Thursday, 23 August 2007

REMEMBERING HOW PRIMARIES ARE WON

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with some common-sense logic.  If you are ahead, and you break even from then on, you're going to win.  If you are behind and you break even from then on, you're going to lose.  Put another way, the status quo is great when you're in the lead and it stinks when someone else is.

Politically, this applies 100%.  Take the Democratic race to be the party's presidential nominee, for example.  Right now Hillary Clinton is ahead in just about every poll, Barack Obama is second, John Edwards is a distant third and Al Gore - not a candidate but possibly lurking in the wings, is a wild card.  Everyone else is et cetera.

Democrats, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to have an unending series of debates in various places before various types of audiences.  And until now, those debates have largely consisted of each candidate playing "can you top this?" in their denunciations of President Bush and his policies.

While it is certainly expected that Democrats would be against President Bush, all this has accomplished is to maintain Hillary Clinton's lead.  If Senator Clinton is ahead, and her opponents spend their time in these debates doing what she's doing (i.e. attacking Bush and Republicans), she stays ahead. 

Months ago, I blogged that at some point this scenario cannot hold.  If Obama, or Edwards, or for that matter Biden, Dodd, Richardson, et al really want to win the nomination, they have to take down the frontrunner.  It amazed me that this wasn't happening right from the beginning. 

But finally it has dawned on the other candidates that they have to do something besides agree with Ms. Clinton to become the Democratic candidate for president.  Let me give you two very recent examples:

-Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, has incorporated into her stump speech the line "if you can't run your own house you certainly can't run the White House".  Now who do you suppose that refers to? 

One of the most entertaining parts of this campaign has been the sudden spate of disclaimers about that comment - most along the lines of "oh, no, it isn't about Hillary Clinton and her philandering husband, how could you ever think I'd say something like that?"

This, of course is a classic example of paralepsis.  Paralepsis may sound like a disease of some kind, but in reality it is a rhetorical device in which you say something by conspicuously not saying it.(e.g. "I feel that my opponent's drug use years ago has no place in this campaign"!). 

The Obama version seems to go something like "Now why would you think that a reference to someone's house being out of control would have anything to do with Hillary and her philandering husband?  This is an outrage!  Why....next thing you know you'll be bringing up Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers and Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones and Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Kathleen Willie and Walter Mondale's daughter. But that's just you!  We, would NEVER say anything like that!"

Fascinatingly, some Democratic shills, like Andrea Mitchell on the Today show yesterday and Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times this morning, have tried to come to Obama's rescue on this obvious attaack.  Their "explanations" for why Ms. Obama didn't say what she said are ridiculous and will not work.   That was a shot at Hillary and she - along with everyone else - knows it.

-John Edwards, who has sent his wife out to be the hatchet person and, among other things, whine that hubby is terribly disadvantaged because he is neither a woman (like Hillary) nor Black (like Obama), yesterday stepped up the attack. 

In an article titled "Edwards Goes After Clinton, Obama", the Associated Press says that  "Edwards...planned to tell voters they can't simply replace "a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." He criticized "ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete."

Clearly, the human oil slick has perceived that he is so far behind in this race that the only way he gets back into it is to attack hard and directly.  And if Edwards needs this kind of strategy, what do you suppose you're going to get from the et cetera group of Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel?

Now if this gives you the sense that Democrats will no longer be displaying tea-party politesse while running against each other for the presidential nomination, you get it.  And why should they?  How do you win your own party's nomination by making yourself indistinguishable from your opponents?

So lash yourself to the mast.  The next few months are going to be stormy.  And, for a change, President Bush is not going to be the only recipient of those high winds and crashing waves.


GLOBAL BURPING REDUX (OR IS THAT REFLUX?)

Ken Berwitz

Remember that story a day or two ago about the moose population in Norway, how they are destroying the environment by burping and, to a lesser extent, farting?   (NOTE:  That's not to say they fart less than they burp, that's to say that burps have more of an effect on the environment.  I don't know the relative amount of farting or burping a moose does, for which I am eternally grateful).

Well, The Daily Redundancy, which bills itself as "The Standard Of Excellence in Pseudojournalism" has published an article about how Norway is solving the problem, or at any rate how the DailyRedundancy imagines they are. Here it is:.

Norway Proposes 'Methane Credits' To Save Moose
OSLO, NORWAY - The Norwegian Environmental Ministry has proposed to initiate 'methane credits' to offset emissions from moose, the official national animal. A recent study revealed that a grown moose will emit 2100 kilos of carbon dioxide and 100 kilos of methane annually. Given that methane has 20 times the greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide, both gasses have an equally harmful effect on the environment.
 
"We feel it's necessary to do whatever it takes to save our beloved moose." said Lars Lunderfels, Assistant Environmental Ministry Secretary. "Under the current emissions trading protocol, we either buy credits for the surplus gasses or eliminate the source. Obviously, the latter cannot happen."

The proposed methane credits would be similar to carbon credits, which are already established and in use worldwide. A monetary value is placed on each ton of greenhouse gas, and countries that over-produce gasses would buy credits from countries that under-produce, negating the effects of the original emission.

"It's a fair system." says Imbiri Mfuena, Executive Director of the European Union Emission Trading Market. "We have already seen positive results in the low emission countries. I applaud Norway for stepping up their efforts. I'm confident we can quickly establish a value for methane and begin trading credits."

Preliminary estimates indicate the combined carbon and methane credits may run 2.3 billion euros (US$3.1 billion) per year. The Environmental Ministry is exploring several options to cover the cost. "Obviously we will raise the fee for the annual moose hunt, but we want to be careful not to make the hunt cost prohibitive." said Lunderfels. "The last thing we need is for the moose population to get out of control again. We may consider another tax on automobiles, but I'm not sure that there are enough people that still drive. Perhaps another cigarette tax may be in order." 
.

When it comes to Norway, there is a thin line between satire and reality.  This - I think - straddles to the side of satire. But let's not be hasty. It just might be immutable fact (or is that immoosable fact). 

Maybe there's methane to their madness.


REMEMBERING HOW PRIMARIES ARE WON

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with some common-sense logic.  If you are ahead, and you break even from then on, you're going to win.  If you are behind and you break even from then on, you're going to lose.  Put another way, the status quo is great when you're in the lead and it stinks when someone else is.

Politically, this applies 100%.  Take the Democratic race to be the party's presidential nominee, for example.  Right now Hillary Clinton is ahead in just about every poll, Barack Obama is second, John Edwards is a distant third and Al Gore - not a candidate but possibly lurking in the wings, is a wild card.  Everyone else is et cetera.

Democrats, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to have an unending series of debates in various places before various types of audiences.  And until now, those debates have largely consisted of each candidate playing "can you top this?" in their denunciations of President Bush and his policies.

While it is certainly expected that Democrats would be against President Bush, all this has accomplished is to maintain Hillary Clinton's lead.  If Senator Clinton is ahead, and her opponents spend their time in these debates doing what she's doing (i.e. attacking Bush and Republicans), she stays ahead. 

Months ago, I blogged that at some point this scenario cannot hold.  If Obama, or Edwards, or for that matter Biden, Dodd, Richardson, et al really want to win the nomination, they have to take down the frontrunner.  It amazed me that this wasn't happening right from the beginning. 

But finally it has dawned on the other candidates that they have to do something besides agree with Ms. Clinton to become the Democratic candidate for president.  Let me give you two very recent examples:

-Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, has incorporated into her stump speech the line "if you can't run your own house you certainly can't run the White House".  Now who do you suppose that refers to? 

One of the most entertaining parts of this campaign has been the sudden spate of disclaimers about that comment - most along the lines of "oh, no, it isn't about Hillary Clinton and her philandering husband, how could you ever think I'd say something like that?"

This, of course is a classic example of paralepsis.  Paralepsis may sound like a disease of some kind, but in reality it is a rhetorical device in which you say something by conspicuously not saying it.(e.g. "I feel that my opponent's drug use years ago has no place in this campaign"!). 

The Obama version seems to go something like "Now why would you think that a reference to someone's house being out of control would have anything to do with Hillary and her philandering husband?  This is an outrage!  Why....next thing you know you'll be bringing up Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers and Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones and Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Kathleen Willie and Walter Mondale's daughter. But that's just you!  We, would NEVER say anything like that!"

Fascinatingly, some Democratic shills, like Andrea Mitchell on the Today show yesterday and Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times this morning, have tried to come to Obama's rescue on this obvious attaack.  Their "explanations" for why Ms. Obama didn't say what she said are ridiculous and will not work.   That was a shot at Hillary and she - along with everyone else - knows it.

-John Edwards, who has sent his wife out to be the hatchet person and, among other things, whine that hubby is terribly disadvantaged because he is neither a woman (like Hillary) nor Black (like Obama), yesterday stepped up the attack. 

In an article titled "Edwards Goes After Clinton, Obama", the Associated Press says that  "Edwards...planned to tell voters they can't simply replace "a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." He criticized "ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete."

Clearly, the human oil slick has perceived that he is so far behind in this race that the only way he gets back into it is to attack hard and directly.  And if Edwards needs this kind of strategy, what do you suppose you're going to get from the et cetera group of Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel?

Now if this gives you the sense that Democrats will no longer be displaying tea-party politesse while running against each other for the presidential nomination, you get it.  And why should they?  How do you win your own party's nomination by making yourself indistinguishable from your opponents?

So lash yourself to the mast.  The next few months are going to be stormy.  And, for a change, President Bush is not going to be the only recipient of those high winds and crashing waves.


BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME AT ITS FINEST

Ken Berwitz

The previous blog, placed here by my co-author, insults President Bush (as usual) and makes reference to a diary entry of Ronald Reagan's dated May 18, 1986.

Barry inadvertently left off the entry itself.  But he also sent it to me as an e-mail so I have it.  Here is what he claims was in President Reagan's diary on that date:.

'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.'  .

Truthfully, does that look like something Ronald Reagan would ever have said?  Does it look like anything he'd ever put on paper? 

Well, one of the people who Barry copied on his e-mail list sent back the following to me and everyone else who got it.  I won't put his name here because I don't know if he'd want me to.  But here's how he responded:.

OK, OK  now don't you and your lefty friends get worked up to orgasm over this.  Unlike you, obviously,  I have the Ronald Reagan diary.  I looked up 5/18/1986.

This date was a Sunday.  President Reagan rarely did Sunday entries.  But on this date,  there was no such entry as shown below.  However, what it does say is "Mrs. Reagan went to Boston; watched panel shows; homework; Mrs. Reagan returned; Maureen visiting."
.

Now THAT looks plausible.

What I think we have here is another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). 

People afflicted with BDS believe anything negative that they can find about President Bush.  And there's no need to check it for accuracy because since he's the worst, most evil, incompetent, etc etc etc person in the world it must be true. 

The saddest part is that when their "facts" are debunked, it doesn't seem to change a thing.  They still will jump through a hoop the next time they find something that attacks, condemns or ridicules President Bush and will "know" it is true.

There doesn't seem to be a cure.


THE PETER PRINCIPLE

Ken Berwitz

Read this and suddenly Lorena Bobbitt doesn't seem quite as scary:.

Woman sets fire to ex-husband's penis

Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:37PM EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A woman set fire to her ex-husband's penis as he sat naked watching television and drinking vodka, Moscow police said Wednesday.

Asked if the man would make a full recovery, a police spokeswoman said it was "difficult to predict."

The attack climaxed three years of acrimonious enforced co-habitation. The couple divorced three years ago but continued to share a small flat, something common in Russia where property costs are very high.

"It was monstrously painful," the wounded ex-husband told Tvoi Den newspaper. "I was burning like a torch. I don't know what I did to deserve this." .

I'm sitting here (legs crosssed.  tightly) trying to figure out how she, er, pulled this off. 

Did she douse him with lighter fluid first?  Did he have enough vodka in him so that he didn't notice?

Did she pretend to be performing a famous sexual act upon him and have a little Bic lighter hidden under her tongue?  If so, how's her tongue?

The possibilities are endless, which is more than I can say for that part of this guy's anatomy these days. 

Lucky she didn't divorce St. Nicholas.  This would have made him St. Dicholas.

Ok, I'm finished now.  The next set of bad puns is your responsibility.

Don't blow it......ahhh, dammit, there I go again.


EVEN REAGAN WITH ALZHEIMERS KNEW W WAS AN IDIOT

Barry Sinrod

May 18, 1986 From the diary of Ronald Reagan


BROOKLYN MADRASSAH

Ken Berwitz

Yes, that title is accurate.  The NY school system has decided to create what amounts to a madrassah in Brooklyn.  A publicly (read that taxpayer) funded one. 

The madrassah is going to be called the Kalil Ghibran International Academy.  From all appearances, KGIA will be an infestation of fundamentalist Islamics bent on teaching "intifada" to the students - or, put another way, the kind of sick crap that we are fighting against around the world. 

Already, the intended principal of this sick joke has had to resign because she was involved with a group selling T-shirts that said "Intifida USA".   And the hamas-infested CAIR, which postures as an Arab civil rights organization, also has its tenterhooks firmly in the "Academy". 

Then we have a "rabbi" - or, at least, he claims to be one - named michael feinstein.  Feinstein is an apologist for radical Islam and has been for years.  I think of this guy roughly the way I think of the capos - Jews who facilitated hitler's nazis during WWII. 

Tell you what:  Instead of me continuing to spout, why not read all about it below (complete with a link to video footage of this wonderful "rabbi"), courtesy of www.militantislammonitor.org, and see for yourself:

Does KGIA supporter Michael Feinberg also support Hamas? Rally speaker joined CAIR,Lynn Stewart and ISM at '02 event

August 23, 2007

Does KGIA Supporter Michael Feinberg Also Support Hamas?

By William Mayer and Beila Rabinowitz

August 22, 2007 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - A rally was held on the evening of August 19 at the NYC Department of Education in front of the Tweed Courthouse on Chambers Street, by supporters of the Khalil Gibran International Academy.

The purpose of the rally was ambitious; attempt to put the face of moderation on the school after its principal Dhabah Almontaser was forced to resign over her support of the sale of "Intifada NYC" t-shirts by a group, AWAAM - Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media - with which she was affiliated.

Almontaser's dissembling on the matter and her making light of the Palestinian terror campaign against Israeli civilians resulted in a public uproar which forced her out as KGIA's principal.

While at first blush the rally appeared to be exactly what its planners had hoped, in reality it was merely another effort by those associated with KGIA to deceive New Yorkers into thinking that the Arab school will not become a madrassah, an Islamist indoctrination center.

The two main organizers and sponsors of the rally were AWAAM, the Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, the same group that was caught hawking [and still defends] the "Intifada NYC" t-shirts, and the New York chapter of CAIR, the Saudi funded, Hamas front group which was recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas fundraising prosecution.

One of the prominent speakers at the assembly was "rabbi" Michael Feinberg, the executive director of the Greater New York Labor Religion Coalition, a consortium of hard leftists, pro-open border advocates and radical environmentalists.

Feinberg presented a much-needed, decidedly non-Muslim PR face for the event, a model of inclusiveness which found him gushing that KGIA, "represents a gift of vision, a vision of tolerance of cooperation of community understanding, that is what New York is about..."

However a few months previous to that reasoned charade, Feinberg in another New York setting was anything but "a vision of tolerance."

At a May 5 demonstration against CAIR New York conducted by the terrorism watchdog group Americans Against Hate [AAH, www.americansagainsthate.org] the group's chairman, Joe Kaufman was accosted by the same Michael Feinberg.

As the below video demonstrates, Feinberg's frenzied confrontation bordered on assault, with him shoving towards Kaufman, hitting his camera, while calling Kaufman a Nazi, one of his associates a "right-wing nut job" and signing off by telling Kaufman, a New York native, "Go home you thugs!"

Feinberg - who refused to reveal his identity at the time - stated on camera that he was invited to speak at the CAIR fundraiser and his presence there has given rise to speculation that he supports Hamas, since CAIR's ties to Hamas are irrefutable.

Feinberg is no stranger to supporting terror friendly groups, in 2002 he attended a rally organized by "Not in our Name" which was addressed by representatives of CAIR, the suicide bomber supporting International Solidarity Movement [ISM] and attorney Lynne Stewart.

Stewart acted as counsel for terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1996 for masterminding the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. She was convicted of passing messages from Rahman, while he was in custody, to his Muslim terror group in Egypt which included Rifai Taha, an associate of Osama bin-Laden.

Lies, half-truths, stonewalling, subterfuge...that has been the stock-in-trade of KGIA supporters as they hope to dupe New York City parents into the belief that the school will be anything but a continuing problem and a hotbed of radical Islamist activism, with Mr. Feinberg's Jekyll and Hyde performance being only the most recent in a long series of glaring demonstrations. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=kaufman82207%2Ehtm

MIM: Click on the above link to see a video of Feinberg's attack on Joe Kaufman the Chairman of Americans Against Hate. .

Allow me to remind you, again, that this "academy" is going to be publicly funded with taxpayer dollars. 

Now, a few questions: 

-Where are the mainstream media on this?  Where are they hiding?

-Would mainstream media look the other way if this were a Christian "academy"?  A Jewish "academy"?

-Where is the ACLU, those lovely folks who defended, among other sick groups, NAMBLA (the north american man-boy association), which celebrates the rape of underage boys by men?   In their eyes, apparently, NAMBLA is worth defending, displays of Christianity are worth fighting (think Nativity scenes), but a publicly funded madrassah is okay with them;

-And, finally, where are YOU?  Is this okay with you? Is it or is it not important enough to contact your congressperson or senator, or the school administration of New York City to protest? 

Remember:  If you are indifferent, this madrassah happens.  Think about it.


THE PETER PRINCIPLE

Ken Berwitz

Read this and suddenly Lorena Bobbitt doesn't seem quite as scary:.

Woman sets fire to ex-husband's penis

Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:37PM EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A woman set fire to her ex-husband's penis as he sat naked watching television and drinking vodka, Moscow police said Wednesday.

Asked if the man would make a full recovery, a police spokeswoman said it was "difficult to predict."

The attack climaxed three years of acrimonious enforced co-habitation. The couple divorced three years ago but continued to share a small flat, something common in Russia where property costs are very high.

"It was monstrously painful," the wounded ex-husband told Tvoi Den newspaper. "I was burning like a torch. I don't know what I did to deserve this." .

I'm sitting here (legs crosssed.  tightly) trying to figure out how she, er, pulled this off. 

Did she douse him with lighter fluid first?  Did he have enough vodka in him so that he didn't notice?

Did she pretend to be performing a famous sexual act upon him and have a little Bic lighter hidden under her tongue?  If so, how's her tongue?

The possibilities are endless, which is more than I can say for that part of this guy's anatomy these days. 

Lucky she didn't divorce St. Nicholas.  This would have made him St. Dicholas.

Ok, I'm finished now.  The next set of bad puns is your responsibility.

Don't blow it......ahhh, dammit, there I go again.


EVEN REAGAN WITH ALZHEIMERS KNEW W WAS AN IDIOT

Barry Sinrod

May 18, 1986 From the diary of Ronald Reagan


GLOBAL BURPING REDUX (OR IS THAT REFLUX?)

Ken Berwitz

Remember that story a day or two ago about the moose population in Norway, how they are destroying the environment by burping and, to a lesser extent, farting?   (NOTE:  That's not to say they fart less than they burp, that's to say that burps have more of an effect on the environment.  I don't know the relative amount of farting or burping a moose does, for which I am eternally grateful).

Well, The Daily Redundancy, which bills itself as "The Standard Of Excellence in Pseudojournalism" has published an article about how Norway is solving the problem, or at any rate how the DailyRedundancy imagines they are. Here it is:.

Norway Proposes 'Methane Credits' To Save Moose
OSLO, NORWAY - The Norwegian Environmental Ministry has proposed to initiate 'methane credits' to offset emissions from moose, the official national animal. A recent study revealed that a grown moose will emit 2100 kilos of carbon dioxide and 100 kilos of methane annually. Given that methane has 20 times the greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide, both gasses have an equally harmful effect on the environment.
 
"We feel it's necessary to do whatever it takes to save our beloved moose." said Lars Lunderfels, Assistant Environmental Ministry Secretary. "Under the current emissions trading protocol, we either buy credits for the surplus gasses or eliminate the source. Obviously, the latter cannot happen."

The proposed methane credits would be similar to carbon credits, which are already established and in use worldwide. A monetary value is placed on each ton of greenhouse gas, and countries that over-produce gasses would buy credits from countries that under-produce, negating the effects of the original emission.

"It's a fair system." says Imbiri Mfuena, Executive Director of the European Union Emission Trading Market. "We have already seen positive results in the low emission countries. I applaud Norway for stepping up their efforts. I'm confident we can quickly establish a value for methane and begin trading credits."

Preliminary estimates indicate the combined carbon and methane credits may run 2.3 billion euros (US$3.1 billion) per year. The Environmental Ministry is exploring several options to cover the cost. "Obviously we will raise the fee for the annual moose hunt, but we want to be careful not to make the hunt cost prohibitive." said Lunderfels. "The last thing we need is for the moose population to get out of control again. We may consider another tax on automobiles, but I'm not sure that there are enough people that still drive. Perhaps another cigarette tax may be in order." 
.

When it comes to Norway, there is a thin line between satire and reality.  This - I think - straddles to the side of satire. But let's not be hasty. It just might be immutable fact (or is that immoosable fact). 

Maybe there's methane to their madness.


BROOKLYN MADRASSAH

Ken Berwitz

Yes, that title is accurate.  The NY school system has decided to create what amounts to a madrassah in Brooklyn.  A publicly (read that taxpayer) funded one. 

The madrassah is going to be called the Kalil Ghibran International Academy.  From all appearances, KGIA will be an infestation of fundamentalist Islamics bent on teaching "intifada" to the students - or, put another way, the kind of sick crap that we are fighting against around the world. 

Already, the intended principal of this sick joke has had to resign because she was involved with a group selling T-shirts that said "Intifida USA".   And the hamas-infested CAIR, which postures as an Arab civil rights organization, also has its tenterhooks firmly in the "Academy". 

Then we have a "rabbi" - or, at least, he claims to be one - named michael feinstein.  Feinstein is an apologist for radical Islam and has been for years.  I think of this guy roughly the way I think of the capos - Jews who facilitated hitler's nazis during WWII. 

Tell you what:  Instead of me continuing to spout, why not read all about it below (complete with a link to video footage of this wonderful "rabbi"), courtesy of www.militantislammonitor.org, and see for yourself:

Does KGIA supporter Michael Feinberg also support Hamas? Rally speaker joined CAIR,Lynn Stewart and ISM at '02 event

August 23, 2007

Does KGIA Supporter Michael Feinberg Also Support Hamas?

By William Mayer and Beila Rabinowitz

August 22, 2007 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - A rally was held on the evening of August 19 at the NYC Department of Education in front of the Tweed Courthouse on Chambers Street, by supporters of the Khalil Gibran International Academy.

The purpose of the rally was ambitious; attempt to put the face of moderation on the school after its principal Dhabah Almontaser was forced to resign over her support of the sale of "Intifada NYC" t-shirts by a group, AWAAM - Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media - with which she was affiliated.

Almontaser's dissembling on the matter and her making light of the Palestinian terror campaign against Israeli civilians resulted in a public uproar which forced her out as KGIA's principal.

While at first blush the rally appeared to be exactly what its planners had hoped, in reality it was merely another effort by those associated with KGIA to deceive New Yorkers into thinking that the Arab school will not become a madrassah, an Islamist indoctrination center.

The two main organizers and sponsors of the rally were AWAAM, the Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, the same group that was caught hawking [and still defends] the "Intifada NYC" t-shirts, and the New York chapter of CAIR, the Saudi funded, Hamas front group which was recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas fundraising prosecution.

One of the prominent speakers at the assembly was "rabbi" Michael Feinberg, the executive director of the Greater New York Labor Religion Coalition, a consortium of hard leftists, pro-open border advocates and radical environmentalists.

Feinberg presented a much-needed, decidedly non-Muslim PR face for the event, a model of inclusiveness which found him gushing that KGIA, "represents a gift of vision, a vision of tolerance of cooperation of community understanding, that is what New York is about..."

However a few months previous to that reasoned charade, Feinberg in another New York setting was anything but "a vision of tolerance."

At a May 5 demonstration against CAIR New York conducted by the terrorism watchdog group Americans Against Hate [AAH, www.americansagainsthate.org] the group's chairman, Joe Kaufman was accosted by the same Michael Feinberg.

As the below video demonstrates, Feinberg's frenzied confrontation bordered on assault, with him shoving towards Kaufman, hitting his camera, while calling Kaufman a Nazi, one of his associates a "right-wing nut job" and signing off by telling Kaufman, a New York native, "Go home you thugs!"

Feinberg - who refused to reveal his identity at the time - stated on camera that he was invited to speak at the CAIR fundraiser and his presence there has given rise to speculation that he supports Hamas, since CAIR's ties to Hamas are irrefutable.

Feinberg is no stranger to supporting terror friendly groups, in 2002 he attended a rally organized by "Not in our Name" which was addressed by representatives of CAIR, the suicide bomber supporting International Solidarity Movement [ISM] and attorney Lynne Stewart.

Stewart acted as counsel for terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1996 for masterminding the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. She was convicted of passing messages from Rahman, while he was in custody, to his Muslim terror group in Egypt which included Rifai Taha, an associate of Osama bin-Laden.

Lies, half-truths, stonewalling, subterfuge...that has been the stock-in-trade of KGIA supporters as they hope to dupe New York City parents into the belief that the school will be anything but a continuing problem and a hotbed of radical Islamist activism, with Mr. Feinberg's Jekyll and Hyde performance being only the most recent in a long series of glaring demonstrations. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=kaufman82207%2Ehtm

MIM: Click on the above link to see a video of Feinberg's attack on Joe Kaufman the Chairman of Americans Against Hate. .

Allow me to remind you, again, that this "academy" is going to be publicly funded with taxpayer dollars. 

Now, a few questions: 

-Where are the mainstream media on this?  Where are they hiding?

-Would mainstream media look the other way if this were a Christian "academy"?  A Jewish "academy"?

-Where is the ACLU, those lovely folks who defended, among other sick groups, NAMBLA (the north american man-boy association), which celebrates the rape of underage boys by men?   In their eyes, apparently, NAMBLA is worth defending, displays of Christianity are worth fighting (think Nativity scenes), but a publicly funded madrassah is okay with them;

-And, finally, where are YOU?  Is this okay with you? Is it or is it not important enough to contact your congressperson or senator, or the school administration of New York City to protest? 

Remember:  If you are indifferent, this madrassah happens.  Think about it.


BUSH VERSUS KERRY ON VIETNAM

Ken Berwitz

If you hate President Bush enough, whatever he says, no matter how true it is, will be wrong.  Concomitantly, if you support John Kerry enough, whatever he says, no matter how full of fecal matter it is, will be right.

Here, to sort it all out for us, is www.sweetness-light.com, which - terrifyingly for the Kerry people - deals in facts.  Take a look and see for yourself:.

Bush Right, Kerry Wrong About Vietnam Figures

August 23rd, 2007

From The Hill:

Democrats blast Bushs Vietnam comparison

By Klaus Marre
August 22, 2007

Democrats Wednesday strongly rejected President Bushs comparison of the Vietnam War to the conflict in Iraq, saying that drawing parallels is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Bush, in a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, used the example of the Vietnam War to show the possible consequences of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The president said that millions of people paid the price when the U.S. left Vietnam.

But Democratic leaders insisted that was a false comparison. Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars, said Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate

And the media today is replete with other quotes where John Kerry lambastes President Bush for his ignorance about the Vietnam War.

And yet, it was the self-same Vietnam expert John Kerry who on July 19, 2007 said this in response to a CSPAN caller:

KERRY: Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they werent pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, Ive met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.

No, not everyone predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. For, as we have pointed out previously, Mr. Kerry assured the US Senate in April 1972 that there would be no such thing.

From Mr. Kerrys historic testimony:

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971

UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

Mr. KERRY.  The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face this question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country

So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America

Of course it turned out that Mr. Kerry was no better at predicting the future than he is now at remembering the past.

For even todays edition of the vaunted New York Times admits that Mr. Bush was accurate with his characterization of the aftermath of Vietnam, and even in his numbers:

Historians Question Bushs Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq

By THOM SHANKER
Published: August 23, 2007

The record of death and dislocation after the American withdrawal from Vietnam ranks high among the tragedies of the last century, with an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians, about one-fifth of the population, dying under the rule of Pol Pot, and an estimated 1.5 million Vietnamese and other Indochinese becoming refugees. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese who were sent to prison camps after the war have ranged widely, from 50,000 to more than 400,000, and some accounts have said that tens of thousands perished, a figure that Mr. Bush cited in his speech, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

But Mr. Kerry has always been a pathological liar where Vietnam is concerned.

And, in fact, where most things are concerned. .

John F. Kerry (don't you just love those initials?).  The man who implied he was Irish for 20 years to mine Irish votes in Massachusetts (he has not one drop of Irish blood in him). 

John F. Kerry, who has had so many different stories about tossing his medals over a fence, or tossing someone else's, or just tossing facsimiles of his medals, or wanting to but not being able to get to them in time for the protest, etc etc etc etc etc that he probably doesn't even remember which of them, if any, is the truth.

You may not like President Bush.  You may even hate him and think he lies.  But even if you are right, Bush has nothing on Kerry.  When it comes to lying, John Kerry is in a class by himself. 


BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME AT ITS FINEST

Ken Berwitz

The previous blog, placed here by my co-author, insults President Bush (as usual) and makes reference to a diary entry of Ronald Reagan's dated May 18, 1986.

Barry inadvertently left off the entry itself.  But he also sent it to me as an e-mail so I have it.  Here is what he claims was in President Reagan's diary on that date:.

'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.'  .

Truthfully, does that look like something Ronald Reagan would ever have said?  Does it look like anything he'd ever put on paper? 

Well, one of the people who Barry copied on his e-mail list sent back the following to me and everyone else who got it.  I won't put his name here because I don't know if he'd want me to.  But here's how he responded:.

OK, OK  now don't you and your lefty friends get worked up to orgasm over this.  Unlike you, obviously,  I have the Ronald Reagan diary.  I looked up 5/18/1986.

This date was a Sunday.  President Reagan rarely did Sunday entries.  But on this date,  there was no such entry as shown below.  However, what it does say is "Mrs. Reagan went to Boston; watched panel shows; homework; Mrs. Reagan returned; Maureen visiting."
.

Now THAT looks plausible.

What I think we have here is another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). 

People afflicted with BDS believe anything negative that they can find about President Bush.  And there's no need to check it for accuracy because since he's the worst, most evil, incompetent, etc etc etc person in the world it must be true. 

The saddest part is that when their "facts" are debunked, it doesn't seem to change a thing.  They still will jump through a hoop the next time they find something that attacks, condemns or ridicules President Bush and will "know" it is true.

There doesn't seem to be a cure.


BUSH VERSUS KERRY ON VIETNAM

Ken Berwitz

If you hate President Bush enough, whatever he says, no matter how true it is, will be wrong.  Concomitantly, if you support John Kerry enough, whatever he says, no matter how full of fecal matter it is, will be right.

Here, to sort it all out for us, is www.sweetness-light.com, which - terrifyingly for the Kerry people - deals in facts.  Take a look and see for yourself:.

Bush Right, Kerry Wrong About Vietnam Figures

August 23rd, 2007

From The Hill:

Democrats blast Bushs Vietnam comparison

By Klaus Marre
August 22, 2007

Democrats Wednesday strongly rejected President Bushs comparison of the Vietnam War to the conflict in Iraq, saying that drawing parallels is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Bush, in a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, used the example of the Vietnam War to show the possible consequences of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The president said that millions of people paid the price when the U.S. left Vietnam.

But Democratic leaders insisted that was a false comparison. Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars, said Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate

And the media today is replete with other quotes where John Kerry lambastes President Bush for his ignorance about the Vietnam War.

And yet, it was the self-same Vietnam expert John Kerry who on July 19, 2007 said this in response to a CSPAN caller:

KERRY: Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they werent pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, Ive met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.

No, not everyone predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. For, as we have pointed out previously, Mr. Kerry assured the US Senate in April 1972 that there would be no such thing.

From Mr. Kerrys historic testimony:

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971

UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

Mr. KERRY.  The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face this question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country

So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America

Of course it turned out that Mr. Kerry was no better at predicting the future than he is now at remembering the past.

For even todays edition of the vaunted New York Times admits that Mr. Bush was accurate with his characterization of the aftermath of Vietnam, and even in his numbers:

Historians Question Bushs Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq

By THOM SHANKER
Published: August 23, 2007

The record of death and dislocation after the American withdrawal from Vietnam ranks high among the tragedies of the last century, with an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians, about one-fifth of the population, dying under the rule of Pol Pot, and an estimated 1.5 million Vietnamese and other Indochinese becoming refugees. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese who were sent to prison camps after the war have ranged widely, from 50,000 to more than 400,000, and some accounts have said that tens of thousands perished, a figure that Mr. Bush cited in his speech, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

But Mr. Kerry has always been a pathological liar where Vietnam is concerned.

And, in fact, where most things are concerned. .

John F. Kerry (don't you just love those initials?).  The man who implied he was Irish for 20 years to mine Irish votes in Massachusetts (he has not one drop of Irish blood in him). 

John F. Kerry, who has had so many different stories about tossing his medals over a fence, or tossing someone else's, or just tossing facsimiles of his medals, or wanting to but not being able to get to them in time for the protest, etc etc etc etc etc that he probably doesn't even remember which of them, if any, is the truth.

You may not like President Bush.  You may even hate him and think he lies.  But even if you are right, Bush has nothing on Kerry.  When it comes to lying, John Kerry is in a class by himself. 


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!!