Tuesday, 15 April 2008


Ken Berwitz

I have a question:  If a White woman who has spent her lifetime championing equal rights says something that is attacked as being racist, and then a Black entrepreneur who has spent his lifetime championing equal rights says the same thing.......

-Does that mean he's a racist too?

-Does that mean he isn't a racist and she isn't either?

-Does their skin color define how you view their comments (that would make YOU the racist)?

-Or is it something else -- and, if so, what?

While you are pondering my question, please do a little reading too.  The following excerpts come from an article in today's Charolotte Observer (the entire article can be accessed by clicking here).  I think you may find it helpful to your thought process -- especially the paragraphs I've put in bold print:

Johnson cites race in Obama's surge

Bobcats owner, who supports Clinton, says Ferraro said it right



Bob Johnson
DAVIE HINSHAW / Staff Photographer

4/14/08 - Charlotte Bobcats owner Bob Johnson talks with Observer reporters.

Wading back into the Democratic presidential race, billionaire businessman Bob Johnson said Monday that Sen. Barack Obama would not be his party's leading candidate if he were white.

Johnson's comments to the Observer echoed those of former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. She stepped down as an adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton last month after saying Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were white.

"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not... ."

"Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial ... it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything."

Johnson, who made a fortune after founding Black Entertainment Television and now owns the Charlotte Bobcats, is a longtime friend of Clinton and her husband, the former president.

Johnson disputed the notion that Obama has built a broad coalition. Most of his support, he said, comes from African Americans and white liberals but not white, working-class Democrats.

"I don't think he has that common -- what I call `I-want-to-go-out-and-have-a-drink-with-you -- touch," Johnson said.

An Observer/WCNC Poll this month found Obama and Clinton splitting the votes of white North Carolinians who say they'll vote in the May 6 primary. Obama led 59 percent to 7 percent among African Americans.

Mr. Johnson is dead on target.  In the Democratic primaries - very much including the North Carolina primary, as the paper's poll data indicate - the fact that Mr. Obama is Black works to his advantage.

In a general election I suspect that this will reverse.  And, assuming I'm correct, it will cause a significant problem, maybe an insurmountable one, if Mr. Obama is the Democratic nominee. 

Personally, I lament both situations.  I wish skin color didn't mean a thing in this election.  But the world we live in is a real one, not a fantasy, and Barack Obama's skin color will work either for him or against him, depending which voter segment we are talking about.

Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.


Ken Berwitz

Suppose a man were elected to the House of Representatives, and then renounced his citizenship by declaring himself a citizen of a nonexistent country, which he wanted to replace the United States?

How long would it take for him to be expelled from the house?

If we're talking about the USA, the answer (I would like to think) is just as fast as the paperwork could be completed. 

But in Israel?  Being an Arab member of its Knesset appears - at least so far -  to mean never having to worry about any such thing. 

Here, via the Jerusalem News, are the specifics:

Israeli Arab MP says he represents Palestine, not Israel

By Stan Goodenough
Apr 15, 2008

An Arab citizen of Israel and member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) Monday listed himself as a representative of "Palestine" at a high-profile conference in Qatar.

Ahmed Tibi listed himself on the registry at the Doha Forum, which was attended by an Israeli delegation headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, as heading up a six-man team from Palestine - a state which never has, and still does not exist, but which the international community headed by the US is working to create on ancient Jewish lands.

At the conference, Tibi smeared the country that had elevated him to position of lawmaker, comparing it to formerly racist South Africa where blacks were banned from any participation in the political process.

"Israel is an apartheid state," he publicly told Livni - who during her keynote address had expressed support for the establishment of democracies in the Middle East. How could she then talk of democracy, he sneered?

According to Ynetnews, the foreign minister deftly exposed Tibi's lie: "The very fact that you are an Israeli Knesset member, that you are the deputy speaker of the Knesset as a matter of fact, who represents 20 percent of Israel's population, that you are here and that you can say anything you please that is the proof that Israel is a democratic nation," she said, responding from the podium.

Back home in Jerusalem other members of Knesset expressed outrage at Tibi's treachery, and threatened to have him disciplined, even calling for him to be "exiled" to the Palestinian Authority's current "capital," Ramallah.

MK Avigdor Lieberman who chairs the Israel Our Home Party, described the Israeli Arab as "a fifth column in every sense of the word.

"Tibi should transfer from the Israeli Knesset to the Palestinian Authority's parliament in Ramallah," he charged. "He is using his position as an MK to inflict harm upon the State of Israel and destroy it from within, as is proven by this case."

The deputy minister of foreign affairs, Majalli Whbee, said the time had come for Tibi, who has a long track record of duplicity and disloyalty to Israel, to decide which country he represents.

"It is Tibi's right to stand for the country or entity of his choosing, but he cannot be a member of one nation's parliament while representing another at international conventions," Whbee said, announcing his intention to refer the matter to the Knesset Ethics Committee for disciplinary action.

Despite the uproar Tibi, once an official advisor to PLO arch terrorist Yasser Arafat, knows from past experience that he is not in any danger of losing his seat in the Knesset.

Israel's Jewish parliamentarians have always lacked the will to oust their Arab colleagues despite repeated and brazen displays of perfidy by a number of them..

The fact that tibi hates Israel is undeniable.  That, however grating and stupid it is (given that Arabs in Israel have rights and privileges they don't even dare to dream about in most Arab countries), does not disqualify him from serving in the Knesset.

But renouncing his Israeli citizenship by declaring himself a citizen of the non-existent state of "Palestine"?  That obviously does.

If Israel cannot find a way to remove this "man" from its governance, the country deserves what it gets from him. 

The sooner the better.


Ken Berwitz

Leave it to the great Thomas Sowell to give us the definitive word on Barack Obama. 

I have posted Dr. Sowell's commentary about Mr. Obama below.  It was extracted from the invaluable web site,  www.realclearpolitics.com

In recent weeks I have taken to excerpting material like this so that my posts will be shorter and to avoid copyright issues.  But I won't do it here, because I won't deny you even one word of Dr. Sowell's wisdom:

A Living Lie

By Thomas Sowell

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.


Ken Berwitz

As you read this, jimmy carter is spending his day in Judea and Samaria (also known as the west bank) engaging in a love-fest with leaders of hamas, a violent terrorist organization which is specifically committed to destroying the state of Israel.

Here are the particulars, via excerpts from an Associated Press article which you can read in its entirety by clicking here ):

Jimmy Carter Embraces Hamas Official
Apr 15 10:57 AM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter embraced a leading Hamas figure Tuesday, according to participants in a meeting that infuriated Israeli officials already upset by Carter's freelance Mideast peace mission.

Carter also laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, whom the Bush administration and many Israelis blame for the breakdown of peace talks seven years ago and the violence that followed.

At a reception in the West Bank town of Ramallah organized by Carter's office, the former president hugged Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas politician, meeting participants said. Embraces between men are a common custom in Arab culture.

"He gave me a hug. We hugged each other, and it was a warm reception," Shaer told The Associated Press. "Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel ... and I told him the possibility for peace is high."

Shaer, who served as deputy prime minister and education minister in the Hamas-led Palestinian government that unraveled last year, is considered a leading member of the Islamic militant group's pragmatic wing. After a stint in an Israeli prison last year, he is now a professor at a West Bank university, teaching comparative religion.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Carter's meeting with Hamas "dignified" a group committed to Israel's destruction. "One cannot but wonder how this attitude is supposed to promote peace and understanding," he said.

The U.S. has also expressed displeasure at Carter's overtures to Hamas, an Islamic group responsible for the deaths of some 250 Israelis in suicide bombings and labeled a terrorist organization by both countries. Carter is to meet Khaled Mashaal, the group's exiled leader, in Damascus, Syria, on Friday.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is not meeting with Carter during his visit, and the only Israeli leader to host him, President Shimon Peres, scolded Carter for his planned meeting with Mashaal.

The Israeli daily Haaretz on Tuesday criticized the government for giving Carter, a Nobel laureate who brokered Israel's first peace agreement with an Arab nation, a cool reception.

"The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history," the newspaper said. "Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world."

Carter said he requested permission to enter Hamas-ruled Gaza but was turned down. He did not provide details. Israel and Egypt control Gaza's border crossings and such a visit would also require the approval of Carter's U.S. Secret Service detail. There have been no official visits to Gaza by Americans since Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections in early 2006.

President Bush did not visit Arafat's mausoleum in Ramallah when he visited earlier this year.

Before going on, it should be noted that, to its eternal shame, the AP article sanitized hamas by referring to it as a "militant" group. 

Militant?  It is an effing TERRORIST group.  The USA, Israel, and most non-Arab countries throughout the world call it that.  But to the AP it is just militant.  How sweet.

And it would have been nice if the AP noted that Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper that sided with carter and against Israel here, is a hard-left propaganda sheet which always seems to find an angle that enables it to rationalize palestinian Arabs and condemn Israelis.  Think of it as the Israeli version of the New York Times.

So jimmy carter hugs a terrorist leader and places a wreath on yasir arafat's grave - while assuring us that he is a friend of Israel.

Does this sound familiar?  Does this sound like a certain presidential candidate that jimmy carter is supporting, who stacks his campaign staff with Israel haters of the first order while piously assuring us that he is a friend of Israel?

jimmy and Barack.  Like peas in a pod. 

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!!