Wednesday, 02 April 2008

A TASTE OF THE FUTURE: PART 37

Ken Berwitz

I was just looking at various web sites, and found this little entry at www.freerepublic.com.

It is the latest example of how we will live if radical Islam makes good on its threat to end western civilization and put us under shari'a law. 

Question:
Buses are mostly very crowded. Is it better that I stay on my seat if I can find one- or should I offer it to an elderly person? Bear in mind that standing up in a crowded bus may lead to unintentional touching of women.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

If the situation is as described, and standing up means that you will be crowding with women or they may touch you, then stay in your seat so as to protect yourself from the causes of fitnah and falling into evil. 

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote. 

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas 

 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 fight, 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 so completely repressed that a man is instructed, as a religious issue, not to give up his bus seat to an elderly person because he might accidentally come in physical contact with a woman.  Omigod, what a horror that would be.

And who tells this man to stay seated?  "The standing committee for academic research and issuing fatwas (religious decrees)". 

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. 


BARACK OBAMA'S NEW PASTOR: IS HE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH?

Ken Berwitz

As many of you know, Barack Obama appeared on The View last week. 

After being fawned over in the lead-up to his appearance and even moreso in the introduction, Mr. Obama was asked about his vile, racist, anti-USA, anti-Israel, lunatic conspiracy theory-spewing "spiritual mentor", jeremiah wright. 

Wright, you may recall, was Mr. Obama's pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) for almost 20 years, until he conveniently "retired" just when Mr. Obama needed him to get invisible.

Mr. Obama told his adoring questioners that if wright had stayed on as pastor and continued with what he was preaching all those years, the Obamas would not have been comfortable staying at the church.

Let's stop here and reflect (or just upchuck).  This pastor has spent almost TWO DECADES dishing out his "Black liberation theology" and the Obamas have remained as active members of the church and were major donors.  But if wright had continued saying what he's always said for just a little bit more time?  We're outta here!!!

If you believe this BS, then stop reading.  No amount of logic is going to penetrate.  If you recognize this as the obvious BS that it is, let's continue.

As mentioned earlier, pastor wright has conveniently retired when Mr. Obama needed the pleasure of his anonymity.  He has been replaced by a younger pastor, Reverend Otis Moss III.  

Since Mr. Obama and his family were supposedly on the cusp of leaving this church because of what jeremiah wright was preaching, it would be fair to say that if the Obamas are still members they are, to use Mr. Obama's own word, "comfortable" with the preaching of Reverend Moss. 

With this in mind, please watch the youtube.com video of Reverend Moss preaching to Mr. Obama's church, by clicking here

The video clip is (correctly) titled:

Barack Obama's NEW Preacher of Hate

Watch and listen.  See how Reverend Moss' commentary sits with you. 

(I am hoping that, at this point, you have clicked on the above link and have seen the video).

Ok.  Now you have seen and heard TUCC"s new pastor, the "Reverend" that Mr. Obama has to be "comfortable" with in order to stay at his church.

Would YOU feel comfortable with this hate-soaked filth?  Would YOU feel uplifted by those comments?  Would YOU be ok with the reference to a sickeningly vile, obscene rap song like that?  Would YOU want to bring your young daughters to church and then have them ask "Daddy, what did pastor Moss mean?  What are the words to Ice Cube's song"?  

Would YOU like to be the one to decide whether your pre-teen daughters should know that their pastor's reference was to the song's title and repeated lyric line, "Wrong Nigga to Fuck Wit"?

Maybe the next time Mr. Obama is on The View, one of his adoring fans...er, the hard-hitting panelists, will ask "Is that what you want to hear at a religious service?  Is that what you want your wife and daughters exposed to?  Are you COMFORTABLE with it?"

Who in media will ask Mr. Obama when he is leaving Trinity United Church of Christ?  Or, if he is not leaving, to explain why the preaching of Reverend Moss is acceptable to him?  Why he is "comfortable" with it?

Who has the guts?  Who has the honesty?


MCCAIN AND LETTERMAN

Ken Berwitz

It is one of the more dubious realities of a presidential campaign that you have to be able to perform "humorously" (sometimes the word doesn't fit) with the major late night and daytime TV personalities. 

Frankly, I wish this weren't so, because I'm not looking for a good Ed McMahon replacement, I'm looking for a good President.

But things are as they are.  And last night John McCain was on the David Letterman show.  Here's how he did, courtesy of the Associated Press:

McCain, Letterman spar on 'late Show'

NEW YORK - Republican presidential candidate John McCain good-naturedly sparred with David Letterman on Tuesday night's "Late Show." During his monologue, Letterman joked that the Arizona senator reminded him of "the guy at the hardware store who makes the keys" and "the guy who can't stop talking about how well his tomatoes are doing."

After Letterman added that McCain looked like "the guy who points out the spots they missed at the car wash," the senator appeared on stage.

"You think that stuff's pretty funny, don't you?" McCain asked, then added: "Well, you look like a guy whose laptop would be seized by the authorities."

McCain also said the host resembled the guy caught smuggling reptiles in his pants, to which Letterman replied, "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it."

The candidate also likened Letterman to the manager of a creepy motel, the guy who enjoys watching his swim trunks inflate in a hot tub and the guy about whom neighbors later say, "He mostly kept to himself."

Later in the show, the two discussed more serious issues, including the national credit crisis, Iraqi casualties, the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bear Stearns and accusations that McCain's not a true conservative Republican.

"I think maybe some people think that you ought to have exactly the same position they have on every issue," McCain said.

None of this will solve our enegy problems or conclude the war in Iraq or address the immigration debacle.  But I suppose it gives us a temporary respite from the fact that they still are front and center. 

Whatever.


OBAMA BS (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

BS is an ongoing affliction of most politicians.  Some more than others.  A great deal more.

And anyone who thinks Barack Obama is "a different kind of politician" is either not paying attention or doesn't want to know.

Here is the latest example of Obama BS, courtesy of www.corner.nationalreview.com:

Obama puts out another deceptive ad. Factcheck.org calls him on it:

In a new ad, Obama says, "I dont take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesnt distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:
  • Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

  • Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

It's a good catch, but I'd like it even better if someone could ask Obama why he complains incessantly about high gas prices if he thinks global warming has put "the planet in peril." The less something costs , the more people consume it. Obama should want gas to be more expensive, not less.

.

Stay tuned for more Obama BS as it comes down the pike, which it most assuredly will. 

And please note the point made above - identical to the one made in the previous blog - that it is ridiculous to demand a higher oil supply while at the same time begging for lower consumption to save the planet. 

Why would Mr. Obama do that?  Well, it is pretty obvious that a politican who demands higher oil prices will lose votes, isn't it? 

By golly, I think we have our answer.


DEMOCRATIC DOG-AND-PONY GOVERNANCE

Ken Berwitz

Do you like a dog and pony show that is put on by an actual dog and pony?  I did when I was very young.  My grandson, now a little over one year old, would probably love one. 

Do you like a dog and pony show that is put on by politicians who are trying to obscure the fact that they aren't governing effectively by making fools of you?  That wouldn't be as much fun, would it? 

Unfortunately, the current congress has been a succession of such dog and pony shows.  Little in the way of effective governance, but overloaded with for-show nonsense.

Here is the latest example, courtesy of John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com:

Incoherence

Today House Democrats appealed to ignorance, in their usual fashion, by summoning executives from the five biggest oil companies to berate them for high gasoline prices. This is fundamentally stupid in at least two respects.

First, these same Democrats purport to be worried about "global warming" and committed to taking strong measures to combat it. Needless to say, the simplest way to reduce carbon consumption, if you really believe that carbon consumption will cause an environmental disaster, is to increase the price of energy. This is why some honest global warming advocates have argued for huge increases in the gasoline tax. Conversely, if the price of gasoline were to decline as House Democrats said they wanted today, the result would be increased consumption and increased carbon emissions. If the Democrats aren't willing to pay the price to reduce energy consumption (i.e., higher gasoline prices), they should quit yammering about global warming and admit they knew all along that the alarmism was BS.

Second, if you really want the price of gasoline to fall, there is only one way to achieve that goal: increase supply. Yet these very same Democrats have made it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to do so. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed oil development in northern Alaska, enormous amounts of oil would now be flowing to American consumers, reducing the price of gasoline for everyone. Further, as one of the oil executives pointed out today, 85% of our coastline is off-limits to drilling.

In short, pretty much every policy that the Democrats have pursued for the last three decades has contributed to the shortage of oil, and resulting high price of gasoline. For the Democrats to pretend that high prices are the fault of the oil companies--which, unlike the Democrats, actually go to great lengths to bring energy to American consumers--is beyond hypocrisy.

Regular readers know that I've talked about this issue before - i.e. that it is ludicrous to prevent ANWR drilling, offshore drilling, nuclear, coal and shale oil extraction, but then complain bitterly that we are relying on countries which hate the USA's guts for our energy needs. 

Well, this is what we are doing, this is who is causing it and this is how they are trying to make you think it's somebody else's fault. 

November is not that far off.  We can demand that our elected politicians - primarily but by no means exclusively Democrats - address our energy crisis realistically or we'll turn them out of office.

Its our choice.  Maybe this time we'll make a good one.  Frankly, I'm not all that optimistic.


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!!