Buy Our Book Here!

Monday, 01 September 2014


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Vice President Joe Biden - a man who, in recent months, the Obama administration has diligently tried to keep from view...but who surfaced in Detroit today and gave us this gem:

"You know there is an outfit called Standard and Poors, the leading financial services group. It says, 'You want U.S. income inequity has reached levels not seen since 1928.' That means the very, very top 1 percent are making so much more disproportionate to the rest of the public. So a lot of the wealthy guys say 'So what?' Well they want on to say, and I quote, 'Extreme levels of income inequity lead to sustained harm to economic growth and other, over a long period of time' -- it says, 'the U.S. is approaching the threshold.' One of the reasons we're not growing is because ordinary people have no money in their pockets for their wages! They are not being rewarded!"

That so, Mr. Vice President?  Well who do you blame it on?

George Bush, who has spent the last 5 1/2 years walking his dog, painting and writing memoirs? 

Or Barack Obama, who has spent the last 5 1/2 years being President of the United States and, for every day of that time, has had a majority in the U. S. Senate to work with - for two years, a 60% majority in both houses of congress?

What's that, Mr. Biden?  No answer?  Cat got your tongue?

I award Vice President Joe Biden Quote Of The Day honors for escaping from the attic long enough to show us why President Obama and his people have tried so hard to keep him locked up there.  Thank you sir; very edifying.

But look at the bright side.  Things could be worse.  We could have someone not second in command, but running the country, who has watched ISIS grow from nothing to the single most powerful, well-heeled Islamic terrorist group on the planet, yet openly admit that, to this moment he has no strategy to deal with the......oh, wait.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 13:30 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Regarding the confrontation between 18 year old Michael Brown and Police Officer Darren Wilson, let's look at the facts no one disputes (which takes very little time, since so few of them qualify):

-Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson had a confrontation. 

-It culminated in Wilson shooting Brown. 

-Brown died as the result of being shot.

After this, just about everything is at issue.

Given the extent to which facts in this case are in dispute, and the vast disparity between how different people view what happened, I thought it would be useful to put up two very different takes on the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson incident:

-One of them comes to us from Professor and columnist Melvyn L. Fein, writing for the Marietta (GA) Daily Journal. 

-The other comes to us from journalist and author Lee A. Daniels, writing for NNPA, a Black-oriented news service.

I urge you to use the links I've provided and read both pieces in their entirety.  But, for the meantime, I'll post salient excerpts from each so that you can consider their overall points.

In the words of Mr. Fein:

Blacks are understandably suspicious of whites. Even Attorney General Eric Holder gave a nod to their sensitivities. Accordingly, African-Americans sometimes see racism where it is absent.

But the media is another matter. How can reporters have been so "even-handed" as to portray the police the same way they did vandals and fire-bombers? Why were cops wearing protective gear accused of fanning the flames of distrust merely because of how they were outfitted?

Reporters are clearly obsessed with a need to downplay black misconduct. Apparently, the worst thing that can happen is someone might label them racist. Accordingly, they bend over backward to avoid saying negative things about blacks.

Think about this: A black thug - a young man with a criminal record - declares the police officer in question reached out to grab Michael Brown by the throat and drag him into his vehicle. How is this credible? How could a cop, or would a cop, do this to a person twice his size?

And how did the rumor that Brown was shot in the back survive when multiple autopsies showed it was untrue? After all, it came from the same felon.

The media credulity that glosses over these absurdities owes to nothing less than racism. Members of the press do not hold African-Americans to the same standards they apply to others. Rather, they excuse behavior they would never tolerate elsewhere.

Why? Evidently because they do not believe blacks have the same ability to exercise self-control as other Americans. Yet this is racism! In an attempt to protect blacks, journalists assume they are inferior. How ironic is that?

We will never overcome racism in this country until we are honest about race. To this extent, Holder was correct when he said whites are cowards when it comes to these matters.

In the words of Mr. Daniels:

We've now moved to a new stage of the racist reaction to the police killing of Michael Brown: the largely overt assertion that he deserved to be killed.

But, once the Ferguson police released the video of Michael Brown purportedly snatching a box of cigars from the convenience store and intimidating its clerk, that advice was quickly replaced by that old standby: criminalizing the person who was killed.

Now, the slimers have simplified their defense of Brown's killing. He was not an 18-year-old teenager, but a man-sized Black male 6'4" tall and well over 250 pounds was a threat to public safety. In other words: a "thug" - and therefore someone whom any White person should be able to execute with impunity.

That's the first-level meaning that saturates many of the racist reader responses to articles on Brown's killing in the blogosphere. Those kind of responses vividly recall the crude, cowardly mental states-of-being that animated not only the mobs of racists who gathered in Southern cities and towns to harass and beat the civil rights demonstrators during the 1950s and 1960s but also their enablers among most of the White South's civic and political leadership. Last week, it was most succinctly expressed by two conservative commentators who've long shown their willingness to justify any injustice.

Appearing on the Fox News channel, Linda Chavez said that describing Brown as unarmed at the moment of his encounter with Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was misleading. "That description," she claimed, "in and of itself actually colors the way in which we look at this story. We're talking about an 18-year-old man who is 6'4" and weighs almost 300 pounds, who is videotaped just moments before the confrontation with a police officer strong arming an employee and robbing a convenience store."

Ben Stein, a conservative pundit familiar to most of America as a pitchman for a brand of eye drops, showed up on Newsmax television, to make the point in even simpler terms: "The idea of calling this poor young man unarmed when he was 6'4", 300 pounds, full of muscles, apparently, according to what I read in the New York Times, on marijuana. To call him unarmed is like calling Sonny Liston unarmed or Cassius Clay (sic) unarmed. He wasn't unarmed. He was armed with his incredibly strong, scary self."

These comments exemplify both the conscious and the subconscious character of the racist reaction.

Trayvon Martin was far from the height and weight of Michael Brown, but that didn't save him from being criminalized because of the most salient feature they shared: skin color. In other words, both were transformed into that fearsome monster of the White racist imagination: the 'hulking' Black brute.

But White racist pathology can't obscure this blunt fact: police officer Darren Wilson, who was armed, shot to death Michael Brown, who was unarmed, from a distance of more than 30 feet.

Do I have an opinion about what each man says?  You bet I do.  But in this one blog I will swallow hard and not offer my personal views.  All I ask is that you consider both sides before coming to your own conclusions.

Fair enough?  I hope so.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:35 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

There's an old joke about an American in Paris who asks a French guy "do you speak German"?  The French guy answers "No monsieur".  The American says "You're welcome".

Inadvertently, I am sure, President Obama gave us his version of this joke on Friday, while speaking at a fundraiser in Rhode Island. 

According to Daniel Halper's article at, this is what he had to say about the ISIS threat and our state of readiness:

"I don't have to tell you, anybody who has been watching TV this summer, it seems like it is just wave after wave of upheaval, most of it surrounding the Middle's scary."

The good news is that we actually have a unprecedented military capacity, and since 9/11 have built up a security apparatus that makes us in the here and now pretty safe..." 

And who built that "unprecedented military capacity" after 9/11, Mr. Obama?  It certainly wasn't. you. 

I guess it must have been someone you didn't mention.  Someone you gave no credit to.  Someone whose decisions afford you the luxury of claiming that the military capacity he put in place makes us "pretty safe".

It seems to me that former President Bush, now out of office for almost 6 years, should take time out from his current activities to say "You're welcome".

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:51 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing political...

Did you know that people in Japan are being warned to stockpile toilet paper?

It seems that most toilet paper is produced in an area of the country which is prone to earthquake eruptions (come to think of it, "eruptions" of a sort are why most toilet paper is needed).  So there is always the possibility that one such eruption would put those factories out of commission, and the country would - in the most literal sense, be S.O.L.

The AP has an entire article about this which, if you're in a shi**y mood you can read by clicking here.  But let me show you my favorite part:

As part of the campaign, makers are offering a tightly rolled, 150-meter- (490-foot-) long, single-layer toilet paper that lasts more than twice as long as a regular roll.

A family of four should be able to survive for a month on a six-roll pack, priced at 460 yen ($4.40) and with a five-year expiration date, said Satoshi Kurosaki, chairman of the Japan Household Paper Industry Association.

Uh....let me clue you in, Satoshi: a single-layer roll of that size will not last a family of four a month - unless the family happens to be Tom Thumb and three munchkins.

Ok, enough about the Japanese toilet paper market. Let's wipe it from our minds and go back to politics, where many of the practitioners make us feel a need to use toilet paper every time they speak.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:59 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

The greatest of great thanks to our children (the best ones on the planet, it should be noted) for giving us a unique experience last night with their anniversary present of dinner at Blue Hill At Stone Barns.

This "farm to table" restaurant is truly one of a kind.  Over a three hour period we had something like 14-15 courses - not the gluttonous feast it sound like either; course sizes ranged from tiny-one bite items to a few bites - which provided some of the freshest, most flavorful foods I've ever had (and I'm sure my wife would agree).

We got there about a half hour early, so we could walk the grounds - including the eye-popping  greenhouses (about 22,000 sq. ft. of them) which, according to the signs, were closed for the day.  How come we got in anyway?  Well, despite those signs, the doors were still open and no staff was there to say no.  (In other words, the combination of a "closed" sign and an open door brought the Brooklyn right out of me). 

The sheer amount and diversity of foods being grown in - and out of - those greenhouses, along with the beautiful rows of fresh, colorful, plants, were almost worth the drive just by themselves.

(Speaking of the drive, we were amazed we could walk the grounds.  The skies opened up while we drove there and the Garden State Parkway, especially around Montclair and Bloomfield, was so flooded that, at several points, only some of the cars were even willing to try driving through.  Later, we heard they actually closed the GSP in that area for a while...probably within minutes of our risky-but-successful traversals.)

Beyond the singular quality of food and service, there was a point during the meal when we were invited to a table in the kitchen and served a course while we watched how the staff puts everything together (a few other people were given this privilege as well, but most were not).  It is mystifying how so many people doing so many things, each in relatively limited space, can coordinate as well as they do.  But they do.

The drive home was much easier - almost rain-free. I was at the wheel, and my wife was in command of the radio (in other words, Standard Operating Procedure). 

It was just a terrific experience from beginning to end....and especially nice as a gift (as you might have guessed, this is a bit more pricey than the local McDonald's). 

That's something we'll talk to our children about - they are way more generous to us than they have any reason to be.  But you can bet that we'll be thanking them profusely as we do.

Oh, one other thing:  no wine sent to the table by the Obamas, who were there the night before.  So my offer:  three days of saying nothing but nice things about the President - is hereby retracted.  Too bad, Barack.  You had your chance.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:36 AM   Add Comment

Sunday, 31 August 2014


Ken Berwitz

I urge you to sit down before reading this, and not to be ingesting food or drink.

As noted in Tony Lee's article at, the Federal Government has agreed to allow the repatriation of Mexicans who have "voluntarily deported themselves from the United States (as opposed to the government deporting them, which the law says should happen to just about every illegal) - and has agreed to advertise in Mexican media so that more illegals who went back to Mexico are aware that they can come here - again, as illegals - and be welcomed by the Obama administration with open arms.

This is not a satire.  This is not a gag.  Read it for yourself:

As part of a legal settlement that will allow some illegal immigrants who deported themselves from Southern California to return to the United States, the federal government has agreed to advertise the settlement on various Mexican and Spanish-language media outlets.

The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of eleven illegal immigrants who deported themselves. The settlement reached on Wednesday will only cover "longtime California residents with relatives who are U.S. citizens and... young migrants whose parents brought them into the country illegally" who deported themselves between 2009 and 2013. An ACLU official has indicated that there were nearly 250,000 people who were "deported voluntarily from Southern California between 2009 and 2013" and estimated to the Los Angeles Times that the "number of repatriations could reach into the hundreds or thousands."

Do you believe this?

We're actually soliciting illegals to come here?  We want hundreds of thousands of illegals, on top of the countless ones already flooding the country which Obama & Co. are sending to cities around the country (so they'll never be found, thus never be sent back)?

And, this being the Obama administration, how hard do you figure we fought the ACLU to prevent it from happening? 

What we are seeing is an illegal transformation of our country.  And our media - which, largely, stand by and give this insanity a free pass - are acting as paid propagandists for the transformation.  I hope they'll be damn happy with what we're getting for it. 

They should be, since they are the facilitators - without media complicity the administration could never get away with it.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:58 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

From Al Gore's lecture, upon accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in "educating" us about Global Warming:

"Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.  Seven years from now."

From London's Daily Mail, yesterday:

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. 'he North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,' he said. 'It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.'

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession - with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that - while the long-term trend still shows a decline - last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years - an impressive 43 per cent.

Notice a difference?  Like that, since Al Gore lectured us about the global warming apocalypse soon to engulf us all, the ice cover has done nothing but expand?  That it is now 43% - 63% greater than it was when he accepted the Nobel Prize?

Maybe they should rename it the Nobelievability Prize. 

At this point, you might ask why, if these data were gathered by the NASA-funded U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, I would be using a London newspaper to tell you about them.  Why am I not using one or another of the many reports about this obviously newsworthy story from U.S. media sources. 

It's a good question, which deserves an answer.

The answer is that media in this country, in aggregate, are so completely sold on Gore's man-made global warming/climate change mantra, and/or so cowed by the groups which aggressively inform us that anyone who disagrees is a Neanderthal right wing imbecile with a lump of coal for a brain, that they do not - make that will not - report this information.  Even though it is 100% science based and shows that there very definitely is another side to the story.

Add the fact that Barack Obama is all in with the man-made climate change crowd, so putting it in dispute could be embarrassing for his Accomplice Media, and there you have it.  Factual data which challenge global warming/climate change/whatever else they're calling it this month are going to be suppressed. 

But there is no lack of references to the bogus claim that 97% of all scientists agree man-made global warming is on the cusp of doing us all in.

Is there global warming?  Over a long period of time (though not in the past 17 or so years - another fact that is largely suppressed), yes there is.  Does man have something to do with it?  Yes,  But many scientists - one helluva lot more than 3% I am sure - point out that man's "contribution" is infinitesimal compared to natural phenomena we have no control over.

In fact, it is an excellent bet that cow burps and farts - which expel methane gas into the atmosphere - have more to do with global warming than anything man has done. 

Don't laugh, either.  I'm not making a joke here.  I mean it.  Read this short-and-to-the-point description from the scientists out of University of California - Santa Barbara (UCSB) to see for yourself.  And, trust me, they are far from the only ones.  Google "cow farts global warming" for pages of similar sources.

Then think about the fact that cow burps and farts apparently provide more meaningful information about global warming than Al Gore did.  

And, finally, with these conclusions in mind, spend a little time wondering whatever happened to media which are  truly committed to presenting both sides of the issue....or whether we ever had such media in the first place.

Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:15 AM   3 comments

Multi-Year Archive
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:

-Which scandal is worse: the VA mess, or the "deal" that sent five terrorists back into action in return for a deserter?

-Is susan rice trying to set the new world record for lying to our faces (the competition - from her boss - is fierce)?

-How many people really signed up for ObamaCare - and do Democrats really think they can run on it?

-Can the Obama administration - and especially Hillary Clinton - escape accountability for Benghazi?

-When will President Obama stop pretending he cares about the constitution and just declare himself king?

Right down to:

-Based on the decisions he has made since becoming CNN's President, is Jeff Zucker secretly working for Fox News Channel?

-What is causing viewership of MSNBC's prime time shows, poor to begin with, to drop even further?

-Is there a girl 5 - 10 years of age who cannot belt out a complete rendition of "Let It Go"?

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