Sunday, 17 June 2007


Ken Berwitz

Ehud Barak did not impress me as Israel's Prime Minister.  But it is undeniable that, before entering the political arena, he was a terrific military man.

Now Prime Minister Olmert has suddenly appointed Barak the Minister of Defense.  Why did he do that?

Maybe this article from today's Jerusalem Post sheds some light on this decision:-

'Barak planning to crush Hamas in Gaza'

Incoming Defense Minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush Hamas, it was reported on Sunday morning.

Britain's Sunday Times quoted senior IDF sources as saying that the planned Gaza assault would require 20,000 troops to destroy the bulk of Hamas's military capability in a few days.

The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks or a resumption of suicide bombings, said the British newspaper.

Barak, who is expected to become defense minister on Monday, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armored divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas, claimed the Times.

The IDF would expect to be confronted by about 12,000 Hamas operatives with arms captured from Fatah in last week's fighting in Gaza.

A senior Hamas official in Gaza City said Saturday that his men had captured more than 50,000 rifles and pistols during raids on the headquarters of the Fatah-controlled security forces.

Hamas also seized dozens of vehicles and "important" military equipment, according to the official.

IDF officials believe troops would face even tougher resistance in Gaza than they encountered during last summer's war against Hizbullah in south Lebanon, asserted the newspaper, quoting a source close to Barak as saying, however, that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive "Hamastan" on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable.

"The question is not if, but how and when," said the source. --

I wonder if this is true.  And I very especially wonder if it would be done on the basis of  some deal with fatah, the opposition to hamas, which - at least until now - has hated Israel and does not recognize even one square inch of Israel as legitimate (just like hamas).

Now that hamas, not content with winning a parliamentary majority in the so-called palestinian territories, has taken over Gaza through violent overthrow of the government, it certainly would be understandable if fatah made their "deal with the devil".  It certainly would not be because they suddenly like Israel, that's for sure.  Instead, it would be because Israel, however much it is hated, will support what's left of fatah's authority in Judea/Samaria (the west bank).  Maybe they'll even enable fatah to regain a modicum of its former governance in Gaza.

Given what hamas has done in Gaza, there is little doubt they will get rid of fatah on the west bank too, unless someone stops them.  And fatah can't.  Enter Israel, under the military authority vested in Ehud Barak

Wouldn't it be something if Israel finally gets a real deal from a major palestinian Arab group, fatah, because of how much MORE hateful and violent the other major palestinian Arab group, hamas, is?  The implications could be amazing (and not necessarily positive either, but there is a good shot they could be).

Is this the start of a proxy war between Israel and hamas' Iranian benefactors?

Stay tuned...........

UPDATE:  The Associated Press is now reporting that..."Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has outlawed the Islamic militant Hamas movement and its militias, his office says."

Do you think there is any way on earth Abbas can make this stick without an additional, militarily superior force backing it up?  This is getting more and more interesting - and more and more dangerous - by the minute.


Ken Berwitz

How big a fraud is michael moore, and how willing are major media to run interference for his fraudulence?

Read the piece from below and see.  Believe me, it ain't the only example:


AP Tries To Cover For Michael Moores Lie

June 17th, 2007

From his lickspittle fans at the Associated Press:


Moore says he didnt interview Smith for Roger & Me

Jun 16, 2007


BELLAIRE, Mich. Michael Moore says he hasnt seen Manufacturing Dissent, a film that accuses him of dishonesty in the making of his politically charged documentaries.

But he denies one of its most explosive allegations: that he did interview Roger Smith, then-chairman of General Motors Corp. and the subject of Moores 1989 debut Roger & Me, but left the footage on the cutting room floor.

Anybody who says that is a liar, Moore told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday after a showing of his new film, Sicko, in the northern Michigan village of Bellaire.

Toronto-based filmmakers Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk released Manufacturing Dissent in March. It includes a clip of a question-and-answer exchange between Moore and Smith during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting.

Caine and Melnyk say it undercuts the central theme of Roger & Me Moores fruitless effort to interview an evasive Smith about the effects of GM plant closings in Flint, Moores hometown.

In the AP interview, Moore acknowledged having had a good five minutes of back-and forth with Smith about a company tax abatement at the shareholders meeting, as reported by Premiere magazine in 1990. But that was before he began working on Roger & Me and had nothing to do with the film, Moore said.

Besides, he said, the film wasnt primarily about interviewing Smith, but getting him to observe the economic devastation in Flint.

If Id gotten an interview with him, why wouldnt I put it in the film? Moore said. Any exchange with Roger Smith would have been valuable. And GM surely would have publicized it in response to the movie, he said.

Im so used to listening to the stuff people say about me, it just becomes entertainment for me at this point, Moore said. Its a fictional character thats been created with the name of Michael Moore.

Once again note how in typical fashion the AP only reports any negative news about one of its heroes when it can present their side of events.

Note too that the AP cut out any references to the multi-millionaire propagandists notoriously foul mouth with their ellipses:

Anybody who says that is a liar,

Also note that the article seems to say that the anti-Moore documentary claims Mr. Moore filmed the interview and left it on the cutting room floor. But it does not provide direct quotes.

Given that Mr. Moore works in video, this statement would perforce be technically untrue. But it is clear that the more significant charge is that (like Cindy Sheehan, who was inspired by him) Michael Moore had indeed been able to address the subject of his stalking though he claimed otherwise.

The article accepts Moores claim that this exchange occurred before he began his project. But why then was he at a GM stockholders meeting if he wasnt already working on his documentary?

Lastly, notice how the AP carefully fails to mention anything about the background of the people who made the Manufacturing Dissent film, who are devout leftists who were appalled at Mr. Moores dishonest actions.

And while we are on the subject of accuracy, Mr. Moore propaganda piece is regularly presented at such places like Wikipedia as having been funded by Michael Moores mortgaging of his home and partly by bingo games.

In fact, a major source of money was the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. Mother Jones had fired Mr. Moore after only three months of his services because he had put one of his friends on the cover.

Mr. Moore sued the company and rather than go to trial Mother Jones gave him some money in an out of court settlement. Moore then used this money to make Roger & Me his evisceration of personal greed and lack of responsibility.

And speaking of lawsuits (and honesty) Michael Moore was successfully sued for another misrepresentation in his epic. His former friend, Larry Stecco successfully argued that his portrayal in the movie was not an accurate reflection of his character and won.

Stecco was interviewed attending a society fund raising ball and was made out to be a high-society fat cat who partied while people where starving outside. He was actually a lawyer who worked pro-bono for the poorer residents of Flint.

But anyone who still has any doubts about Michael Moore being a pathological liar need only explore his claims about the Katrina Relief work of the Veterans For Peace, for which he shilled relentlessly in the aftermath of the storm.

In fact by their own admission the VFP did next to nothing to help the Katrina victims. But Michael Moore claimed they had elaborate food kitchens and medical clinics, all to help them raise money that could have gone to helping the victims.

But the truth has never mattered to Michael Moore.

He makes documentaries.



Ken Berwitz

NOTE:  To protect myself  from a lawsuit - which, under the circumstances is probably a very worthwhile thing to do - let me remind anyone reading this that it is my OPINION.  Despite how strongly I feel about what I am saying here, I do not claim that it is provable fact.  (Whew, given that I don't have $54,000,000 in discretionary assets laying around, I feel much better now.) 

Maybe you have heard or read about the $54,000,000 lawsuit over a pair of pants.  That is NOT a typo:  a "man" - a sitting judge in Washington DC no less - is suing a dry cleaning store for fifty four million dollars , because he claims they lost a pair of his pants (a claim that they dispute, incidentally). 

Anyone who watches Leno or Letterman probably knows all about this.  The possibilities for joke material are certainly endless.  But what isn't funny is what this insane lawsuit has done, and continues to do, to a family owned cleaning store that is going broke defending itself against this utter lunacy.

Here is an article from the Newark Examiner, which explains the lawsuit (to the extent that it can be explained), and tells you about this "judge".  Read it and then wonder what circus clown put him anywhere near a judicial bench:-

Pants lawsuit could cost D.C. judge his $100,000 job

The boss of Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge whose $54 million pants lawsuit has turned the D.C. legal system into a punch line on late-night talk shows, has recommended that the city deny Pearson another term on the bench, D.C. government sources said Thursday.

In a letter to the three-person commission that will decide whether Pearson gets reappointed, District of Columbia Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone T. Butler said Pearson does not deserve a 10-year term to the post, which pays more than $100,000 a year.

My sense is that the commission will not reappoint him, a D.C. government source said.

Butlers letter reverses his previous recommendation in support of Pearson that he sent to the commission before the pants suit case gained worldwide notoriety.

Butler would not comment on his recommendation, according to his office.

Administrative judges preside over disputes between a government agency and people bringing complaints against the agency.

Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff said she would rule on Pearsons lawsuit by next week. Pearson broke down on the stand twice trying to describe the day he learned that he would never see his pants again. He has requested $500,000 in legal fees for the 1,400 hours he says he put into the case. A friend testified that Pearson had no life outside the office because he was consumed with the case, working nights and weekends.

Pearson has had a history of doggedly pursuing legal matters.

Before he became a D.C. judge two years ago, Pearson was unemployed after working as legal aid attorney for 24 years. He worked on one tenant lawsuit for 18 years, appealing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

His former boss once called him the best attorney he ever hired, but their relationship soured and Pearson quit in 2002.

In 2005, in his divorce suit, Virginia courts ordered him to pay his ex-wife, also a lawyer, $12,000 for creating unnecessary litigation and threatening her and her attorney with disbarment.

At the time of the ruling, he had no steady job, no bank account and less than $2,000 in cash. -

The one issue I have with this otherwise accurate and informative article is that there is no mention of the carnage which has been visited upon Ki, Jin and Soo Chung, the hard-working family which operates Custom Cleaners.  How could there be no mention of the hell they are being put through and the legal fees they have had to suffer because of this insanity?  Can anyone find a joke in that?

As regards Pearson, could this "man" possibly be less qualified to judge other people?  What in the world was going on in the mind of Judge Butler when he actually RECOMMENDED such an utter lunatic, with a crazy-quilt personal history like this, for the bench? 

Given the quality of Pearson's selection, maybe they can replace him with Marion Barry.  At least with Barry you could get an extra-sensory bonus if you breathe the air in his chambers. 

Or maybe he can become partners with Michael Nifong, the just-disbarred DA of Durham County, North Carolina.  Pearson could handle the endless litigations and nifong, now that he's no longer able to practice, could organize the files and check the briefs for spelling errors.


Ken Berwitz

It isn't every day that you hear Nancy Pelosi has been attacked as too moderate.  But today is the day.  Here are the particulars, from Bob Novak:-


The powerful left wing of the House Democratic Caucus is unhappy with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being too attentive to a handful of moderate members, especially those elected last year from normally Republican districts.

Protesting liberals grumble Pelosi has been too cautious setting policy during six months in the majority, especially regarding the Iraq war. The response is that Democrats will revert to minority status in the House if they stray too far to the left.

A footnote: Some liberal Democratic House members returned after the Memorial Day recess to tell colleagues how they were assailed by normally staunch supporters during town meetings, complaining not nearly enough had been done to end the Iraq intervention.

Isn't this the same Nancy Pelosi who demanded a prescribed timetable for withdrawing our troops in Iraq?  Who declared the troop surge a failure before it began?  Who tried to appoint John Murtha the majority leader?

This is the Nancy Pelosi that is now being attacked as too moderate? 

The most comical part is where Mr. Novak describes the people doing the attacking as "liberal".  They're no liberals.  That is a perversion of the word.  They are LAMBS:  Members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.  Plain and simple.

If you believe the latest major poll, (reported this week), the Democratic-majority congress now has an approval rating of 23%.  That is appreciably lower than President Bush. (When do media start talking about this?  They sure talk about President Bush's low poll numbers).

What little coverage I've come across regarding this remarkably precipitous drop in Democratic fortunes, assures me that while Republicans and conservatives are, of course, negative toward them, the problem is exacerbated by people on the left who feel they are not going far enough in that direction -- in other words, the LAMB crowd.

Funny, when I see George Bush's low approval ratings, I don't recall the same media telling me that, while Democrats and liberals are, of course, negative toward him, the problem is exacerbated by people on the right who feel he is not going far enough in that direction. 

When it comes to Bush, low approval numbers seem to mean that the liberal/left is gaining.  Period.  None of that "he's not conservative enough" stuff.

It will be interesting to see how Speaker Pelosi addresses her LAMB issue.  Being an eternal optimist, I picture her using this as an opportunity to break free of the virtual stranglehold they have on her, Harry Reid and much of the Democratic party.  She could actually move back from the hard left and do herself, her party and us a big favor. 

Unfortunately, as I picture this happening I also picture, with the same level of expectation, Porky Pig sprouting wings and flying over the New Jersey Turnpike.

Hmmm, maybe if Porky can get up to 91 miles an hour he can lay a dropping on Jon Corzine's SUV. 

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!!