with Iran is signed.

By appointing such a senior IDF official to the team, it is estimated that Israel is considering the signing of a deal to be a game changer which would require a serious reevaluation of the regional situation, and likely necessitate military action against Iran.

Should this surprise anyone?  Even a little?

What is Israel supposed to do if a terrorist state, that has overtly stated its intent to wipe Israel off the map, is being given a "deal" which enables it to build such weapons?  Sit back and say "Let's see what happens"?

And if Israel should strike, what will Barack Obama and John Kerry, the architects of this imbecilic, harebrained "deal" say?  That Israel is the aggressor?

What do you get when you put an overmatched incompetent - one who clearly has little regard for Israel - in the Oval Office, and he appoints an overmatched incompetent - the second one in a row - as Secretary Of State?  This is what you get.

But go ahead and make your "deal" Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry - the one that allows Iran to have nuclear capabilities and does not require inspections. 

"Let's see what happens".

Hopelessly Partisan @ 18:47 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Having read several of the web sites reporting Chris Christie's presidential candidacy, and noting the tidal wave of viciously nasty comments from Christie detractors about his weight...

...I wonder how the Christie haters making those comments would react to people who commented that Hillary Pants-suit could stand to lose 40 or so pounds?  Would they be offended?  Outraged? 

Some doors are best left shut.  But, as indicated above, a great many people do not have the intelligence to realize this. 

Hopelessly Partisan @ 16:00 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Today Chris Christie launched his campaign to become the Republican's 2016 presidential nominee.

According to Scott Whitlock, writing for

ABC's Good Morning America on Tuesday used Chris Christie's presidential announcement as an opportunity to remind viewers just how unpopular the Republican looks. Yet, co-anchor George Stephanopoulos and guest Matt Dowd ignored the fact that Christie was ultimately cleared for Bridgegate, the main reason for his faltering polling. CBS and NBC mentioned the scandal, but not the clearing of the governor.

An analysis by the Media Research Center found that in the first 48 hours of Bridgegate, the networks generated a staggering 88 minutes of coverage. However,

While the broadcast networks trumpeted Bridgegate in January, they offered a mere 48 seconds of coverage in December to the news that a Democratic-led investigation had failed to find evidence conclusively linking Governor Christie to the 2013 traffic jam: 15 seconds on CBS, 16 seconds on ABC and 17 seconds on NBC.

That is what Chris Christie is up against.

And these are the "journalists" who bristle when people call them biased.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:40 PM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Our pal Toy Insurance Bob sent this to me.  It is billed as a letter to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, after Mr. Page had written a column attacking the Washington Redskins football team for what he (and a good many others) consider to be its offensive name.

I do not know if the letter is real.  But, frankly, I don't care.  It is so entertaining I'd want to post it anyway - up to and including its somewhat raw ending (consider that a warning).

Here it is.  Enjoy:

Dear Mr. Page.

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend and, in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.


Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60s alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well, that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the Government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do nothing Congress loves.

As a diehard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers" (especially when they play Southern California. Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???)

I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name, I would suggest they change the name to the Foreskins to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.


Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:17 PM   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