Saturday, 29 December 2007

JUSTICE. BELATED, BUT JUSTICE ANYWAY

Ken Berwitz

We all have cerebrums.  Some are more useful than others, but just about all of them work at least minimally.

That was a bit hard to prove in Garner, Texas, where a 6 year old girl won a trip to New York (Albany) and four tickets to the sold-out Hannah Montana concert there from a local business.  She did so by winning an essay contest, in which (with copious help from her mother) she lied that her father was killed in Iraq. 

The business, a pampered-little-girl enterprise called Club Libby Lu, initially awarded mommy and daughter the prize.  But then, when they found out the essay was a cynical lie?  They STILL awarded her the prize. 

This wins the Libby Lu people a prize too.  Most misguided dumbkopfs of the decade. 

But that was yesterday and this is today.  After what I would think was a major public firestorm over their decision, the people at Libby Lu finally started using the cerebrums they were endowed with.  Here are the particulars, courtesy of the Associated Press:

No show for fake essay writer

The Associated Press

GARLAND A 6-year-old girl who won four tickets to a Hannah Montana concert with an essay falsely claiming her father died in Iraq isnt going to the show after all.

The contests sponsor, a store chain named Club Libby Lu, withdrew the prize Saturday and awarded it to another contestant. It didnt identify the new winner.
With this decision, we hope to revive the intended spirit of the contest, which was designed to make a little girls holidays extra special, Club Libby Lu chief executive Mary Drolet said in a statement Saturday.
Officials of the Chicago-based chain surprised the girl on Friday at a Club Libby Lu store in mall in this Dallas suburb. Club Libby Lu sells clothes, accessories and games for young girls.
The girl won a makeover that included a blonde Hannah Montana wig, as well as the grand prize: airfare for four to Albany, N.Y., and four tickets to the sold-out Hannah Montana concert on Jan. 9.
The opening line in the essay was: My daddy died this year in Iraq.
The girls mother had told Club Libby Lu officials that the girls father died April 17 in a roadside bombing in Iraq, company spokeswoman Robyn Caulfield said. But the mother, Priscilla Ceballos, admitted later Friday that the essay and the military information she provided about her daughters father were untrue.
We did the essay and thats what we did to win. We did whatever we could do to win, Ceballos said in an interview Friday with KDFW-TV of Dallas. But when (Caulfield) asked me if this essay is true, I said No, this essay is not true.
The Associated Press was unable to find a phone number for Ceballos on Saturday.
.

They say that justice delayed is justice denied.  But in my opinion justice delayed is better than no justice at all. 

Maybe one of the folks at Libby Lu who eventually decided a cerebrum was worth using could lend it to the girl's mother.  Based on the explanation she gave, We did the essay and thats what we did to win. We did whatever we could do to win,  it's pretty clear hers is still collecting dust.


AL GORE ADDRESSES THE CHILDREN THREAT

Ken Berwitz

They have finally found a way to make Al Gore funny - other than just replaying what he says seriously, that is. 

Here's what I mean, courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel (If you have trouble seeing this, just click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA7hAFBRlZw:

Al Gore Blames Children for Global Warming - Jimmy Kimmel


THE IDIOTS CRAWL OUT OF THE WOODWORK

Ken Berwitz

Having just shown you Mona Charen's thoughtful analysis of what Benazir Bhutto's assassination means, I thought I would balance it with some insight into what the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade is telling whoever will listen.

Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com has compiled a number of LAMB reactions from various radio shows.  Here they are:

Libtalkers Jump On Conspiracy Theories Regarding Bhutto Assassination

PAKISTAN'S GRASSY KNOLL

 
Libtalkers Play Kooky 'Keep Up With The Jonesers' Game

In the 36 hours since revered Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was murdered in cold blood while fighting for her country's future, our nation's liberal talk show hosts have been engaged in a battle of their own: a race to see which one can cook up the most outrageous conspiracy theory.

Which one can pin the attack most convincingly on the Bush Administration? Who can best blame our involvement in Iraq for her death? And who can tear apart the no- bullet theory?

Because the stakes are so high, there has been a big incentive to be creative. After all, the host who can best rally the nutroots just might survive into the new year!

Previously, we've covered the
Blame- Bush Brigade in the Democrat Party, led by Senators Feingold and Dodd.

Leading the pack was the Reverend Al Sharpton, who went straight for Bush's throat in response to news of Bhutto's slaying: "and has the past activities of this administration helped to lead us to the brink of something deadly and dangerous and clearly a threat to even American lives?" (Thursday 1pm hour)

Hey, at least it took Sharpton away from the topic of Al Sharpton for a moment or two!

Filling in for extremist kook Lionel, Lee Rayburn also went directly for Bush:
RAYBURN:  What does this mean? It means that a region on this planet, this ever- shrinking planet, that we were supposed to stabilize with our military action. The Bush Administration [wasn't] after spreading democracy. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. If there is an argument to be made for anything other than securing oil for the next twenty- five years, it is that they were trying to stabilize the Middle East through their incursion into Iraq and their occupation of Iraq and their war in Afghanistan. They were supposed to stabilize the Middle East, and they planned to do this at their first Cabinet meeting, [before 9/11]. They were dividing up the oil fields, according to Paul O'Neill, at their first Cabinet meeting, in the beginning of 2001. The intent of this administration from the very beginning was to occupy the Middle East, was to have our way there and the neocons -- am I wrong? -- insisted.

(LATER IN HOUR ONE) A nuclear state is destabilized, in a region that we were, with our military might and our moral right, were going to bring stability through our occupation of Iraq and spreading democracy like margarine and we have failed. I don't know how else you'd read it this morning."
Not to be left out of the party, ultra- wacky Mike "Violence" Malloy conveniently pretended al-Qaeda didn't exist:
MALLOY: Bhutto was obviously assassinated today by some arm of some intelligence agency, either ours or Pakistan's or Britain's or possible even Israel's. I don't think it would be India, I don't think it would be China. Who does that leave? These are the usual suspects.

(LATER IN HOUR): Every time (Deputy Secretary Of State John) Negroponte goes someplace - have you noticed this? - the violence that erupts behind him, well, that's just another stupid-ass conspiracy, Malloy, don't go there! (and this violence is) ...of a particular kind, of a targeted type - death squads, assassinations, removal of people who need to be removed.
Never one to be left behind, Ed "Heading To Manitoba" Schultz kicked in with his own theory on today's program:

SCHULTZ: You can make the case that both al Qaeda and Musharraf would benefit from Benazir Bhutto being offed. You can make the case that the United States, the war hawks in the United States, benefitted from her being offed because they've never seen a war they didn't love and this is a chance for more intervention.
While there's no doubt these hosts are engaged in an eleventh- hour game of career survival, shouldn't they be held accountable nonetheless for spreading conspiracy theories that lack even a shred of hard evidence? And how do they expect to build a political movement around blaming George Bush and the United States for every bit of misfortune that strikes anywhere in the world?

Desperation is no excuse for reckless behavior, on or off the air
.
 
Do yourself a favor.  Scroll back to the last blog, the one with Mona Charen's commentary.  Read it again and then consider what you just read here.
 
The difference speaks volumes, doesn't it?


MONA CHAREN ON THE BHUTTO ASSASSINATION

Ken Berwitz

There have aleady been numerous commentaries on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.  This one, by syndicated columnist Mona Charen, is among the best I've read. (My next blog will be Brian Maloney's compilation of some of the worst):

The real world intrudes

December 29, 2007

By Mona Charen - The next-to-last assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto came on Dec. 13, when a man in the crowd got the former prime minister's attention. He was holding a 1-year-old baby Mrs. Bhutto said later she thought it was a girl and tried to hand the child across the sea of bodies.

Mrs. Bhutto said: "He kept trying to hand it to people to hand to me. I'm a mother. I love babies. But the street lights had already gone out and I was worried about the baby being dropped or hurt." So she turned away and ducked into her armored vehicle. Just then, the baby's body, rigged with explosives, exploded.

That is the nature of the enemy. Thursday morning news came that another bomber succeeded in killing Mrs. Bhutto. Early reports suggest this time the terrorists relied on a suicide bomber set and a gunman. Al Qaeda was quick off the mark. "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."

Whether Al Qaeda really did the killing or opportunistically claimed credit is unclear. But there is no doubt Mrs. Bhutto represented a modernizing movement within the Islamic world and was seen as a threat by the seventh-century zealots who rig babies with explosives. That she was a woman was an added provocation.

Al Qaeda's pronouncement reveals once again that however much we may wish to pretend that these overseas convulsions have nothing to do with us, however much we might want to avoid their tangled rivalries and primitive violence, they won't let us.

The world thus rudely intrudes on what had become a parochial, oddly detached primary election campaign focused on competing Christmas greetings, quail hunting and the "special interests" bugaboo. But now, at last, and perhaps just in time, the campaign season will get serious.

Among the Democrats, the question of foreign policy gravitas is moot. Their front-runners are a first-term senator who has been on the national stage only three years, a former senator who served only one term but knows a great deal about getting money out of juries for malpractice cases, and a current senator whose tenure as first lady is her chief claim to foreign policy experience.

The Republicans offer a number of seasoned and sensible candidates, but the front-runner for the Iowa caucuses is not one of them. With a nuclear-armed Pakistan wobbling, do Republican caucus goers really want to lend their considerable weight to Mike Huckabee, who compares America's world posture to a high school popularity contest?

In Foreign Affairs magazine, Mr. Huckabee wrote: "Much like a top high school student, if it [the U.S.] is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised." This, mind you, is Mr. Huckabee's bid for foreign policy credibility Foreign Affairs is a wonkish publication. So is he serious? Does he really believe that international relations are governed by likability (a Huckabee strong suit admittedly) instead of power, self-interest, security, and ideology?

And what exactly does Mr. Huckabee mean when he accuses the U.S. of attempting to "dominate" others? Mr. Huckabee approved of the war in Iraq a war of liberation, not domination, however clumsily it may have been prosecuted at times. But then, it's hard to know exactly where he does stand since he has also echoed leftist critics who claim that the Iraq war has been a "distraction" from the war on terror. Certainly Mr. Huckabee's determination to close Guantanamo seems to be a bid for international popularity.

Perhaps the high school reference was a one-time faux pas? No, the man seems to perpetually compare international relations and conflicts to personal spats. "We haven't had diplomatic relationships with Iran in almost 30 years," Mr. Huckabee told radio host Hugh Hewitt, "that's most of my adult life. And a lot of good it's done. Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling, or even a friend, it's impossible to resolve the difference and move that relationship forward. Well the same is true for countries."

No it isn't. Emphatically not. The mullahs who rule Iran, the commissars who rule China, the dictators who control most of the Arab and African nations, and most of all, the terrorists who sent the world a deadly reminder of their ferocity when they killed Benazir Bhutto Thursday are not waiting for an invitation to the mixer. And to nominate for president someone who thinks so would be a disaster. 
.

The one silver lining in this dark cloud is that maybe, just maybe, Ms. Bhutto's assassination will force some USA voters out of their stupor and remind them that just because 9/11/01 was the last major attack on our shores doesn't mean terrorism is over or that we are in any way safe. 

What happened in Pakistan can as easily happen here.  What's to stop it?  Our border security?


A TASTE OF THE FUTURE: PART 32

Ken Berwitz

Here is another in the ongoing series of what radical islam would like the world to be - very much including what is now Western civilization.  It was brought to my attention by the folks at sweetness-light.com, but is drawn from the web site www.islamqa.com:

Question:
Can a muslim celebrate a non muslim holiday like Thanksgiving?

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Greeting the kuffaar on Christmas and other religious holidays of theirs is haraam, by consensus, as Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah: "Congratulating the kuffaar on the rituals that belong only to them is haraam by consensus, as is congratulating them on their festivals and fasts by saying A happy festival to you or May you enjoy your festival, and so on. If the one who says this has been saved from kufr, it is still forbidden. It is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, or even worse than that. It is as great a sin as congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone, or having illicit sexual relations, and so on. Many of those who have no respect for their religion fall into this error; they do not realize the offensiveness of their actions. Whoever congratulates a person for his disobedience or bidah or kufr exposes himself to the wrath and anger of Allaah."

Congratulating the kuffaar on their religious festivals is haraam to the extent described by Ibn al-Qayyim because it implies that one accepts or approves of their rituals of kufr, even if one would not accept those things for oneself. But the Muslim should not aceept the rituals of kufr or congratulate anyone else for them, because Allaah does not accept any of that at all, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

"If you disbelieve, then verily, Allaah is not in need of you, He likes not disbelief for His slaves. And if you are grateful (by being believers), He is pleased therewith for you. . ."
[al-Zumar 39:7]

". . . This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion . . ."
[al-Maaidah 5:3]

So congratulating them is forbidden, whether they are ones colleagues at work or otherwise.

If they greet us on the occasion of their festivals, we should not respond, because these are not our festivals, and because they are not festivals which are acceptable to Allaah. These festivals are innovations in their religions, and even those which may have been prescribed formerly have been abrogated by the religion of Islaam, with which Allaah sent Muhammad  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to the whole of mankind. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Whoever seeks a religion other than Islaam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." [Aal Imraan 3:85]

It is haraam for a Muslim to accept invitations on such occasions, because this is worse than congratulating them as it implies taking part in their celebrations.

Similarly, Muslims are forbidden to imitate the kuffaar by having parties on such occasions, or exchanging gifts, or giving out sweets or food, or taking time off work, etc., because the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever imitates a people is one of them." Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah said in his book Iqtidaa al-siraat al-mustaqeem mukhaalifat ashaab al-jaheem: "Imitating them in some of their festivals implies that one is pleased with their false beliefs and practices, and gives them the hope that they may have the opportunity to humiliate and mislead the weak."

Whoever does anything of this sort is a sinner, whether he does it out of politeness or to be friendly, or because he is too shy to refuse, or for whatever other reason, because this is hypocrisy in Islaam, and because it makes the kuffaar feel proud of their religion.

Allaah is the One Whom we ask to make the Muslims feel proud of their religion, to help them adhere steadfastly to it, and to make them victorious over their enemies, for He is the Strong and Omnipotent
.

.

Take a good look.  Because 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?  A society in which it is "haraam" (forbidden) to so much as acknowledge the religious or cultural holidays of the "kufaar" (infidels)?  Assuming there are any haraam holidays allowed or any kufaar left to celebrate them, since everyone will be forced to adhere to fundamentalist islam?          

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 lunacy at our own peril.


THE IMPORTANCE OF HANNAH MONTANA

Ken Berwitz

If you like depravity you're going to love this.

Here is the Dallas Morning News story on what a woman did to get her 6 year old daughter an all expenses paid trip to see Hannah Montana (and, not incidentally, to get herself the trip also).  The bold print is mine:

Garland girl wins Hannah Montana tickets, trip with false essay

09:29 PM CST on Friday, December 28, 2007

By ELIZABETH LANGTON / The Dallas Morning News

A 6-year-old Garland girl won a Hannah Montana makeover and concert tickets Friday with an essay that started, "My daddy died this year in Iraq ..."

But the girl's mother now admits that the essay, along with information she supplied about the supposedly deceased soldier, is false, said Robyn Caulfield, a spokeswoman for Club Libby Lu.

Club Libby Lu, a store aimed at "tween" girls that sells pink and purple merchandise and gives princess makeovers, sponsored the Hannah Montana Rock Your Holidays Essay Contest. First prize was the trip to see Miley Cyrus in concert as Hannah Montana, the fictional rock star from the Disney television show of the same name.

Club Libby Lu still plans to honor the girl's prize airfare for four to Albany, N.Y., and four tickets to the sold-out Jan. 9 Hannah Montana concert there.

"We told a 6-year-old today that she was going to see Hannah Montana, and we're not going to renege on that," Ms. Caulfield said.

Who initiated the lie is unclear.

The girl's mother, Priscilla Ceballos, refused to answer questions Friday at the store. She did not return repeated phone messages left later in the day.

Company officials notified Ms. Ceballos that her daughter won the contest and arranged to surprise the girl Friday at the Club Libby Lu in Garland's Firewheel Town Center.

Store employees treated the girl to the makeover, complete with blond wig, and danced with her as television cameras recorded the scene.

Officials took the essay, which included no details about the father or his death, at face value and performed no background checks, Ms. Caulfield said. Ms. Ceballos told company officials that the girl's father, Army Sgt. Jonathon Menjivar, had died in a roadside bombing April 17 in Iraq, Ms. Caulfield said.

But Department of Defense records show that no one by the name Jonathon Menjivar has died in Iraq.

Ms. Caulfield said she was unable to release further details late Friday.

HOAX ESSAY

Here is the contest-winning essay, purportedly written by a 6-year-old Garland girl:

"My daddy died this year in Iraq. I am going to give mommy the Angel pendant that daddy put on mommy when she was having me. I had it in my jewelry box since that day. I love my mommy." .

Using this story, you could literally have a "who is the sickest" contest.

First, we have a mother who gets her child to lie that her father died so she can win a vacation trip for herself and three others (one of whom, of course, is the mother).  But since, in order to win, it has to be a particularly egregious lie, she has the child write that her daddy died in Iraq - which the mother now (after winning the prize) tells us is untrue.

Then we have the store personnel who did not check her story at all, they just said "ok" and handed out the grand prize.  Are they stupid?  Or, more cynically, did they think a story like this was so poignant that it would get them great publicity, so they didn't want to know if it was true?

Incredibly, now that the story is known to be a lie and fraud, these geniuses are going to give mother and child the prize anyway.  After all, we can't disappoint a 6 year old, can we?  Much better to teach her that doing this is just great.  

And, in the bargain, they are teaching all the other entrants (aren't they disappointed too?) that they lost because they didn't make up a big lie about their lives.  Great lesson.

Years ago there was a movie called "Hud", starring Paul Newman.  It was about a miserable excuse for a human being who became worse and worse as the movie went on and who wound up reaping every possible reward anyway. 

I liked Hud as a movie.  I can live without a real-life remake.

big bob these people are morons. sick sick sick (12/29/07)


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!!