Wednesday, 19 March 2008

HILLARY CLINTON'S BLACK PASTOR PROBLEM

Ken Berwitz

Just in case you think Hillary Clinton has no problem with Black pastors who scream racial hatred from their pulpits, take a look at this piece from the invaluable www.sweetness-light.com:

Hillary-Supporting Pastor Calls Obama A Pimp

March 19th, 2008

Among other things.

From Hillary supporter and Harlem pastor, the Honorable James David Manning, via his website and YouTube:

Obamas Bra 54 Double D

Barack Obama uses the Obama Girls 54 Double D to start his campaign. This message was preached on 16 February 2008.

And in case you think Mr. Manning was just overwrought, he said pretty much the same things, but in a calmer mode, a month later:

Harlem Preacher says Obama got a White Mama

Pastor Manning says black people have left Hillary for Obama. For More Info check out www.atlah.org. This message was preached on 10 March 2007.

Perhaps now we know why she has not gone after Mr. Obama for his Reverend Wright.

Ok, I admit that Obama trumps Clinton by happily attending jeremiah wright's church for almost 20 years and calling him his "spiritual mentor".  But, to tell you the truth, that doesn't make Hillary Clinton's pal james david manning look any better.

Will Hillary now disassociate herself from this dealer of race hatred?  Let's wait and see.............


HOPE FOR IRAN

Ken Berwitz

You can't keep a good idea down.  And western civilization is a good idea.

Here is what I am talking about, courtesy of www.breitbart.com and UPI:

TEHRAN, March 19 (UPI) -- Many Iranian youths rallied in streets across the country, shouting "Death to Ahmadinejad," in celebrations marking the end of the Persian calendar year.

The last Wednesday of the Persian calendar is celebrated as the Fire Festival in Iran, with bonfires and firecrackers marking the occasion.

In the
western city of Ahvaz, angry mobs declared "Freedom is our legitimate right" while demonstrators in the western city of Sanandaj shouted "Death to (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," Ynetnews reported Wednesday.

The police in Tehran were out in force and, though they were met with a barrage of firecrackers, the situation didn't escalate beyond what is typical for the Fire Festival, local reports cited in the
news report said.

Ahmed Raza-Radan, the police chief in Tehran, warned demonstrators against violating the rule of law in a news conference.

"The
police force has resolved to detain any party-goers who break the law. The secret police will have full control, and will not hesitate to photograph citizens for evidence," he said.

It is a measure of how strong the desire for freedom is among Iran's youth that they risk everything - including their lives (don't doubt that for a minute) to protest in this horrific shari'a police state.

I wish them every success.  And soon..


BARACK OBAMA: A PROFILE IN COURAGE? OR A "CHECKERS" SPEECH

Ken Berwitz

Not surprisingly, given its fawning adoration for Mr. Obama Today's lead editorial in the New York Tank...er, Times, calls yesterday's speech about race a "Profile In Courage".

The Times has somehow figured out that Barack Obama's speech, which he had to make as his poll numbers dropped precipitously because the public finally found out about jeremiah wright, was somehow courageous.

The truth, of course, is that it was a necessary, even desperate, political calculation. Mr. Obama would never have made this speech in a million years if he didn't have to.

Was the speech eloquent?  Yes, very.  Did it touch on subjects that need to be discussed?  You bet it did.  Am I glad that some of the things he brought up were said?  Absolutely.  But that does not change the fact that none of those factors caused this speech.  Politics and politics alone caused Mr. Obama to make it. 

Simply stated, this was the 2008 version of Richard Nixon's "checkers" speech. 

Here is the first part of the Tank..er, Times, editorial.  You can read the full editorial by clicking here.  The bold print is mine:

Mr. Obamas Profile in Courage

There are moments increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.

Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedys 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.

Mr. Obama had to address race and religion, the two most toxic subjects in politics. He was as powerful and frank as Mitt Romney was weak and calculating earlier this year in his attempt to persuade the religious right that his Mormonism is Christian enough for them.

It was not a moment to which Mr. Obama came easily. He hesitated uncomfortably long in dealing with the controversial remarks of his spiritual mentor and former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who denounced the United States as endemically racist, murderous and corrupt.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama drew a bright line between his religious connection with Mr. Wright, which should be none of the voters business, and having a political connection, which would be very much their business. The distinction seems especially urgent after seven years of a president who has worked to blur the line between church and state.

Mr. Obama acknowledged his strong ties to Mr. Wright. He embraced him as the man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, and said that as imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me.

Wisely, he did not claim to be unaware of Mr. Wrights radicalism or bitterness, disarming the speculation about whether he personally heard the longtime pastor of his church speak the words being played and replayed on YouTube. Mr. Obama said Mr. Wrights comments were not just potentially offensive, as politicians are apt to do, but rightly offend white and black alike and are wrong in their analysis of America. But, he said, many Americans have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagree.

Mr. Obamas eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government.

Ok, enough.  I could fertilize my front yard, back yard and every other lawn on the block with that much BS.  The stench would be overwhelming. 

Let's go through this and see why it reeks:

-Comparing Mr. Obama's "I can't defend this guy so I have to say something - here goes" speech to Lincoln, FDR and JFK is disgraceful.  Their speeches were not made to get past a scandalous association with a hate-filled "pastor" and save a political campaign.  Obama's speech was.  As such, using the title of JFK's pulitzer-prize winning book as the title of the editorial disgusted me;

-If 17 years of attending a church that is based on Black liberation theology and has a pastor ranting out the vilest anti USA, anti White and anti Israel/Jew diatribes he can think of isn't political, what is?  Did the Times tell us Mitt Romney's Mormon faith was none of our business too?  I don't recall them saying so. 

And then we have the fact that, after "retiring" as pastor of this church, jeremiah wright was immediately brought on as an advisor to Mr. Obama.  A political advisor.  And he was only removed a few days ago because of the firestorm over his message of hate.  Is THAT our business?   Somehow the Times forgot to mention this fact.

-Mr. Obama "did not claim to be unaware" of wright's filth in his speech, that's true.  But until this speech he did claim to be unaware, as he went on show after show and stated that he didn't hear wright preaching this kind of material. 

Therefore Mr. Obama's statement yesterday, that he did hear wright say these kinds of things, was not courageous.  It was covering up the lie he had been telling us for the past week. 

-The equating of jeremiah wright's vile sick hate-filled garbage with what every other clergyperson says every now and again is one of the two most odious things Mr. Obama said in this speech (the other was calling his own grandmother a racist - a completely unnecessary add-in that left me slack-jawed with amazement). 

As I mentioned yesterday, in over a half century of attending synagogues and Christian religious services for a variety of reasons I have never heard any rabbi or priest say anything like what wright vomits out to his cheering congregation.

Instead of praising Obama for this comparison they should have pilloried him for it, and then expressed strong disapproval of an entire congregation eating it up and loving wright's hatred.  But this is the New York Tank, and they are in the tank for Obama.  So they pretend it is a high point of his speech, not a low-down insult to the clergy of our country.

-Finally, if the Times thinks this speech ends the jeremiah wright issue, it is beyond logic, reason and hope. 

Mr. Obama has attended this church for 17 years without expressing any problem with wright.  He had wright marry him and his wife.  He had wright baptize both his children.  He calls wright his "spiritual mentor".  He hired him as a political consultant just last month.

Interestingly, neither the Times nor the Today show (at least not that I saw) showed us any overnight polls on how people felt about the Obama speech.  It is very hard to believe none were taken.  This suggests to me that, if they were, these two "neutral" news venues decided you should not know the results.

The only one I did see was an online poll taken for Greta Van Susteren's "On The Record" show which airs on Fox News Channel.  I cheerfully concede that online polls are completely unscientific and a Fox News audience is likely to be far less pro-Obama than, say, an MSNBC audience.  But with those caveats in mind, the verdict was that 12% said Obama's speech helped him and 87% said it hurt him.

Make of it what you will.


THE REAL REASON FOR OBAMA'S SPEECH

Ken Berwitz

Maybe the excerpts from this Reuters report, then a CBS report - both out in the last 24 hours - will shed a bit of light on why Barack Obama suddenly felt the need to address jeremiah wright yesterday.  The bold print is mine:

Obama's lead over Clinton narrows: Reuters poll

Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:07am EDT

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.

Illinois Sen. Obama, who would be America's first black president, has been buffeted by attacks in recent weeks from New York Sen. Clinton over his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief and by a tempest over racially charged sermons given by his Chicago preacher.

The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

That is a sharp turnaround from the Reuters/Zogby poll from last month, which showed in a head-to-head matchup that Obama would beat McCain 47 percent to 40 percent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS Poll: Pastor's Remarks Hurt Obama
March 18, 2008

(CBS) A new CBS News poll finds that while most voters who have heard at least something about controversial statements made by Barack Obama's longtime pastor say their view of the Democratic presidential candidate is unchanged, a third say it has made them feel more negative about Obama.

The poll found that among registered voters, 25 percent said they had heard "a lot" about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments, while 33 percent said they had heard some. Forty-two percent said they hadn't heard about the comments.

Of those voters, sixty-five percent said it didnt make a difference in their view of Obama. However, of those whose opinion is changed, the net impact is very negative. Thirty percent said it made them have a less favorable view, whereas 2 percent said it made their view more favorable.

Interviewing for these questions was completed Sunday and Monday, before
Obama's speech on the subject today.

Democrats are especially apt to say their views are unchanged, with 76 percent saying it has made no difference of their view of Obama, 15 percent saying it made their view less favorable and 2 percent saying it made their view more favorable.

Republicans are the most likely to say their view has been affected: 47 percent say they've become less favorable, and 53 percent said it did not make a different.

Sixty-one percent of independent voters say they are unaffected, but 36 percent said it made their view less favorable. Two percent of independents said it made them more favorable view.

So?  Do you think the internal polls conducted for Mr. Obama just might have shown this negative movement as well?  And would that have caused him to suddenly decide yesterday's speech was necessary?  

Think hard.  This is a tough one............


SEAN PENN: HOLLYWOOD LEFT WING NUTCAKE

Ken Berwitz

Don't take my word for it.  Here is Sean Penn is in his own words, taking time out from filming on location in San Francisco to confer his "wit and wisdom" to a group of fans.:

"I almost wish Jerry Falwell were alive to see this. Almost," Penn shouted to the crowd. After dropping some names of conservatives who are still with us - "Bill O'Reilly, who is too stupid to talk about," and "Sean Hannity, the butt boy of Rupert Murdoch," Penn said, "We know something more. We know their end is near."

What a horse's ass.

JHauser The country is absolutely polarized. My eternal wish this presidential season is for all to think about all the aspects and wonderful things of our country which makes us this great nation. We all share certain common bonds and can we use these bonds as building blocks for what we share united and not divided? (03/20/08)


THE NEW YORK TIMES: MISLEADING THE PACK

Ken Berwitz

With all the attention being focused on Barack Obama's speech and what it did or didn't do, I don't want to let this terrible attempt to mislead New York Times readers go by without mention.

Here is a NewYork Times headline, straight from the paper delivered to my home this morning.  Tell me what it means:

Poll Shows Palestinians Back Striking Israel

That seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?  A poll was taken among Palestinian Arabs and, by and large, they support military action of some indeterminate kind against Israel.  If you read that, you would not at all have been surprised.  You would have yawned and moved on to the next story.

But wait a minute.  Don't move on so fast.  Because that headline is completely masking the real story.  Here is the first part of the actual article - see how it squares with that headline:

RAMALLAH, West Bank A new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the attack this month on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem that killed eight young men, most of them teenagers, an indication of the alarming level of Israeli-Palestinian tension in recent weeks.

The survey also shows unprecedented support for the shooting of rockets on Israeli towns from the Gaza Strip and for the end of the peace negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

So, as you can see, the real story - the one you probably would not have even bothered to read based on its headline - is that an overwhelming majority of "Palestinians" support the attack which already took place, in which 8 unarmed, civilian, teenage children were slaughtered by a gunman, with 10 others wounded, some horribly.

This is how the New York Times gets away with misleading its readers.  No one can say they didn't REPORT it.  But the headline would have caused a minimum of readers to ever see the truth.

Now, go online to the paper's website:  www.nytimes.com , and see that this was such an outrage that they were embarrassed into changing the headline to:

Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks

The truth is, even this second attemnpt is misleading.  But at least it moves somewhere near the key element of the story.

Why does the New York Times Mislead its readers? 

Why does the New York Times protect Palestinian Arabs who want to murder Jews?


DAILY KOS ------------- FOX NEWS

Ken Berwitz

We've all heard the expression "opposite ends of the spectrum".  Well, here is an example of what it means.

Earlier today I posted an online poll taken during Greta Van Susteren's "On the Record" program last night, which assessed the effect of Barack Obama's speech.  I warned that online polls are eminently unscientific and that the audience for a Fox show would probably skew significantly against Obama.

The results, from about 15,000 viewers, were that 12% felt the speech helped Mr. Obama and 87% felt it hurt him.

Here, as of just a minute or two ago (it's 3:25PM in New Jersey) are the results of the Daily Kos' online poll regarding Barack Obama's speech, with a relatively comparable number of votes (over 13,000):

Will the speech Barack Obama gave yesterday help or hurt his campaign?

The above table works out to 85% of Daily Kos people thinking the speech helped Mr. Obama versus 4% thinking it hurt him.

Remember, everyone saw the same speech, and the number of responses are about the same.

How's that for "opposite ends of the spectrum"?   Opposite enough for you?


A FORGOTTEN KISS, A FAMILY SAVED

Ken Berwitz

This story, from WLWT in Ohio, is bittersweet.  But, despite the fact that it tells of a family's possessions being wiped out, I bet you'll feel good about it.

See for yourself:

WLWT.com

Father Returns To Kiss Son Goodbye, Saves Family From Fire

A father who forgot to kiss his son goodbye ended up saving his familys lives.

Kevin Roy said he was pulling out of his driveway Tuesday morning when he realized he hadnt kissed his 1-year-old son, Koby, and worried how he might feel if something had happened.

I just wanted to tell him I loved him before I left, Roy said. I pulled up to the end of the driveway and thought, I want to go in and tell him bye, because I normally do. It's just something I do on a daily basis, so I decided to go back in.

He ran back inside the Hamilton Township house to find it filled with smoke.

He said he couldn't even see upstairs, and all I heard was him screaming for me, said Ashley Swingley, Roys fiance.

Roy said he easily reached Swingley and helped her to safety, but he said reaching Koby was more difficult.

The childs bedroom was so full of smoke that the boys parents could not see him.

I couldn't even see into his room, and I just grabbed him and ran outside, said Swingley.

The three made it safely outside the burning home, but the flames destroyed nearly everything they owned.

It's a complete washout, Roy said. We lost everything we have: furniture, clothing, the baby's crib. Its just a mess; everythings gone.

Kobys first birthday party had been planned for this weekend at the familys home, which was declared a total loss.

The fire remains under investigation, and a fund was set up under Swingleys name at First Financial Bank to help the family recover from the fire.

In these days of terrorism, rising oil prices and financial downturns it is nice to read a story like this, because it makes us feel good about things, if only for a moment.  I hope you agree.


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!!