Thursday, 06 March 2008

RACISM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I attended a lecture at Princeton University by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. 

Jeff's topic was the Middle East.  And, as I expected based on the quality of his columns, he was brilliant. 

Among Jeff's many insightful observations was that a lot of anti-Semitic comments are made by people who sincerely do not think of themselves as anti-Semites.  This concept - unintentional bigotry - is especially germane to the article I am excerpting below.

Written by Heidi Przybyla of www.b loomberg.com, the article discusses why Hillary Clinton did so well in Tuesday's primaries.  As I read it, I realized that Ms. Przybyla is exactly the kind of person Jeff Jacoby talked about --  because she seems not to realize just how overtly racist her analysis is. 

Let me show you:

Obama momentum slowed by 'Archie Bunker' voters

Heidi Przybyla

March 6 (Bloomberg)
 
 Barack Obama is having trouble with Archie Bunker.
 
The white, blue-collar voters personified by the 1970s fictional television character cost Obama this week. His Democratic presidential rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, beat him 54 percent to 44 percent in industrial Ohio, and 58 percent to 40 percent in predominantly white Rhode Island.

In Ohio's 10th district of Cuyahoga County, a suburban enclave on Cleveland's west side that includes a large population of Polish-Americans, Clinton trounced Obama 61 percent to 37 percent, according to exit polls. In the state's Belmont County, an economically depressed Appalachian border area that is predominantly white, she had a 50-point lead over Obama, the first black candidate to have a shot at the White House.

``Race played a significant factor in Ohio,'' said Cuyahoga County Commissioner Timothy Hagan, who supported Obama. The state's white voters aren't ``bigots, but the image they see every day of black America is drugs, crime, guns and violence.''

Clinton's March 4 victories in contests in Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio -- and just one defeat, in Vermont -- pumped new life into her candidacy after 11 consecutive losses to Obama. She now has renewed momentum heading into the next big test on April 22 in Pennsylvania, where the electorate looks much like Ohio's.

Larger Vulnerability

The weak showing among the white working class in Ohio and Rhode Island reflects a larger vulnerability for Obama, said Joe Trippi, a former senior strategist for John Edwards, who had broad appeal among those voters until he dropped out of the Democratic race last month.

Obama, 46, has ``had a problem with lower-income, downscale, blue-collar Democrats from the beginning,'' Trippi said. ``He typically appeals to better educated, upscale Democrats.''

Ohio exit polls show white Democrats voted for Clinton 70 percent to 27 percent, while black Democrats voted for Obama 88 percent to 12 percent. In Rhode Island, white Democrats voted for Clinton 67 percent to 32 percent. Blacks accounted for just 6 percent of the vote.

Clinton beat Obama 58 to 40 percent among those with no college degree and 56 percent to 42 percent among those who earn less than $50,000 a year in Ohio. In Rhode Island, she won those with no college degree 61 percent to 38 percent, and those earning less than $50,000 by 59 percent to 39 percent.

Take a good look.  Do you see it?
 
The central premise of Ms. Przybyla's analysis is that Hillary Clinton won because White voters shunned a Black candidate.  Thus Barack Obama is a victim of the "Archie Bunker" bigots in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island.
 
But wait a minute.  Do the numbers support this claim or do they show something entirely different?  Let's look closer.
 
The Ohio exit polls show that Ms. Clinton won among Whites by 70% to 27%.  But they also show that Mr. Obama won among Blacks by 88% - 12%.  If you look at these votes strictly in racial terms, which candidate received more of the same-race vote?  Hillary Clinton with her 70% of Whites or Barack Obama with his 88% of Blacks? 
 
Yes, Hillary Clinton gained more votes NUMERICALLY than Obama because there are more Whites in Ohio than Blacks.  But the point of this article is that White racists are hurting Obama - as if White racism is the only kind that counts or has any effect.  Not a word about how much more Black voters gravitated to Mr. Obama.
 
Remember, in the Democratic primary process delegates are allocated proportionately.  That 88% Black vote for Obama may have gotten him extra delegates and would hurt Ms. Clinton too.
 
But why stop at Ohio?  I have been following the data throughout this primary season, and I know that Barack Obama is getting significantly more White votes than Hillary Clinton is getting Black votes.  Not just in this one state but across the board.
 
Tell me; how badly was Hillary Clinton hurt in places like South Carolina, and Washington D.C. by the high percentage of Black voters who gave their massive support to Mr. Obama? 
 
When commentators were crowing about Mr. Obama's 11-state winning streak, do you recall them stating, as if it were an indisputable fact, that this was due to Black bigotry, the way Ms. Przybyla blames "Archie Bunker" Whites?  Me neither. 
 
Do you think the huge percentage of Black support helped Obama in Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas on February 5?  How about in Louisiana on February 9 and in Maryland on February 12?  Do you think it will help him in Mississippi on March 11?
 
We can argue all day and all night over whether Black or White people, as groups, are more racist.  But the point to be made here is that, if the criterion is how many vote for candidates of the same race, it seems more than clear that BOTH groups have plenty of racial preferrers among them.
 
And for Ms. Przybyla to talk about White racism without so much as one word about Black racism?  That is.........racist.  Why?  Because it singles out one racial group out gives the other a free pass for doing exactly the same thing.
 
I wonder if she'll ever understand.
 
 


PALESTINIAN ARAB AID MONEY: DOWN THE TOILET

Ken Berwitz

Much is made of the billions of dollars the USA gives to Israel each year.  It is money that helps finance our single most loyal ally, an ally which gives us invaluable intelligence about our common enemies that we could not get anywhere else.  And it is money that mostly comes straight back into the United States via both military and non-military purchases.

But almost nothing is said about the hundreds of millions we give to palestinian Arabs - people who don't give us a thing back.  The money is not used to build infrastructure components such as factories, roads, etc, but rather to finance a non-ending war against our most loyal ally.

Did you know that between the United States, EU and other sources, more money per capita is given to palestinian Arabs in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank) than to any other people on earth?  Well, it's a fact.  And what have we gotten for it, besides hatred and war?

Here, courtesy of Agence France Presse, is the latest money we are tossing down a toilet by handing it over to palestinian Arabs.  Read it and be sick:

UN gets 148 million dollars in US aid pledge for Palestinians

Wed Mar 5, 4:03 PM ET

The US government has pledged 148 million dollars this year to the UN refugee agency to aid Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and neighboring countries, both said Wednesday.

The UN Relief and Works Agency said the amount includes 91 million dollars to UNRWA's fund for refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria as well as 57 million dollars to its 2008 West Bank and Gaza emergency appeal.

The statement on the UNRWA website follows a similar one on the US State Department's website.

"This support is essential for improving the daily lives of Palestine refugees who face hardship in the region," UNRWA's Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd said in a statement of gratitude to the US government.

The US contribution to the general fund will support UNRWA's "provision of basic and vocational education, primary health care and relief and social services to over 4.4 million registered Palestinian refugees" in the region.

The 57 million dollar contribution to the emergency appeal "will allow UNRWA to provide food assistance to 895,000 Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank, create approximately 190,000 temporary jobs and provide temporary shelter and shelter repair to refugees where needed," UNRWA said.

"Every year UNRWA educates approximately 490,000 children in more than 650 schools, hosts nine million patient visits in 127 health clinics and one hospital, and provides special hardship assistance to 250,000 of the most vulnerable refugees," it said.

"UNRWA's tolerance education program promotes human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance in every UNRWA school," it added.

"Since the inception of its microfinance program in 1991, UNRWA has awarded 126,000 loans to help Palestinian refugees become self-sufficient and to promote private sector growth," it said.

UNWRA said the United States is its single largest donor.

Nita Lowey, who chairs a leading Congressional subcommittee, asked Monday to hold 150 million dollars in aid for the Palestinians after questioning how they will use the money and whether they were committed to peace with Israel.

Lowey said she wanted answers from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department before ordering the release of the funds to president Mahmud Abbas's Palestinian Authority.

The State Department has provided Lowey with a copy of the cash transfer assistance agreement, according to a statement read by Gonzalo Gallegos, the department's director of the office of press relations.

"We are working to address the remaining legislative requirements laid out for the cash transfer and expect to provide this information to Congress shortly," Gallegos told AFP Wednesday.

First of all, you can forget all those altruistic money uses listed in the article.  They are a bunch of crap. 

I love that line about schools, though.  Do you know what is taught in schools throughout Gaza and the west bank?  That Israel does not exist at all, that every inch of land is Arab land and that Jews are the spawn of monkeys and pigs who should all be killed.  Schoolchildren are also taught that it is glorious to be a "shahid" (martyr) and die killing Jews. 

How's that for money well spent?  Are you impressed?

And all those high-blown words about how the money promotes self-sufficiency?  When have you ever seen self-sufficiency in these places?  It's like charlie brown and the football.  The BS, then no results, then the same BS next time, no results, then the same BS next time, etc. ad infinitum.

Now let's get to the terminology that is second-naturedly used throughout the article - specifically use of the word "refugee".

Can someone tell me why anyone in his or her right mind would call these people refugees anymore?  They have been "refugees" for 60 YEARS now.  There are third, even fourth generations living in the same place.  The structures in Gaza and the west bank are not tents for people to pass through on their way to somewhere else, but mostly are established towns and cities. 

At no time in the history of the world have there been "refugees" for this length of time.  People who are displaced go somewhere else, regardless of why the displacement took place.  Other countries take them in.

In the case of palestinian Arabs, though, there are 22 sovereign Arab countries, NONE of which want any part of these "refugees".  They didn't want them in 1948 when the grandparents and great grandparents of today's palestinian Arabs left Israel and they don't want them now. 

Did you know that, after World War II, Israel absorbed more "refugees" than there were Arab refugees?  Some of them came from Europe.  But between 750,000 and 1,000,000 came from Arab countries they were driven out of.  That is a "refugee" issue the world doesn't like to talk about.

At the time, Israel had nothing.  There was barely any infrastructure, certainly no major industries and no exportable agriculture of any consequence.  What Israel did have was every Arab neighbor declaring war and fiighting to annihilate it.  But they took every Jewish refugee in. 

By contrast, Arab refugees had many Arab countries with identical cultures and beliefs.  These countries were not at war (other than their declared war against Israel - which certainly wasn't warring against them). 

One look at a map will tell you how vast the land is that they could have emigrated to.  Israel comprises roughly 1/600th of the land of the middle east - less than 2 tenths of one percent.   Think they could have managed?

But no such luck.  To this day, other than Jordan, not one Arab country on earth allows palestinian Arabs to legally emigrate and become citizens.  Zero.

And now it is 2008, these people STILL claim refugee status, crap away the bottomless pit of money they get on little other than hatred and violence, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them.

Feel sorry?  Count me out.


THE NEW YORK TIMES AND TONY REZKO (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday was the third day of the trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

The Chicago Tribune has a feature article on Rezko's attorney, Joseph J. Duffy and how his understated courtroom style belies what a tough, competent trial attorney he is. 

The Chicago Sun-Times has a feature article which raises the question of whether Obama used Rezko as a conduit to get jobs for up to 39 different people in Governor Blagojevich's administration.

  Its consequences for the Obama campaign could be devastating and, conceivably, even candidacy-ending.

Following is the entire body of Rezko coverage given by this morning's New York Times:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that's about it.  I'll report on the Times' coverage of Rezko's trial again tomorrow.


ELEVEN REASONS OBAMA SLIPPED

Ken Berwitz

I read a very insightful little piece at www.progressive.com this morning, titled "Ten Reasons Obama Slipped".  I'll show it to you below. 

But then I read the first comment posted about this piece and realized that there was an eleventh reason - probably one that made more of a difference than any of the other ten.  Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of it myself.

Ok;  first we have the piece, which was written by Matthew Rothschild:

Ten Reasons Obama Slipped

By Matthew Rothschild, March 5, 2008

As it became clear that Hillary Clinton was gaining ground on Obama, especially in the last week, his usually flawless campaign made several blunders. Here, in order of importance, are ten reasons why Obama slipped.

1. NAFTA Flap

When Obamas leading economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with a Canadian official and allegedly told him that Obamas stated views on NAFTA during the campaign amounted to political posturing, this was a huge blunder. It undercut Obamas attack on Clinton for NAFTA, where she was vulnerable, especially in Ohio. It raised serious issues about Obamas credibility with the American public, which is just getting to know him. (Especially since Obama first denied that the comment was ever made.) And the NAFTA flap called into question his leadership abilities. As Ive been saying for days, and as Paul Begala said Tuesday night on CNN, as soon as this story surfaced, Obama should have said that Goolsbee was not speaking for the campaign and should have given Goolsbee the heave-ho. Instead, the Goolsbee comment keeps stinging him.

2. Rezko

It certainly didnt help the Obama campaign that Tony Rezkos trial began on Monday. The Rezko story has been lying around like a pulled hand grenade next to Obamas headquarters for months now. Rezko is the Chicago wheeler-dealer who stands accused of money laundering and extorting bribes. Hes a longtime friend, funder, and supporter of Obamas. And he helped Obama buy his house in Chicago. The Rezko ties, which the media finally began digging into, cast a shadow not only on Obamas judgment but on his claim to want to clean up government.

3. A Blunder in the Last Debate

The Clinton camp wisely picked up on an Obama error in the Cleveland debate. Clinton had criticized him for never holding an oversight hearing on NATOs role in Pakistan, even though he chairs a subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that deals with NATO. All Obama could say to that was, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we havent had oversight hearings on Afghanistan. He all but admitted he shirked his duties to run for President! Clinton used this footage of Obamas answer in an effective ad against him in the final week.

4. The Red Phone Ad

Negative advertising often works. Thats why we see it so much. And the red phone ad, Im betting, did a lot to sow doubts in voters minds. Clinton almost split the male vote in Ohio and Texas, which is a huge switch for her. This ad helped position her as the tough candidate.

5. No Effective Counterpunch to Clintons Fighter Image

In the last debate, and in her speeches in the final week, Clinton stressed that she was a fighter not only for herself but for people in need. This resonated with the public, who admire her if for no other reason than shes taken a lot of hits but keeps coming out of her corner with her head high. And this image contrasts well with Obama in two ways: First, it suggests that hes all talk and no action. And second, it hints that his cool, low-key demeanor may not be steely enough either to take on McCain or to represent the country.

6. A Weak Economic Message

With the economy sliding deeper and deeper downward, Obama needs to strengthen his economic message. Throughout the campaign, Clinton has been beating him on the urgent issue of home foreclosures (calling for a moratorium, and a freeze on interest rates). Hes been slow to respond.

7. Too much time in Ohio

In the two weeks after the Wisconsin primary, Obama spent an inordinate amount of time in Ohio when all he needed to do, as Bill Clinton himself recognized, was to win either Texas or Ohio. As it became clearer that Ohio was going to be the tougher nut, Obama should have concentrated more of his time in Texas.

8. An Improvident Trip to Rhode Island

For some ridiculous reason, Obama went to Rhode Island on Saturday to campaign. By all accounts, he was always going to lose Rhode Island. And he needed that dayjust three days before the primariesto round up more Texas voters.

9. Failure to Bring Bill Richardson and John Edwards on Board

On Sunday on Face the Nation, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico was one breath away from endorsing Barack Obama. Had Obama grabbed his endorsement (even in exchange for serious V.P. consideration, which Richardson was salivating about), Richardson could have done Obama a world of good with Latino voters in Texas. Similarly, Obama has been unable to seal the deal with John Edwards, who seemed such a natural fit with Obama during the debates. Obama needed to get Edwardss endorsement for help among working class white voters. And it would have been of enormous help in Ohio.

10. SNL, Jon Stewart, Letterman

Saturday Night Live helped Clinton out two weeks in a row by showing the media as biased in favor of a hapless Obama. And Clinton made a conscious effort to inject some warmth into her personality by appearing on the show last Saturday, and by appearing on Jon Stewart Monday night. She also has done herself well by being cozy with David Letterman.

Excellent.  Most of those ten are dead on target and even the couple that I might not have put in the top ten are correct per se.  This is one of the best jobs of Monday-morning quarterbacking (which virtually all political analysis is) that I have seen to date.

Pay special attention to #10, though.  Rothschild put it at the end, but it should have been #1.

If there is one thing we should all have learned by now, it is that it does not matter whether a politician does something wrong or, for that matter, right - if media are not going to report it. 

Illustratively, on the Today show and in the New York Times, the Rezko trial is nonexistent.  It has gone entirely unreported.  So what if Tony Rezko is an amoral dirtbag who was a confidant of Barack Obama's and so what if the the two of them seem to have exchanged significant favors?  If you watch Today and/or read the New York Times for your news, none of this happened at all.

Similarly, no President in US history has worked harder or spent more aid money to alleviate misery in Africa than George Bush.  No one has even come close.  President Bush has been celebrated by people like Bono and Bob Geldof for all he's done.  But US media have barely reported it at all.  So hardly anyone even knows about it.  

Simply stated, it isn't news unless it's IN the news.  And (refer to reason #10 above) the comedy/satire of people like Jon Stewart and the Saturday Night Live crew have embarrassed media into talking about Obama as something other than a gift from a manger.That is why, without reason #10, the others are irrelevant.

This brings us to reason #11.

In most blogs, including mine, people are given the chance to post comments about what they have read.  Here is the first comment made about this piece, from someone who uses the screen name "drubs"

Re: Ten Reasons Obama Slipped

Don't forget the WGA strike. A soon as the writers returned we began to see Obama as as the butt of late night jokes when previously HRC was almost exclusive object of humor.

Bingo!

The minute I read this it hit me.   Barack Obama is ripe for satire and sarcasm that would chop him down to size.  He's overripe for it.  So how in the world has he become a demigod (maybe more) for so long without it?

The answer is as plain as day.  While the writers' strike was on there was no Saturday Night Live.  No Jon Stewart.  No Conan O'Brien, Steve Colbert, etc. etc. etc.  There was no one to point at Obama and say the emperor has no clothes. 

We have 15 years of material on Hillary Clinton.  No one needed a writer to think sarcastic thoughts about her.  They've all been out there forever.  But Obama?  A clean slate -- with months of no one available to chalk it up. 

Now that the writers' strike is over, however, we have a very different story.  Not only is Barack Obama fair game, but there are months of unexploited events to nail him on - events he would have been nailed on a long time ago had it not been for the strike.

Earlier I said that #10 on the list should have been #1.  But if #11 were there at all, it would have displaced it. 

Mr. Obama better pray for another writers strike.  Fast.


CABLE TV NEWS RATINGS UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

As readers know, I periodically put up the cable news ratings to see where they're falling.  Well, today is the day.

Here, courtesy of www.mediabistro.com are the latest data - for Wednesday, March 5th:

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1083 | CNN: 691 | MSNBC: 404 | HLN: 259

Prime: FNC: 2060 | CNN: 1153 | MSNBC: 581 | HLN: 492
336
  5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC ElectionHQ: Hume: Shep: O'Reilly: H&C: Greta: O'Reilly:
  1096 1541 1373 2662 2007 1509 1334
CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Dobbs: Elec.Cent.: King: Cooper: Cooper:
  746 859 1019 879 1304 1276 717
MSNBC Hardball: Tucker: Hardball: Countdo.: Abrams: Special: Special:
  476 379 643 881 450 411 389
HLN Prime: Prime: Beck: Grace: Beck: Grace: Showbiz:
  200 185 305 460 540 515

Interesting:

-As has been the case for years, Fox News wins every time slot.  This is a fate that CNN and MSNBC appear to be stuck with for the forseeable future;

-At 7PM Chris Mouthews, for all his bluster, is a distant third.  MSNBC seems to think they have a superstar here, but why they think so is a mystery.  He is going nowhere slow;

-At 8PM Bill O'Reilly continues to dominate.  He still more than triples the viewership of keith olbermann - who is getting more and more vituperative every week. Next to olbermann, Rumpelstiltskin looked sedated;

-At 9PM Hannity and Colmes remain big winners over CNN's venerable but, frankly, overripe Larry King.  Dan Abrams, whose goal in life appears to be channeling olbermann's vituperation, isn't even third.  How bitter he must feel to be beaten by Glenn Beck;

-At 10PM Greta Van Susteren is still on top with a bit of room to spare, but is starting to be pushed by Anderson Cooper.

-And at 11PM, the repeat of O'Reilly not only wins the time slot handily, but is almost double olbermann's prime time total.


NANCY PELOSI-RICARDO STRIKES AGAIN

Ken Berwitz

I always find myself torn between being frustrated by how dirty Nancy Pelosi is and how comical she is.

The frustration quotient is always there, because of  media's determination not to report how dirty her actions are.

But then there is the comical aspect too.  It is why I call her Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo.  Absent the humor, her antics are just as bizarre and ridiculous as the classic character played by Lucille Ball.

Here, courtesy of  CNS News, by way of www.sweetness-light.com, is the latest example.  The bold print is from sweetness-light:

Pelosi Bill Benefits Husbands Pharma Stock

March 5th, 2008

From CNS News:

Pelosis Bill Could Benefit Husbands Stock Holding

By Fred Lucas
March 05, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - On July 27, 2007, 28 executives of the Thousand Oaks, Calif., pharmaceutical firm Amgen contributed more than $20,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosis (D-Calif.) campaign.

On Aug. 2, Pelosi (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Early Treatment for HIV Act, a bill that could boost Medicaid coverage of HIV-related drugs, including Procrit, which is manufactured by Amgen and marketed by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a firm in which Pelosis husband owns at least $250,000 in stock, according to Pelosis disclosure forms.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

Specifically, the legislation would give states the option to allow patients who are HIV-positive, but do not have AIDS, to qualify for Medicaid coverage earlier in the course of the virus. Currently, Medicaid coverage doesnt kick in until a patient develops AIDS.

The legislation could also extend to HIV drugs Prezista and Intellence, manufactured by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary. But these two drugs would not always be for early treatment of HIV

The firm Ortho Biotech, an affiliate of Johnson & Johnson, sells Procrit under a license from Amgen, according to the Amgen Web site

[E]xpanding the number of HIV patients eligible for Medicaid would increase access to Procrit

In addition to the 28 separate contributions Pelosi received last July from Amgen, seven other contributions were made by executives in the months of July and August, for a total of $30,050 to Pelosis re-election campaign. Also, AmgenPAC (political action committee) gave Pelosis campaign a total of $10,000 last year

At least two former staff members for Pelosi work for Amgen.

Howard Moon, a one-time policy advisor for Pelosi, went to work as a director of government affairs in the Washington, D.C., office of Amgen.

Meanwhile, Pelosis former chief of staff, George Crawford, became a lobbyist in 2006 - before the Democrats took control of Congress - and one of his clients at the time included Amgen, Davenport said. But Crawford today no longer represents Amgen.

Howard Moon is a member of our staff - director, Government Affairs, Davenport wrote in her statement. We dont publicly comment on specific consultants & their scope of work. However, King & Spalding, where George Crawford is employed, is a former consulting firm of Amgens.

Mind you, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who railed against Republican corruption to get herself elected speaker.

This is the same Nancy Pelosi who has already been caught in numerous other shady practices.

But our watchdog media ignores all of that. They are too busy breathlessly reporting some hole in the wall Vermont towns indictment of Messrs. Bush and Cheney for the hundredth time.

.

Ok, you tell me.  Should I be frustrated by how dirty Pelosi is - and pile this latest episode alongside her actions against Samoan workers on behalf of StarKist (whose headquarters are in her district), the San Francisco waterfront project that would so greatly benefit her husband's nearby real estate holdings, etc? 

Or should I laugh at how bizarre and ridiculous these actions are, and how she gets away with things like this time after time with virtually no media coverage?

Maybe it's a tie.


THE "PEOPLE" ISRAEL IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE PEACE WITH

Ken Berwitz

 

Here is the latest sick depravity that is such a source of pride to palestinian Arabs.  Prepare to repulsed:

 

Gaza: Thousands celebrate Jerusalem attack

Palestinians distribute sweets in celebration of Jerusalem terror attack as Hamas promises 'this is only the beginning'

Ali Waked
Published:  03.06.08, 22:31 / Israel News

Gaza's streets filled with joyous crowds of thousands on Thursday evening following the terror attack at a Jerusalem rabbinical seminary in which eight people were killed.

 

In mosques in Gaza City and northern Gaza, many residents went to perform the prayers of thanksgiving.

Armed men fired in the air in celebration and others passed out sweets to passersby.

 

Hamas stopped just short of claiming responsibility but issued a statement saying the group "blesses the (Jerusalem) operation. It will not be the last,'' Hamas said in a statement.

 

An Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Ahmed told Ynet the blame for the attack lay with Israel for its operations in Gaza. "The responsibility lies with those who killed 130 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them

 

 

children," he said. "We welcome this heroic act and strengthen the hands of those who carried it out. This is only the first of many responses the Palestinian people are planning."

 

The spokesman, a member of the organization's military wing the al-Quds Brigades said Israel is "reaping what it has sown in the Strip. Those who carried out the attack have brought great pride and raised the heads of the Palestinians."

.

Israel is attacked daily with rockets and mortars.  It attacks the places they emanate from - which, in Gaza, means civilian areas, since these "brave warriors" use their own people as human shields. 

 

And the response is to sneak into a seminary, then shoot and kill unarmed rabbinical students.  This slaughter causes celebration throughout Gaza, prayers of thanksgiving and statements that it is heroic and cause for great pride - head-raising pride.

 

Any day the Israeli government decides to do something decisive about this is a day it will be fully justified.


COMMUNISM IN THE SCHOOLS?

Ken Berwitz

This breathtakingly idiotic attempt to bring communism into California schools comes to us by way of www.littlegreenfootballs.com.  

You won't believe your eyes:

California Dems Introduce Bill To Allow Communist Indoctrination in Public Schools

Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 3:40:25 pm PST

Yes, thats right. The headline is no exaggeration. California Democratic Sen. Alan Lowenthal has proposed an amendment to the Educational Code that will explicitly allow the promotion of Communism in schools, and also allow groups who want to violently overthrow the US government to meet on public school property.

Heres the PDF file: sb_1322_bill_20080220_introduced.pdf

(1) The Civic Center Act requires the governing body of a school district to grant the use of school property, when an alternative location is not available, to nonprofit organizations, and clubs or associations organized to promote youth and school activities. Existing law also prohibits an individual, society, group, or organization from using school property for the commission of any act intended to further a program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the state by force, violence, or other unlawful means.

This bill would permit the school board to require the furnishing of information as it deems necessary to determine that the use of school property for which application is made would not violate that provision. This bill would also delete provisions regarding a person who intends to use school property on behalf of an organization to deliver a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, that the organization is not a Communist action organization or Communist front organization required to be registered with the Attorney General of the United States or does not, to the best of that persons knowledge, advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the State of California by force, violence, or other unlawful means.

(2) Under existing law, a permanent or classified school employee, or a classified community college employee may be dismissed from employment for specified causes, including, but not limited to, commission of a felony.

This bill would delete provisions that a permanent or classified school employee, or a classified community college employee may be dismissed from employment if he or she is a knowing member of the Communist Party.

(3) Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction and prohibits a school district from sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon a person because of his or her race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

This bill would delete provisions that prohibit a teacher giving instruction in a school or on property belonging to an agency included in the public school system from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism. The bill would also delete provisions that a teacher may be dismissed from employment if he or she teaches communism in that way.

(4) Under existing law, a public employee is required to answer, under oath, specified questions, including, but not limited to, knowing membership in an organization advocating the forceful or violent overthrow of the government of the United States or of any state. This bill would delete these provisions. The bill would also delete related findings and declarations by the Legislature regarding communism and the Communist Party.

A Christmas tree or Chanukah menorah?  No way.  But a clear field for communist indoctrination?  No problem.

It will be interesting to find out how Governor Schwarzenegger reacts to this.


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!!