Tuesday, 17 July 2007

SAN FRANCISCO STATE U. AND HEZBOLLAH

Ken Berwitz

Some stories need no commentary.  And this story, courtesy of the New York Post, is one of them.

Are they out of their minds over there?  See what you think:.

When Hezbollah trumps Old Glory

July 16, 2007

New York Post

Most Americans know that burning our nations flag is protected by the First Amendment. No matter how distasteful to some, the Supreme Court has consistently held flag-burning to be protected as expressive political conduct.
 
So if burning an American flag is protected speech, burning other flagssay, the flags of political parties considered to be terrorist groups by our governmentwould  also be protected speech, right?
 
Rightexcept  at San Francisco State University (SFSU), where the First Amendment takes a backseat to Hamas and Hezbollah. As part of an anti-terrorism rally held on campus last October, SFSUs College Republicans stepped on homemade replicas of Hamas and Hezbollah flags drawn on butcher paper. Unbeknownst to the group, both flags contain the word Allah in Arabicprompting  a student to file a complaint accusing the College Republicans of walking on a banner with the word Allah written in Arabic script.
 
Even though the flagstomping  was protected speecha  fact pointed out twice to SFSU President Robert Corrigan in letters from the Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationSFSU  administrators decided to put the College Republicans on trial for attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment and actions of incivility. An SFSU spokesperson even told the San Francisco Chronicle that the real issue was the desecration of Allah. The ensuing investigation and hearing lasted more than five months before SFSU finally dropped the charges against the group under intense public criticism.
 
The College Republicans filed a federal lawsuit this week, arguing that SFSU violated the groups First Amendment rights by subjecting the group to an investigation instead of dismissing the charges out of hand. The suit also challenges SFSUs speech code, which requires students to be civil to one anothera  rule that can only be selectively enforced against dissenting opinions on a campus as polarized as SFSU.
 
Constitutionally speaking, this case isnt even close: Theres no exception for Hamas, Hezbollah or even Allah under the First Amendment. Now SFSU has to answer for violating the Constitution in court.  

.


NANCY PELOSI-RICARDO STRIKES AGAIN

Ken Berwitz

Here is another episode in the whacky, zany reign of Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo as speaker of the house.

First, let's see what she said today about how we should protect ourselves against terrorism.  Following is her verbatim comment (bold print is mine)..

The Bush Administrations unnecessary, ill-conceived, and ill-planned war in Iraq has made America less secure by turning our nations full attention away from fighting terrorism. As the National Intelligence Estimate released this morning makes clear, nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks the group responsible, al-Qaeda, remains the most serious terrorist threat facing our country. Al-Qaeda has regained its strength, terrorist attacks have increased, and extremists are using the war in Iraq to attract new recruits.

We must do more to protect the American people from terrorism. Today, the Democratic-led House took a strong step toward protecting America doing by agreeing to go to conference on legislation to enact the recommendations made nearly three years ago by the independent 9/11 Commission. Prompt passage of the final 9/11 legislation and the Presidents signature on the bill will make America safer..

Ok, got it.  We should enact the 9/11 commission recommendations, and how dare Bush not do so.

Now....let's look at the specific recommendation of the 9/11 commission regarding troops in Iraq.  As before, this is verbatim and the bold print is mine:.

1 A Military Strategy for Iraq

2 There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq. But there are actions that the U.S. and Iraqi governments, working together, can and should take to increase the probability of avoiding disaster there, and increase the chance of success.

3 The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently needed national reconciliation program to which it has already committed. And it should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. As the Iraqi Army increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be able to take real responsibility for governance.

4 While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units.

So there you have it.  Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo is demanding that President Bush adhere to the 9/11 commission recommendations.  But the 9/11 commission recommended that there be an increase of US troops in Baghdad - otherwise known as a TROOP SURGE.  That's what President Bush IS doing.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the disparager of the house, Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo, along with senate malaise leader Harry Reid, who not only attacked the idea of a troop surge but literally declared it a failure before it was ever fully implemented?

So help me, if I were the CEO of  Desilu Productions I would sue her for copyright infringement.  Other than the fact that she is not funny, Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo's schemes and comments are a dead ringer for Lucy's.

~~~Da da daaaaaaaa, dada DA da-daaaaaaaaaa~~~


JOSEPH WILSON ENDORSES HILLARY CLINTON

Ken Berwitz

It is a measure of how misinformed some people are that joseph wilson, a proven liar of the first order, can support Hillary Clinton for president, and she can acccept and thank him for it.

It is deliciously ironic that Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo, today, demanded that the 9/11 commission recommendations should be implemented.  That point of view requires respect for and belief in the findings of the 9/11 commission, doesn't it? 

Well, the 9/11 commission determined that joseph wilson is a liar.  He lied about how he got his mission to niger by claiming his wife had nothing to do with it - the commission uncovered her e-mail RECOMMENDING him for it. 

And the 9/11 commission determined that wilson lied when he claimed that he found Iraq was not trying to buy yellowcake uranium there.  In point of fact, the CIA said that wilson's findings BOLSTERED their belief saddam was trying to do so. 

There were other lies by wilson that were also uncovered by the 9/11 commission, but you get the idea.  If you want to read a superb chronology of what a lying scoundrel wilson is, fully referenced and absolutely devastating, go to http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame.  You'll finish reading this and be slack-jawed that anyone in his or her right mind would want to be associated with joseph wilson, let alone accept his endorsement.

There is exactly one reason and one reason only that this lying piece of excrement can stand up in public, support Hillary Clinton, and not be a gross embarrassment to her.  Media bias. 

Media have given joseph wilson a virtual free pass and not come close to educating the public as to how much of a liar he is.  So, by reason of public ignorance, wilson becomes respectable.  Respectable enough to make Hillary Clinton - who surely knows better - treat him as if he's an asset instead of an albatross.

Shameful doesn't even begin to describe this.


YOU SNOOZE, YOU...WIN

Ken Berwitz

Let's start at the end:  John Edwards, the human oil slick, is going nowhere as a presidential candidate.  His numbers are way down the list, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama far ahead of him....and Al Gore waiting in the wings to potentially blow by all of them.

Edwards is also a non-starter as a vice presidential hopeful, because of his uselessness to John Kerry in 2004 - i.e. he was supposed to deliver at least part of the south for Kerry, but the ticket lost every southern state, even Edwards' own state of North Carolina.

These days, the only way Edwards can make a ripple is by doing distasteful things like making a campaign event out of a statement concerning his wife's cancer and calling the global war on terror nothing more than a "bumper sticker slogan".

You could say that, politically, Edwards is putting people to sleep. 

But, as it turns out, that opinion is more than just a sarcasm.  Read this, courtesy of www.newsbusters.org,  --- and be sure to link to the video: .

Man Snoozes During John Edwards's ABC Town Hall...Then Vanishes

Posted by Scott Whitlock on July 16, 2007 - 15:59.

Did "Good Morning America" physically remove a man who appeared to be dozing off during Democratic Senator John Edwards's town hall meeting on Monday? Early in the 7am hour, the man appeared to be sleeping, or at least dozing, while Edwards discussed his plan for Iraq.

Around 7:11, the individual, who was seated to the back and right of Edwards, mysteriously disappeared (see video below). Diane Sawyer even remarked how audience members for the New Orleans-based event had "gotten up early" to join him. Perhaps the network found it unacceptable that someone might perceive the former trial lawyer to be less than enthralling?

Video (0:50): Real (1.34 MB) or Windows (1.53 MB).

.....when the camera cut back to him (the) mysterious individual is now gone, though the shot is clearly the same. For more information on Mondays town hall meeting, click here.

To read an account of Hillary Clintons March 26 special on GMA, click here. In total, "Good Morning America" has devoted 64 minutes worth of air time to the two Democratic candidates and zero, so far, for the Republicans.

Finally, for a look at the disparity between Senator Clintons town hall and the tougher questioning that Edwards endured, go here.

Usually the clich is, "you snooze, you lose".  But in the case of having to endure a speech by a man who is not going to win his party's nomination, who is a demonstrated non-vote getter (and, let's not forget, is utterly unqualified to be president), maybe if you snooze you win. 

Hey, if they remove you from the stage, you win because you don't have to listen anymore.  Unless, of course, you need a good catnap, in which case listening to Edwards apparently does the trick.  This guy probably thinks of him as Sominex with an expensive haircut.

On the serious side, though, how did you like that comparison of air time that ABC gives to Democratic candidates versus Republicans?  So far, 64 minutes to Democrats and 0 minutes to Republicans.

If you're a partisan Democrat you will love it.  If you're a partisan Republican you will hate it.  And if you want to hear both sides so you can have an informed decision?  On this issue, you're a Republican.


ANYTHING BUT LEGISLATING

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest Democratic stunt, the latest attempt to divert you from the fact that they are not legislating anything to benefit you:.

Senate Dems Push All-Night Debate on Iraq Policy

Tuesday , July 17, 2007

WASHINGTON   

Republicans dismissed as political theater a Democratic plan for an all-night session of the Senate to debate President Bush's military strategy in Iraq amid bipartisan proposals to redeploy U.S. troops.

The round-the-clock debate Tuesday night through Wednesday morning was intended as a way of pressuring Republican senators as well as Bush to act sooner rather than later on a change of course in Iraq.

"How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had?" Sen. Dick Durbin, No. 2 in the Democratic leadership, said Monday.

Bush, meanwhile, paid a surprise visit to a gathering of GOP congressional staffers and White House aides trying to determine an effective strategy for communications about war policies. One participant said the president told the staffers he would not rethink his Iraq policies until after a critical military assessment in September.

Bush also said he had no confidence in the ability of international institutions a reference to the United Nations to salvage Iraq if the U.S. were to withdraw, according to the participant, who spoke anonymously because the meeting was intended to be private.

Also on Monday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said the service chiefs were developing their own assessment of Iraq to present to Bush in September. Options include another troop buildup or maintaining current troop levels beyond September, Pace said.

Bush on Monday told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other officials that continued U.S. support depends on political progress in Baghdad, White House spokesman Tony Snow said. .

Republicans are sometimes right and they're sometimes wrong.  In this instance they are dead-on right.  What is this BUT political theater?   What exactly does an "all-nighter" accomplish other than to get a few cheap headlines?

If Reid and Durbin want to tie this to soldiers' lives, how about if they live in a tent and eat military food, instead of dining at the fine restaurants in Washington DC?  How about if they try to live on a soldier's salary until the war is over?  How about if they dress in fatigues and carry what soldiers carry on their backs during patrols?

Childish political stunts instead of legislation that might benefit the country.  That's what we voted into office and that's what we therefore deserve.  And if this country doesn't do something about it in 2008, we deserve it all the more.


ANOTHER 'BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN' ALERT

Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is the latest example of global terrorism and how it can (and, I'm sure, eventually will) impact us.  The bold print is mine:

Terror Threat Against U.S. Said Serious
Jul 17 09:07 AM US/Eastern
By KATHERINE SHRADER and ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the American homeland.

The declassified key findings, to be released publicly on Tuesday, were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

The report lays out a range of dangersfrom al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groupsthat pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

The report makes clear that al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here.

"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."

The analysts also found that al-Qaida's association with its Iraqi affiliate helps the group to energize the broader Sunni Muslim extremist community, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives"including for homeland attacks."

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments of the 16 spy agencies across the breadth of the U.S. government. These agencies reflect the consensus, long-term thinking of top intelligence analysts. Portions of the documents are occasionally declassified for public release.

The new report echoed statements made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, but provided some new depth on their thinking and concerns.

For instance, the report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida's ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

But, the report quickly adds, analysts are concerned "that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge." 

.

In other words, not only is global terrorism real, but there is a good likelihood that we are going to be hit in the near future. And one of the main reasons this hasn't happened for 6 years is that we have FOUGHT them.

I implore you to remember this when you think about how Democrats have tried to end the patriot act, have fought every serious attempt at surveillance for terrorist suspects and have generally done everything they could to impede or completely circumvent policies that make us safer.

And, for god sakes, remember who disdains this international threat as a "bumper sticker slogan".  And remember that the only reason this imbecilic statement still stands is that media have given the Democrats who said it and who agreed with it a free pass.

Yes, the AP has put this out.  Credit to them for doing so.  Now, has your newspaper picked it up and published it?  Did you see a story, let alone a feature story, on the network news about it?

But one thing I guarantee;  If they should hit us again, the first person who will be blamed is the one who has paid, and continues to pay, a huge political price for trying to protect us, rather than the people who fought every one of his efforts to keep us safe. 

That man is President George Bush. 


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!!