Buy Our Book Here!

Monday, 06 July 2015


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Mandy Hitchcock, who writes for

In her latest piece, Ms. Hitchcock imbues us with a nugget of information that I have to admit I have never seen or heard before - that White people invented racism.  Not that there are White people who engage in racism, mind you - I assume we all know that such White people exist.  No, Hitchcock informs us that....well, let me use her quote to tell you:

"While we must absolutely listen to and try to understand and love our black brothers and sisters, while we must absolutely bear witness to the pain that is the black experience in America, while we must absolutely stand in solidarity with black people, racism is a white problem. It was created by white people, and it must be solved by white people. It is not the responsibility of our black brothers and sisters to teach us how not to be racist, to educate us about racism, to explain white privilege to us, to tell us where to begin. It is our job as white people to do that work. It is our job to raise the generation of white children who will end racism in this country."

Breathtaking.  There are so many things wrong with that statement that you could do one of those puzzles the magazines used to have, where you had to see how many you could find.

Let's go through some of them:

-Racism is not a White problem.  It is a problem.  One that every race has, Blacks very much included;

-Racism was not created by White people.  Racism was created by people.  Does Ms. Hitchcock think racism was unknown to the world until White people came up with the idea?  non-caucasian world?  How many tribes of people in history have been vanquished simply because they were members of that tribe of people?  How many wars are being fought today, over race - and religion, and cultural differences?  To claim that White people are the progenitors of this, as if it never existed at any time, anywhere else, is staggeringly ridiculous;

-And while we're on the subject, where does Mandy Hitchcock get off blaming racism on an entire race, as if racism is inherently conferred on every person with White skin color?  If she thought about this for, oh, maybe a quarter of a second, maybe she'd realize that her own comment - which means that she is absolutely no different than dylann roof - is as pure an example of racism as there is.

-The way Ms. Hitchcock writes suggests that Black people are not/cannot be racist.  Only White people can.  That is too stupid to even bother dealing with.  Anyone who believes Black people cannot be racist is too far gone to reason with.

Look, I appreciate Mandy Hitchcock's intent.  In her mind, she is 100% committed to racial equality, and racial equality is certainly a good thing in my book.

But since her idea of what consitutes racial equality is blaming everything on every White and exonerating every non-White for any racism on their part, that good intent goes straight down the crapper.

I award Mandy Hitchcock Quote Of The Day honors for reminding us - again - of how much racism is spewed by people who profess to be against racism.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 14:58 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

I count Walter Williams as one of the Black people I wish more Black people would listen to.

And his latest column, titled "Fiddling Away the Future", is a classic example of why.

A few key excerpts:

Let's list major problems affecting black Americans. Topping the list is the breakdown in the black family, where only a third of black children are raised in two-parent households. Actually, the term "breakdown" is incorrect. Families do not form in the first place. Nationally, there is a black illegitimacy rate of 72 percent. In some urban areas, the percentage is much greater. Blacks constitute more than 50 percent of murder victims, where roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered each year. Ninety-five percent of the time, the perpetrator is another black. If a black youngster does graduate from high school, it is highly likely that he can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh- or eighth-grader. These are the major problems that face black Americans.

Let's look at some of the strategy since the beginning of the civil rights movement. The black power movement of the '60s and '70s held that black underrepresentation in the political arena was a major problem. It was argued that the election of more black officials as congressmen, mayors and city council members would mean economic power, better neighborhoods and better schools. Forty-three years ago, there were roughly 1,500 black elected officials nationwide. According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, by 2011 there were roughly 10,500 black elected officials, including a black president. But what were the fruits?

By most any measure, the problems are worse. There is the greatest black poverty, poorest education, highest crime and greatest family instability in cities such as: Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Calif., Memphis, Tenn., Birmingham, Ala., Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Buffalo, N.Y. The most common characteristic of these predominantly black cities is that, for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. What's more is that in most of these cities, blacks have been mayors, chiefs of police, school superintendents and principals and have dominated city councils. Political power has not lived up to its billing.

Mr. Williams goes on to ridicule - among other things - banning of the confederate flag, and Memphis Mayor A. C. Wharton's idea to exhume Confederate General/KKK founder nathan bedford forrest and his wife and remove them from a city park.   Williams' point is not that the confederate flag or nathan bedford forrest are positive images for Blacks (or anyone else).  His point is that feel-good actions such as these are nothing but political opiates (my words, not his) which divert attention away from the real problems Black people are facing in their everyday lives.

Is he right?  You're damn right he's right.  And it takes one gutsy Black man to say it.

How I wish more Black people would listen to Black people like Walter Williams.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 14:25 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Over the past week, no doubt fueled (bad pun there) by the Greek tragedy and its effect on the euro, oil prices have dropped 10%.

As I write this, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is at $54.13 a barrel.  Last week it was over $60 a barrel.

Where will it go from here?  Your guess is as good as mine.


UPDATE:  As of 3:52PM Eastern time, WTI is at $52.74 a barrel.  That is down $4.19...7.4% for the day so far.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:34 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

For years I have considered "UN" to stand for "Useless and Neutered".

There are many reasons why.  But few as starkly clear as this.

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is now in its 10th year of existence.  During that time, it has issued a total of 116 condemnations to all of the countries of the world combined.

Here is the list of those countries, and how many condemnations it has issued to each:

Total UNHRC Condemnations, 2006-2015

Israel: 61
Syria: 15
Myanmar: 12
North Korea: 8
Iran: 5
Belarus: 4
Eritrea: 3
Sri Lanka: 3
Sudan: 2
Libya: 2
Honduras: 1

That is not a partial list, folks.  That is the sum total of them all.

Israel has been condemned 61 times.  The entire rest of the world - almost 200 other countries - a combined total of 55.

Israel, let me remind you, is a country with a 20% Arab population, which has rights and privileges as Israeli citizens that no Arab country on earth provides them, where women are treated as human beings rather than chattels, where people of different sexual orientations are free to be who they are, and where people of different faiths are free to practice their faiths openly. 

How many other countries on earth can say the same?  Not many.  But, 61 condemnations later (and counting), the UNHRC apparently has not noticed.

By comparison, Syria, where no one is free, and between 250,000 and 300,000 are dead with countless others fleeing, because the mass murdering government of bashar al-assad is trying to keep up the killing with ISIS?  One quarter the number of Israel.

North Korea, arguably the single most repressive government on planet earth?  8 condemnations. 

Iran, arguably the single most prolific promulgator of terrorism in the world, and a county specifically committed to obliterating Israel?  A grand total of 5 condemnations.  Given its commitment to rid the world of Israel, I'm surprised the UNHRC hasn't issued Iran a few commendations instead.

Do you see any condemnations at all of Libya?  Afghanistan?  Yemen?  All of them are countries with "governments" which barely function at all, infested by terrorists, which are virtually freedomless and where people are being killed at random.  But not a problem to the UN.

How about Nigeria, where Boko Haram kills with gleeful abandon while the government, such as it is, does little or nothing about it?  Nope, that's not significant enough.

And what about human rights bungholes like China?  Cuba?  Pakistan?  Saudi Arabia?  Oh, never mind those...they are members of the UNHRC.

Anyone still wondering why I characterize the UN as Useless and Neutered?  I hope for your sake the answer is no.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:06 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Matthew Vadum, writing for Canada Free Press, has provided us with an excellent, though unsettling, even scary, explanation of why a young woman, Kate Steinle, was shot down and killed by an illegal alien who had already been deported 5 times, while she and her parents were doing nothing other than strolling on Pier 14 in San Francisco.

Here is an excerpt...which I ask you to read only if you promise to use this link and read Mr. Vadum's entire piece, because it is so important for you to know what "sanctuary cities" are, what they do, and how many of them there now are in the United States.

Although this violent thug pulled the trigger, progressives, through the laws they have enacted, put this man on the streets which allowed him to murder.

Federal authorities had Lopez-Sanchez in custody in March after he was set free from a federal prison. They transferred him to San Francisco authorities because he was wanted by them on drug-related charges. The feds filed what’s called an "immigration detainer" requesting that the local authorities notify them before releasing the man.

But San Francisco, home of the most militant leftists in America, refused the request because local policy forbids it. The prisoner in effect got a "get out of jail free card" from the left-wing open-borders movement which argues that keeping illegals in jail violates their constitutional rights.

This is how it works. Being wanted for violating immigration laws isn't enough, in the eyes of progressives, so after they have served their local time illegals go straight from their holding cells to the streets where they are free to murder, rape, and rob the citizens of this country. Complain about this policy and risk being smeared as a racist.

Did you know that there are dozens of cities in the USA which have decided, with absolutely no legal authority to do so, that when it comes to illegal aliens they can ignore federal laws?  So they allow illegals rights and privileges that legals do not and will not ever get?

Well now you do.  How do you feel about it?  How do you suppose Ms. Steinle's parents feel about it?  How many other Kate Steinles do you figure there are out there who have been victimized by illegals who have no right to be in this country?  How do you know you, or someone you love, won't be the next one?

This is what is going on in the real world, while navel-gazing political philosophers debate whether Donald Trump overstated the number of hardened criminals among illegals streaming over the border, and how many "microaggressions" might offend them.

When are we going to wake up?


Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:39 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Suppose I told you that Hillary Clinton is running as a political moderate (i.e. her sudden lurch back to the left somehow does not count), was a "mainstream, moderate, pro-business" Senator (try to find a major issue her senate votes were not on the left side of), and that Bernie Sanders, a self-professed socialist is part of the Democrat Party's "economic populist wing" who, if he can rally the "racial justice" wing of the party - defined as the "Black lives matter" and "young dreamers" (i.e. illegals) -  he will win the nomination instead of Clinton.

Wondering what planet that came from?

It came from Planet Van Jones, speaking on Jake Tapper's State Of The Union show yesterday morning.  Jones, you might recall is, himself, a self-professed communist....and was a valued member of the Obama Administration - just like senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, who comes from a family of communists and has been one of Barack Obama's closest confidantes, maybe the single closest, throughout his presidency.

Want proof that Jones actually concocted this "analysis"?  No problem.'s Tim Graham has the video, along with his take on what it means.  Click here to see it.

Then remember what you just saw, when you watch where Hillary Clinton continues to twist and turn in her thoroughly scripted, thoroughly poll-driven campaign. (But don't bother doing the same with Bernie Sanders:  to Sanders' credit, his views do not change with every new political opportunity.)

Welcome to today's Democrat Party.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:46 AM   Add Comment

Sunday, 05 July 2015


Ken Berwitz

...who think stricter gun control laws mean less gun violence.

In Chicago, over the July 4th weekend so far (there were still about 8 hours to go when this was last updated), 8 people have been shot to death and 41 have been wounded.

Chicago has among the strictest - if not the single strictest - gun control laws of any major city in the United States.

My quick question:  how many of these killings and woundings do you figure were committed by people who legally own guns?

If the answer is few, probably none (and I'd bet body parts you'd be right), then my follow-up question is:  how can gun control laws prevent killings and woundings committed by people who do not obey gun control laws? 

If the answer is that, inherently, they cannot, we are in agreement again.

Personally, I believe in strict gun control laws.  I believe all handguns should be registered, I believe in significant, stringent background checks before someone can legally own a gun, I believe this precludes gun sales on-line and at gun shows, and I believe that, like guns, all ammunition should be ID-tagged so it can be traced.

I believe these things because it is imperative to me that gun ownership should only be allowed for people who we can reasonably assume will use those guns legally and responsibly.

But, at the same time, I know that these laws are absolutely meaningless to people who do not obey laws; who obtain and use guns illegally. 

That is why I also believe in mandatory sentencing (at least one year) for anyone in possession of an illegal gun, and stricter mandatory sentencing (at least 3 years, maybe more) for anyone possessing a gun when committing a crime - regardless of whether the gun is actually used in that crime.

Realistically, nothing will eliminate the illegal use of guns.  But it seems to me you can minimize their use by making it worth an illegal gun owner's while not to carry that gun around.  If you don't have it on your person, you can't use it, can you?

It is long past time to get real about gun violence in this country. 

Hopelessly Partisan @ 20:38 PM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Juan Cole is a history professor at the University of Michigan. 

He is also a far-leftist and Israel hater.

But you don't need me to tell you this - not if you read his June 21st blog entry...the one in which he blames pro-Israel Jews for dylann roof's shooting spree at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Here is how it begins:

The Muslim-hatred of the Geert Wilders and Marine LePens in Europe, for which Daniel Pipes, and Pamela Geller, and the whole Islamophobic network are cheerleaders and enablers, was a key influence on Dylann Roof, according to his manifesto. These same hatemongers helped whip Norwegian white supremacist and terrorist Anders Brevik into a homocidal fever pitch in July of 2011, when he killed 77 Norwegians for allegedly being soft on Muslims.

Back in South Carolina, Roof wrote that he first became politically aware with the Trayvon Martin case, in which he strongly took the side of George Zimmerman. He continued:

From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely racially aware.

Where would he have found allegations that white Europeans are being victimized by immigrants? Here is what I wrote about Anders Breivik:

"Breivik's passions were whipped up, according to his diary, by reading anti-Muslim hatemongers such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes (whose "Campus Watch" is an Israeli settler-oriented attempt to deny tenure to American academics critical of Israel's oppression of the stateless Palestinians, and to harass more senior professors with character assassination)."

It was apparently similar writings and web sites that made Roof "completely racially aware."

Help me out here.  I read the above, and conclude that dylann roof, whatever he started out as, devolved into an anti-Black and anti-Semitic fanatic.

Allow me to make a few points:

-Geert Wilders has explained his feelings about Muslims many times.  They have nothing to do with Daniel Pipes or Pamela Geller, neither of whose writings were necessary for him to feel as he does;

-anders breivik was a severely disturbed man who claimed that his murder spree was to get back at Norway's Labour Party for supporting Muslim immigration, thus "letting down Norway and the Norwegian people".  What did Daniel Pipes or Pamela Geller have to do with that?   Tell you what:  send me their voluminous writings on Norway and I'll get back to you.

-Neither Trayvon Martin nor George Zimmerman were Jewish, and neither of them had a thing to do with Israel.

Other than that, Cole has a point.........

Let me end with a reminder that people send their children to schools like the University of Michigan in the hope that they will get an intelligent, useful education.  This is one of the people who is supposed to provide those things.

Based on the above, you can write your own last sentence to this blog.  I'll bet it won't be very much different than the one I'm thinking of.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:50 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

This poll, which measures media credibility, intrigues me more than most.  That is because instead of asking whether we believe mainstream media, it asks whether mainstream media are intentionally misinforming us.

Excerpted from Ken Paulson's article for USA Today:

The tenets of American journalism can be distilled down to a couple of basics: Reporters should report objectively and serve as a watchdog on people in power. But the public appears to have reservations on both fronts.

According to the soon-to-be released State of the First Amendment survey, just 24% say they believe that the news media try to report without bias, down from 41% last year and a record low since the question was first asked a decade ago.

Don't you love the understatement that Mr. Paulson, a long-time newsperson, uses here?  "...appears to have reservations"?  When less than one in four people cannot say that media even try to be unbiased, they are having a bit more than reservations.  They are screaming at the top of their lungs that media are biased. 

Do media deserve this level of skepticism? 

I would say that I'm not a good person to ask because I write about media bias almost every day.  But if those data are correct, most of the country would be writing the same way.

If you read Mr. Paulson's article, you will find that this hurts him, because "In 23 years in newsrooms, I saw consistent and concerted efforts to get stories right. Clearly, the public's not convinced."

I don't know Mr. Paulson, but if all he saw was newsrooms trying to get things right, he must have been inhabiting very different newsrooms than the ones I write about...and the respondents in this survey answered questions about.

Was he, for example, working in any of the newsrooms that spent months obsessing on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie possibly having a couple of lanes closed on the George Washington Bridge for a few days (which a federal investigation exonerated him of), but giving the two-days-and-out treatment to Governor Cuomo of neighboring New York, who summarily disbanded an investigative commission he himself had formed - The Moreland Commission - when it started looking at people close to him?  

And was Mr. Paulson working in any of the newsrooms which buried the Operation Fast and Furious Scandal?  How about the IRS Scandal, or the Clinton Benghazi Scandal, or the Clinton email scandal (which, alone among this group, has gotten at least some coverage, though nothing like the GW Bridge lane closings)? 

Maybe Ken Paulson should think about those examples of media coverage before telling us about how concerted the efforts of newsrooms are to get things right.

Is there media bias?  Yep.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:30 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

At a July 4th parade in Washington D.C.....

Don't you love that the Hillary logo's arrow points straight at Matthews?

Admittedly, this may be pure coincidence.  Maybe he just knows the lady carrying that end of the sign and is talking to her (though she doesn't much look like she's paying attention to him, does she?)  And maybe this, by happenstance, is just where he came into the parade.

But if media got a picture of, say, Sean Hannity marching in a parade next to a Ted Cruz banner, I doubt that he'd get the benefit of the doubt on coincidence.

In any event, there it is such as it is.  Make of it what you will.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:09 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