Wednesday, 18 October 2006

George Soros funds a convicted supporter of terrorists. Where are the headlines?

Ken Berwitz

As you probaby have noticed I enjoy writing what I hope are funny headlines.  Sometimes I hit and sometimes I miss.  But there is no such headline here, because there is absolutely nothing funny about this story.

It turns out that George Soros contributed $20,000 to the defense fund of lynne stewart, the sickening subhuman pig who was convicted of aiding sheikh omar abdel rahman.  rahman is the equally sickening subhuman pig who is currently serving a life sentence for his involvement in planning and carrying out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  You may recall that bombing killed 6, injured well over 1,000 and put the city and arguably the country in a state of panic.  rahman was also found to have participated (unsuccessfully, thank God) in attempts to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, both of which connect New York and New Jersey.

When rahman's pals threatened to continue their terrorist attacks, a special order was issued that limited him to communications only with his family and his lawyers, NOT to his followers.  Seems eminently sensible, no?  But lynne stewart took his messages and passed them on to rahman's followers, at the risk of this country's national security.  And that is what she was tried for, convicted of, and given a ridiculously lenient 28 month sentence for by an idiot who has no business being anywhere near a judicial bench.

THAT is who george soros contributed $20,000 to.  And the only reason I know about it is because of venues like National Review and Republican websites.  The mainstream media have buried this so deeply that you'd have to launch a rocket ship from China to find it.

To summarize:  The single biggest Democratic contributor on the planet, George Soros, gave $20,000 to defend a woman who was passing along orders from a terrorist who bombed the United States so his followers would know what to do next.

It is despicable that mainstream media are not reporting this.  It makes me want to puke.  Is there any bottom to their bias?  Any level they won't sink to protect the Democratic party?  If so, I have yet to see it.


Katie Carwreck and the CBS Noose

Ken Berwitz

What was Les Moonves thinking?

Katie Couric started her tenure as CBS news anchor with a gaudy 13 million viewers.  It's little over a month later and she now is at 7 million;  by comparison, NBC is at about 8.5 million viewers and ABC at about 8 million.  Her trend line would make for a terrific slide in the nearest kindergarten playground.

But wait, this is worse than it looks.  In key markets like New York and Los Angeles Couric is even more fractional than her national ratings.  I don't have the exact data at hand, but recall that she is at something like one-third the viewership of NBC in both markets .

Why would this happen?  Well, for a good benchmark, think about jimmy carter.

In 1976 carter, a nondescript southern governor, won the primaries and beat Nixon's appointed replacement Gerald Ford (just barely, but a win is a win).  How did he do it?  Because after Nixon the country was willing, even relieved, to vote for an outside-the-beltway governor whose main promise was honesty...i.e. the polar opposite of what voters felt they had gotten from Nixon.

Now fast-forward to 2006.  CBS just took a major nosedive because of Dan Rather's peculiar ideas on what constitutes actual news.  The so-called "tiffany network" looked more and more like one of those tiffany knockoffs you can buy on Canal St. in lower Manhattan from a guy who covers his watch display every time a cop walks by. 

So they installed veteran Bob Schieffer as an interim caretaker, much as the Republican party put in Gerald Ford.  Then they found a permanent replacement who could never, ever be seen as biased, one who viewers would be willing, even relieved, to have as their anchor.  Right?

Wrong.

Katie Couric is a lot of things, many of them very good.  She certainly is perky.  She certainly is upbeat when she wants to be.  She certainly can light up a studio with that winning smile and that genial, enthusiastic way she has.  If I were doing a morning show I would run, not walk, to sign her up. 

But as a NEWS ANCHOR?  She just spent over a decade showing a definitive liberal/Democratic bias in just about every news story and interview she did.  Anyone who watched her and noted the change in demeanor depending on whether a Democrat or Republican was being interviewed would know this in one second flat.  And the difference in questioning, from sofball to combative?  Like night and day.

When you are getting your backside kicked because you have Nixon in office, don't expect to win the next election with a Nixon crony.  When you are getting your backside kicked because Dan Rather is a partisan pretending to be a neutral source of news, don't expect to improve your ratings with a similarly partisan replacement.

There, that was simple, wasn't it?  You would think Les Moonves would have figured it out too.  Maybe we're just in the wrong Moonves phase.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



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. 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!!