Friday, 04 May 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here is another in my series, "A Taste Of The Future", which shows what life will be like if radical islam and/or international terrorism (often one and the same) accomplish their goal of taking over the world, ending western civilization and putting us all under shari'a law.

This particular event takes place in Iraq, where it will happen almost immediately - if we cut and run (warning:  There are pictures):-

The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Last updated at 18:28pm on 3rd May 2007

A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.

As a horrifying video of the stoning went out on the Internet, the British arm of Amnesty International condemned the death of Dua Khalil Aswad as "an abhorrent murder" and demanded that her killers be brought to justice.

Reports from Iraq said a local security force witnessed the incident, but did nothing to try to stop it. Now her boyfriend is in hiding in fear for his life.  

Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy.

Scroll down for more ...

iraq girl stoned to death for loving boy of wrong religion

The teenager was dragged outside by 8 or 9 men and stoned for half an hour until she died. Her boyfriend is now in hiding in fear for his life

They said she had shamed herself and her family when she failed to return home one night. Some reports suggested she had converted to Islam to be closer to her boyfriend.

Miss Aswad had taken shelter in the house of a Yezidi tribal leader in Bashika, a predominantly Kurdish town near the northern capital, Mosul.

A large crowd watched as eight or nine men stormed the house and dragged Miss Aswad into the street. There they hurled stones at her for half an hour until she was dead.

The stoning happened last month, but only came to light yesterday with the release of the Internet video.

It is feared her death has already triggered a retaliatory attack. Last week 23 Yezidi workmen were forced off a bus travelling from Mosulto Bashika by a group of Sunni gunmen and summarily shot dead.

An Amnesty International spokesman in London said they receive frequent reports of honour crimes from Iraq particularly in the predominantly Kurdish north.

Most victims are women and girls who are considered by male relatives to have shamed their families by immoral behaviour.

Kurdish authorities have introduced reforms outlawing honour killings, but have failed to investigate them or prosecute suspects, added the Amnesty spokesman.

Kate Allen, the organisations UK director, said: "This young girls murder is truly abhorrent and her killers must be brought to justice.

"Unless the authorities respond vigorously to this and any other reports of crimes in the name of 'honour', we must fear for the future of women in Iraq."  -

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  This is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.  And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  Having our children stoned to death in the street for the crime of love?  

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this war at our own peril.

(Anon) what kind of humans would commit such brutal sin to a child (10/18/07)

(Anon) what kind of humans would commit such brutal sin to a child (10/18/07)


Ken Berwitz

There was a Republican presidential debate on MSNBC last night.  Maybe you watched it.  Maybe your views of the candidates were affected by it.  I have no way of knowing.  So, instead, I would like to make a point relating to the cable network which aired this debate and who was moderating it.

The Republican debate was on MSNBC.  The moderator was former Democratic operative Chris Matthews.  The chief analyst and interviewer of most candidates afterwards was hard-left, Bush hating, Republican hating keith olbermann (and how much fun was it to see this guy fraudulently smiling and being friendly to the people he despises?  I enjoyed his one-night-only, hypocritical 180 degree turnaround immensely).

I suspect many of you already know the point I am leading to:  That Republicans did not run and cower behind a bush at the thought of a debate being run by people who dont like them.  They stood up like adults, even withstanding such idiotic questions as what do you dislike most aboutAmerica and would it be good for America if (with a Hillary Clinton win) Bill Clinton would be back in the white house with maturity and grace. 

What a dramatic difference compared to what we saw from Democrats.  In todays Democratic Party, its a stacked deck or they go home.  Is this the courage and adaptability they will show in foreign policy too?  Just asking.

Oh, one other thing.  I wonder if Matthews (who was a remarkably inept moderator and Im not just talking about the questions he asked) realizes that by asking how they feel about BILL Clinton possibly returning to the white house, he was telling viewers that HILLARY is nothing other than a puppet on a string.  I doubt it.  Anyone with this much self-importance and hubris is unlikely to engage in self-criticism.



Ken Berwitz

Now that I have been "rehabilitated" and can again post comments at (I don't know how long this will last - probably not very), I decided to look in today and see what they are blogging about, and what their "regulars" are reacting to it.

One of their offerings is titled -   Republicans Round 1 goes to Reagan -, and is a complaint that during the debate, which was held at the Reagan library, Reagan was mentioned quite a bit.  If you think this is some kind of a goof, that it too silly to actually have been blogged on a supposedly serious website, think again.  Here are the first two paragraphs: -

After any debate, the first and most natural question is who won? Last night, the winner was obvious: Ronald Reagan.

Look, I know Reagan is the only president of the 20th century that Republicans really like. And I know that the debate was being held at the Reagan Library in California. But over the course of 90 minutes, the candidates specifically referenced the 40th president 20 times. If you count more oblique references (Gilmore thanked the president in whose name this library is named), the number climbs to 25. If you include references to Reagan by debate moderator Chris Matthews, well, we get pretty close to triple digits.-

Of all the funny things you can take away from this, perhaps the funniest is its last line, which indicates that the moderator of the debate kept INVOKING Reagan. 

I didn't watch the entire debate, but it seems to me that if the moderator was continually bringing Ronald Reagan up, the debaters were RESPONDING to him.  That's a little something the blog somehow didn't pick up on.

But now that you've seen the funny part, I want to show you the part that is anything but.  I am concluding with a selection of comments that visitors to made about this blog.  Keep in mind how many of these folks are never shy about assuring you they are nice.  They are civil.  They have respect.  Not like those evil Republicans. 

Enjoy the read - and remember, the subject matter, the spelling and the language are theirs, not mine.  And also remember that this is a small sampling....there was plenty more to choose from, just like it:

-FUCK reagan.

-Gravatar Reagan was a great president if you like senile dimwits

-That whole debate was a true waste of space time and energy. All this Repukes are really giving the word BORING a new name. I bet even their diehard supporter which are in the resting and nuring homes right now would rather find their mucus more interesting than watching this bunch of reagunuts sparing.

-Bush IS continuing Reagan's legacy...weak mental capabilities (Reagan - Alzheimer's, Bush - alcoholism), constipated view of the world, scandals, cronyism, elitism and this twisted "good ole' boy" image as they try to portray themselves as "just average guys" instead of the detached, rich brats that they really are.

-Gravatar Why don't they just dig Ronnie up and prop him up in the WH in '09?
Jeez, I swear, why didn' they pass out towels to clean up all the orgasms last night every time someone said "Ronald Reagan?"

-Gravatar im glad these repig mongrels are trying to claim the title of reagan what a bunch of douchbags , reagan was the perfect asshole for the republican party ! a washed up grade b actor who fucked over his wife for a pig like nancy another grade b actress, reagan screwed america by declairing we should not trade weapons to iran for the embasy hostages then went ahead and did it, then he gave these rich bastards a huge tax cut and told america that it would benifit the working man by trickle down to them, the rich assholes kept the money in their stinking pockets then closed down every steel factory and buisness up north and sent thoes jobs to the red neck states of the south or mexico or japan enywhere that the workers would work for peanuts, i saw the misery that that hearless pig caused night after night i watch the news showing whole familys liveing under bridges ,liveing over heat grates in cardboard boxes in the winter time , these were the familys his tax cut hurt, what did reagan say about these americans ? if their liveing that way its because they want to! im glad hes dead and its to bad it didnt happen sooner ,if i live to be a hundread ill never forget all thoes children of the people he helped to destroy huddleing close to fire barrels for warmth and the misery i saw on their parents faces, if their was a god that prick would never have been born, theiers so much more thats worth hateing reagan for that i could set here typeing all day but i wont , and this numbnuts we have as presidents worse then reagan so i guess the repigs will name airports buildinds and schools after the dumbest son of a bitch since ronny raygun!

-Gravatar isn't it neat that these guys all want to show that they are smarter than bush and then pick a mental midget like reagan to emulate?

please, let's urge the south to secede again? ask them to take kansas with them? Maybe oklahoma as well? sure would solve a lot of issues.

they don't produce anything now for the world except hatred. then they can be properly isolated. and if that doesn't work, we can force them to require education for their citizens, unlike now.

gilberrto Quisiera ver lo atros que es el video y poder sacar mis conclusiones (11/13/07)


Ken Berwitz

For over 15 years rap and hip hop "music" have polluted the minds of our children, both Black and White, but especially Black.

For over 15 years, filth so vile that it is unimaginable - you have to read the lyrics - has permeated their growing up years.  In previous blogs (scroll through April) I have put those lyrics up without any censorship.  Appalling does not even begin to describe them.

And for over 15 years, other than a couple of the most nominal, unpublicized comments, people like Al Sharpton have ignored this and looked the other way.  It is much more personally beneficial to exploit racial situations than to anger the kids who want to dance to "lyrics" that should make any decent human being sick.

But now that Don Imus has been fired for saying "nappy headed ho's", which would be the CLEANEST lyrics in much of this "music", suddenly the spotlight is on so-called Black "leaders".  Suddenly people like Sharpton look bad for trying to pretend that what Imus said should end his career but what is proactively dumped on children every day, mostly by Black "artists", is not a problem at all.

In other words, after 15 years Sharpton suddenly finds a need to cover his backside.   In this connection, here is part of his made-for-media dog and pony show, courtesy of


NEW YORK The Reverend Al Sharpton led a demonstration across Manhattan Thursday evening (May 3) that saw him and throng of supporters march to three of the four major record companies, calling for more "decency" in hip-hop lyrics.

(Watch a video timeline of hip-hop under fire over the years, right here.)

The march was in part a response to comments made by fired shock jock Don Imus, who claimed if his controversial remarks were made by a rapper it'd result in a hit song. Sharpton confronted Imus over his remarks on his own radio program, "The Sharpton Show," and vowed he would also challenge the hip-hop industry to clean up its act as well (see "Hip-Hop On The Defensive After Imus Incident; Sharpton Calls For 'Dialogue' With MCs").

"It appears people are more enraged and outraged than even we thought," Sharpton said through a bullhorn to a gathered crowd of hundreds. "How many of y'all are ready to keep building and keep going after record companies?

"We'll deal with them one by one," he continued from atop a New York Police Department flatbed truck at the rally's final destination, at the Time Warner Center in Columbus Circle. "We'll also be dealing with the media companies. HBO is owned by Time Warner. When we finish with the record companies, we will go across the board. We're not asking for censorship. But there is a standard in this business. They have a standard. They had a standard that said Ice-T can't rap against police. They had a standard that said you can't rap against gays, and you shouldn't. They had a standard against Michael Jackson saying something anti-Semitic. Where is the standard against 'n-----,' 'ho' and 'b---h'?"

Sharpton told the group of supporters that he is not on a mission to censor rappers but is urging labels to protect the image of blacks. He cited past instances in which companies have pulled records that were overtly violent toward police or culturally insensitive to other ethnic groups.

The Harlem activist also said members of the black community are taking companies to task over how hip-hop is perceived, which Sharpton called a notable feat in itself.


So what do we have here?  After 15 years of disgusting filth aimed dead-on at children, Sharpton is saying what?  That children shouldn't be treated to a non-stop diet of "lyrics" with words like nigger, ho' and bitch?  It took him 15 YEARS to figure out that?  Yeah, right, ok.

And then there is his assurance that he doesn't want any of this censored.  Oh, no, not that.  He wants the image of Black people protected.  By whom?  By the record labels .  Not the Black "artists" whose clothing, jewelry, gyrations and language are a textbook in what the most virulent racists in this country think of ALL Blacks. 

And while I am personally against censorship, in this context it means specifically, "no problem, I whined about you on TV to play the people who would believe what I say, you can go right back to what you're doing".  To tell you the truth, that is not what I value about freedom of speech.

The final line of this excerpt (the article continues) is that Sharpton considers the problem an issue of PERCEPTION.  See, this is just an image thing.

Once more, I urge you to scroll through my blogs in April.  Steel yourself, take a couple of Tums (maybe a half dozen, actually), and read the "lyrics" I'm talking about.  Think about whether it would take you 15 years to figure out that there is a problem with this kind of material being sold in record stores to children.  Think about whether it would take you 15 seconds. 

And then, taking Sharpton's sordid history into account, think about what he got out of it by looking the other way.  I know I do.


Ken Berwitz

Remember a couple of days ago when I mentioned that I thought I had been rehabilitated at (i.e. able to post comments on their blogs again)?  Remember that I promised to try posting something to test it?

Well, I did.  And fuggedaboudit, I am still banned.  How do I know?  Because they had an angrily negative commentary about Sean Hannity, and I posted the following: -

Gravatar "Is Hannity more partisan than keith olbermann? Does keith olbermann's partisanship trouble you?
Ken Berwitz | 05.04.07 - 5:23 pm | # "

Pretty innocuous, wouldn't you say?  Certainly not at all insulting.  Certainly nothing like the bile posted by their regulars, which I gave you examples of earlier today (scroll down and see).

Well, guess what?  Suddenly my comment was gone, and the heading - Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added  - was at the top of the page, just like before.  Call me a pessimist, but I'm guessing it means I can't post comments there again.

What probably happened is that they ban people for a month at a time - that's how long it was for me - and forgot to reinstate my ban when the month was up.  So I was able to get that earth-shattering opinion up, before being re-consigned to You'renotfarleftenoughtobehereville.  The website area is, once more, pure and alternative-view free.  Can I get an amen?!!

I laughed the first time this happened.  Trust me, I'm laughing again.


Ken Berwitz

Not a lot of news on this date in 1943.  The only notation I find is:


In Burma... Japanese forces infiltrate between Buthidaung and Maungdaw, disrupting British communications.


How would today's media have treated this?  The enemy can stifle our British allies and stop them in their tracks.  Churchill was a fool to be taken in by FDR and become his puppet.  Why aren't the Brits just going home and defending their own land?  What are they doing in Burma.

Another demand for a vote of no confidence and the removal of the Churchill government.  What a bungler he is.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, 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!!