Tuesday, 06 January 2009


Ken Berwitz

From John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com:

French TV Shows Gazans Killed By Hamas, Blames Israel

January 6, 2009 Posted by John at 3:28 PM

Public television network France 2 has admitted that earlier today, it showed photos of dozens of bodies of members of Hamas and civilians who it said were killed in an Israeli bombing raid on January 1. Only problem: the photos were actually taken in 2005, and the people depicted were killed not by Israel, but when "a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp." The terrorists, in other words, blew themselves up accidentally and took a number of civilians with them.

But I bet they check Israel's photos over and over again.....


Ken Berwitz

This short piece is from, writing for www.americanthinker.com.  Please read it through and see if it affects your belief regarding "global warming":

January 05, 2009

What Disappearing Sea Ice?

Gregory Young
Despite the mountains of contrary evidence, concerns over disappearing sea ice and the unfounded position that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008, pushed U.S. government bureaucrats to officially list the polar bear as an endangered species in May of 2008.  And then guess what happened....

After the onslaught of record breaking bitter temperatures during the last quarter of this year, and with less wind, the amount of sea ice has significantly and dramatically rebounded at the fastest rate ever before recorded.  Currently being measured to be about where it was 29 years ago in 1979, sea ice is again as expansive and dense as it was when global cooling proponents of the time said that we were witnessing the advance of a mini ice age.
Reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions, sea ice has been restored to pre-AGW levels.  The fantasy and absurdity of AGW is becoming laughable, and again is proven conclusively wrong. 
Will the "Global Cooling = Global Warming" crowd, and their enablers at the MSM, be recharging their spin on the cold and now "very hard" evidence of cooler weather as yet another indication of Global Warming? 
Now that the northern ice pack has been refurbished, polar bears will be free to eat as many seals as possible.  It certainly seems that the polar bears are no longer an endangered species.  The same cannot be said, however, about AGW proponents....

By all means, click on the link to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center.  Read its findings and look at the charting of  sea ice data since 1979.  You will see that the graph virtually flatlines throughout this 30 year period. 

I doubt that Al Gore and his apostles will notice, though.  Gore is too busy counting the untold millions he is making from "carbon offsets" to pay any attention to actual facts - especially facts that might adversely affect his global warming exploitatio...er, business.

But you probably are not selling carbon offsets, so I hope you will notice, and see this for the fraud that it apparently is.


Ken Berwitz

Remember those perfectly obnoxious ads featuring Joe Kennedy?  The ones in which he touts that noted humanitarian, hugo chavez, and his "free oil" program to poor people in the US?

Well, now that oil prices have come down to earth and it would actually cost Venezuela a little something to do this, I thought you'd be interested in chavez' slight change of policy. 

It comes to us from the Boston Herald:

Citgo pulls $100M in oil donations to Citizens Energy
Left out in the cold

By Jay Fitzgerald   |   Tuesday, January 6, 2009  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Business & Markets
Photo by Ted Fitzgerald

Joe Kennedy announced yesterday hes laying off 20 employees and temporarily halting most of his winter fuel-assistance programs due to Citgo yanking $100 million in support for the nonprofit Citizens Energy.

Citgo, owned by the Venezuelan government led by leftist loudmouth president Hugo Chavez, recently informed Kennedy that it was temporarily suspending its oil donations for the low-income program.

Kennedy, who was clearly distraught by the unexpected decision, said Citgos move is apparently tied to the recent dramatic fall in crude-oil prices.

Hundreds of thousands of needy Americans in 23 states and on Indian reservations will have to go elsewhere to get heating fuel, because Citizens no longer has the resources, Kennedy said.

Im very hopeful we can turn this around, said Kennedy, who vowed to try to meet with Chavez in Venezuela to pitch keeping the project.

He urged people to directly write to Chavez to appeal to him to restart the 2009 program, which was supposed to officially begin yesterday.

Citgo, which declined comment yesterday, has been providing oil to Citizens since 2005.

The Citgo donations have been controversial because of the perception that Chavez, a notorious anti-American, was using the program for propaganda purposes. Kennedy has countered that the U.S. gets much of its oil from far more controversial nations, such as Saudi Arabia.

At a press conference yesterday at Citizens South Boston headquarters, employees who will lose their jobs stood in back of the stunned Kennedy as he announced Citgos move.

Citizens will still run other energy-related programs, and Massachusetts homeless shelters and some needy individuals will get fuel delivered to their homes.

But Kennedy said Citgos support amounted to about 90 percent of the funding for Citizens fuel-assistance programs nationwide.

See, when chavez had more oil money than he knew what to do with, he was a great "humanitarian".  And did those TV cameras ever roll!

But now that he no longer is swimming in dough?   Let 'em freeze.  And where have you seen coverage of this news other than the Boston Herald?

There you have it:  the great "humanitarian" hugo chavez.....and our wonderful "neutral" media.


Ken Berwitz

The CBS Early show is a chronic ratings loser.  By plenty.  The Today show and Good Morning America are miles and miles ahead in viewership and have been for years.

Ann Coulter is a hugely successful author and speaker.

So when Ms. Coulter was dumped by Today and the rest of NBC because she had bad things to say about that (and pretty much every other) network, CBS jumped at the chance to interview her. 

As my mother says, "any port in a storm".  If you're down the crapper ratings-wise, you will book anyone who might boost those ratings - even someone you clearly hate.

This morning, when Ms. Coulter originally was to have been on Today, she instead was interviewed by Harry Smith of the CBS Early Show.

The problem?  Rather than doing a straight-up interview with Coulter, Smith decided to be rude, patronizing and insulting. 

Big mistake.

Coulter, who is no stranger to people like Smith, returned fire.  She gave him all he could handle and more.

Now you would never know this based on CBS' write-up of the interview, which is posted below.  You'd swear that Smith was completely professional 

But CBS also provided a video of the interview, so you could see for yourself. 

First watch the video, then we'll talk a bit about it:

Coulter, Harry Take Each Other On

Have Words On The Early Show About Her Mention Of Him In Her New Book, And Other Matters

Ann Coulter on The Early Show Tuesday (CBS)

(CBS) Ann Coulter says liberals should look in the mirror.

In her latest book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the conservative firebrand stirs up controversy again, contending that liberals in America try to play victim when really, they're the bullies.

While she's at it, she points fingers at what she calls the liberal media.

"(The book is) basically about how victimhood is rewarded and everyone wants to be a victim," Coulter told CBS News. "It's about the rewards and praise you get for being a victim and the way liberals use victimhood and they oppress others."

At one point in "Guilty," Coulter remarks about an interview of Sen. Ted Kennedy by Early Show
co-anchor Harry Smith in which Smith asks Kennedy if Barack Obama is at increased risk of being assassinated because he's African American. She dismisses the notion, saying presidential assassinations have been the work of left-wingers or people with no political leanings at all.

Coulter and Smith met face-to-face on The Early Show
Tuesday, and didn't mince words about that issue or anything else.

Among other things, Coulter contended that liberals are at fault for the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births in the U.S.

Smith said, in one context, Coulter is a whiner, and accused Coulter of doing the very thing she claims liberals do: playing the victim.

For much more on "Guilty," click here.

The watchdog group Media Matters explored what it asserts are inaccuracies in "Guilty." To see that assessment,
click here.

In case you don't remember exactly, here is Harry Smith's introduction, word for word:

SMITH:  "Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is at it again stirring up controversy with her new book, 'Guilty, Liberal Victims and their Assault on America', and Ann is with us live in the studio this morning. Good morning.  

COULTER:  Good morning.

SMITH:  Uhhmm, y'know what, you want to be taken seriously.  I thi..I sense that.  Right?  Don't you?  Right? 

So before Ms. Coulter had a chance to say anything other than "good morning", Smith defined her as a conservative firebrand (dictionary definition:  "one who creates unrest and strife") who is stirring up controversy, then patronizingly, disdainfully talked down to her the way an exasperated parent might talk when admonishing a young child.

Little wonder that Coulter responded in kind, and nailed Smith later on in the interview. 

Smith's interviewing technique reminds me of hamas' strategy in Gaza:  initiate an attack against an enemy with far superior capabilities, then cry foul when the enemy successfully fights back.

Is it fair to say that what Coulter wrote about Smith - and so many others like him in mainstream media - is based on the attitude he so openly displayed in this interview?  I would think so.

And what about the end of CBS' article, which links readers to a hard-left web site that hates Coulter's guts? 

Is there any counterbalancing link to a right wing site that agrees with her?  Nope.  This is CBS. Mainstream media.  Why would you even begin to expect two sides here?

Ironically, in behaving this way, Smith and CBS provide chapter and verse of why Coulter's books sell so well. I wonder if that ever sinks in with these people, or if they even care.

Look, I've said many times in here that I'm no fan of Ann Coulter.  And despite my support of how well she took down Harry Smith, I'm still no fan.  I think of Coulter as the right wing version of Michael Moore (plus about 8 inches of neck and minus about 300 lbs). 

But I know a hit job when I see one.  And this was what Harry Smith set out to do. 

Too bad for Smith that Coulter is so much better at it than he is.  Maybe she should be doing the interviews on the CBS Early Show.  It certainly could use the ratings boost.


Ken Berwitz

Please read this commentary from Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com  It is about Dr. Mads Gilbert, who has been treating palestinian Arab patients at a hospital in Gaza -- and has also been a ubiquitous presence on US media for the last day or two:

Norwegian Doctor in Gaza Supported 9/11 Attacks

Middle East | Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:58:57 pm PST

Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor in Gaza, is all over the mainstream media, claiming that Israel is indiscriminately and purposely murdering civilians. Hes given interviews to the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, the Independent, Sky News, and the New York Times, among others.

And in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, this supposedly impartial Norwegian doctor (actually a radical Marxist member of Norways Red party) expressed support for the hijackers.

In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated:

The attack on New York was not surprising, after the policy that has led the West in recent decades. I am upset over the terrorist attack, but am equally upset over the suffering which the United States has created. It is in this context that the 5000 dead people must be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.

When asked by Dagbladet if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied:

Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.

Of course, not a single mainstream media report on the creep mentions any of this.

Remember what you just read the next time you see this scumbag being treated like some kind of humanitarian icon by our wonderful "neutral" media.


Ken Berwitz

Here, from Scott Whitlock of www.newsbusters.org, is the transcript of barney frank's whine-fest....er, intelligent interview with Chris Cuomo of Good Morning America today.  As you read it, please keep in mind that, politically, Cuomo is on frank's side of things:

On ABC, Dem Barney Frank Rages at 'Distortions' of Chris Cuomo

"Good Morning America" news anchor Chris Cuomo on Tuesday actually challenged liberal House member Barney Frank over how Congress has spent the bailout money. At one point, after the host implored Frank to think of the American taxpayers, the irritated congressman commanded, "I'm sorry, sir, but- I'm sorry, if you keep interrupting we cannot have a coherent conversation." Frank would later rage over Cuomo's "distortions."

The ABC News anchor kicked off the interview by observing, "You Democrats say you're gung ho, talking numbers in this stimulus plan." He then skeptically queried, "But, in light of all the spending that's been done already with the questionable results, what gives you the confidence that you can pass this?" Now, it should be pointed out that Cuomo often seemed to be pressing the Democratic congressman from the left. Regarding those Americans who took out loans for more than they could pay back, he asked, "Why didn't you look out for the little guy and make sure that first package, instead of $270 billion to financial institutions, went to the people holding those mortgages?" The host continued, "Went to the working men and women? Why didn't you do that first?"

However, Cuomo should be given credit for not allowing Frank to simply blame the Bush administration. After one such attempt, the journalist attacked, "Mr. Chairman, your title is Chairman of the House Financial Committee. I mean, certainly, this isn't just about you looking to the administration. You have a role in this also."

Towards the end of the segment, Cuomo again provoked the ire of Frank. Speaking of the American taxpayer, he questioned, "You seem to be saying that you're powerless in this. Why should they have confidence in the new administration?" Frank angrily shot back, "No, I'm not saying that. Excuse me. I'm sorry, this is terribly distorted! I didn't say I was powerless." The back and forth continued and, as Cuomo attempted to end the interview, the powerful Democrat complained that "responding to your distortions takes some time."

A transcript of the January 6 segment, which occurred at 7:41am, follows:

CHRIS CUOMO: We're hearing a lot about this new economic stimulus plan. Unimaginable numbers. $700, $800 billion. And it makes us think. Well, what happened to that other $700 billion bill that Congress passed already? Where's that money going? What do we know? What is really the option going forward? Who knows better than the man who is about to join us from Washington? Massachusetts Representative, Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.


CUOMO: Thank you for joining us. So, Congress is back. You Democrats say you're gung ho, talking numbers in this stimulus plan. But, in light of all the spending that's been done already with the questionable results, what gives you the confidence that you can pass this?

BARNEY FRANK: Well, first, I am struck when people like yourself , Chris, talk about all the great spending that nobody mentions the Iraq war. And I think we really lose perspective here. You know, in 2001, we were trying to get the budget balanced. We got committed to an enormous increase in military spending. And I was opposed to that. I think it's been a great waste. I hope we can cut that back. And obviously, all spending is relevant. But I wish people would not ignore the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions, probably ultimately more than a trillion, that will go to that war. Secondly, we are talking about two different things. We've had two different crises. And I do think intelligence analysis looks at what the problem is and what you try to do for each problem. First, we had a credit crisis in which people having, in the private sector, and this is a private-sector-caused problem, they made bad investments. Unwise investments. And then they sold each other these bad investments. Unfortunately, you had in Washington at the time, during the past ten years, the philosophy that the market knows best. And regulation wasn't present to give people some safeguards. As a result of having bought a lot of bad stuff, people wouldn't buy good stuff. The Bush administration came to us and said if you don't give us $700 billion right away, they'll be a collapse. Now, we have a problem, because the initiative is with the administration. But, it hasn't been $700 billion. We did vote the authorization. But we said that after they spent the first half, they were going to have to notify Congress before they can spend the second half. We are sufficiently dissatisfied with what the Bush administration did with the first half.

CUOMO: But, Mr. Chairman-

FRANK: So, as of now, that second 350 is frozen and not being spent until we come to some agreement with the Obama administration about how to spend it.

CUOMO: Mr. Chairman, your title is Chairman of the House Financial Committee. I mean, certainly, this isn't just about you looking to the administration. You have a role in this also.

FRANK: Well, one, technically-

CUOMO: You approved the T.A.R.P plan. You approved the spending. And the question is, where is the accountability? Do you know where that money went?

FRANK: Well, I'm trying to explain that. No, in part, we don't- first of all, this is not just a technical thing since you're stretching the title. It's the Financial Services Committee. I say that because there is a Senate Finance Committee that deals with taxes. Yes, we know in part where it went. We are unhappy with that. We set up a mechanism to monitor it. And because we are unhappy with it, we have frozen the second half of it.

CUOMO: But just think about that as the taxpayers out there, Mr. Chairman-

FRANK: I'm sorry, sir, but- I'm sorry, if you keep interrupting we cannot have a coherent conversation. These are not subjects that can be answered in 18 seconds. You asked me what's happened, I told you. They spent the 350 differently then they told us. We expected them to spend a lot to spend on diminishing foreclosures. They refused to do that. As a result, we have froze the second half. And we won't unfreeze it until we get an agreement, and I think we will, because we have a different and, I think more flexible, administration.

CUOMO: Let me ask you a different question here. We said we have two different crises, credit crisis, consumer crisis. But ultimately, they both come down to the citizens who put up their money to help with these problems. Why didn't you help them first? Why didn't you look out for the little guy and make sure that first package, instead of $270 billion to financial institutions, went to the people holding those mortgages? Went to the working men and women? Why didn't you do that first?

FRANK: We tried to do that. We thought we were doing that. When we wrote the bill in the House- and there is a problem because you have an administration and they have got the initiative- That's the way the American system of government works. When we wrote the bill, we wrote it very differently than they asked us. And we instructed them to, in fact, do exactly that, to provide a larger amount of money for mortgage foreclosure. To our surprise, the administration refused to do that. Now, under the American system of government, when you give people the authority and tell them to do things, the courts will not order them to do that. They say, well, that's discretionary. So, in fact, if you looked at this, and we've had hearings, by the way. We had a hearing once it was clear the administration was not going to use the authority we gave them to reduce foreclosures, we called Secretary Paulson up. We complained about that. He refused to do it. We had one option, which was to freeze half the money. So, it's not a $700 billion program at this point. It's a lot of money. But it's only half. And we're not going to release any more money until we get the Obama administration, which is much better on this, to commit to do that. We've tried very hard to push the Bush administration to use the authority and the funds we gave them to reduce foreclosures. They refused. And that's why things are on hold until we get a new administration.

CUOMO: The American taxpayer, well, the American taxpayer is hearing all this.$10 Billions in bonuses. Golden Sachs and Morgan Stanley, alone. You seem to be saying that you're powerless in this. Why should they have confidence in the new administration?

FRANK: No, I'm not saying that. Excuse me. I'm sorry, this is terribly distorted! I didn't say I was powerless.

CUOMO: You said the administration proposed it. That there's a method of doing things. That you didn't like it, but that's the way it is.

FRANK: No, I'm sorry. This is the worst kind of distortion! In the first place, I don't think it's powerlessness to say, instead of spending $700 billion, you're only going to be able to spend half of it and we will freeze the second half. I am saying, yes, when we have a president in power, and he's named the Secretary of the Treasury, Congress cannot under the Constitution directly administer programs. We can create the programs. We can authorize the administration to do it. This is an administration that has defied congressional authority in a number of cases. Finally, we had one option, which was to stop it. That's not powerlessness. I don't think freezing $350 billion is not doing anything, and holding it until the Obama people get there. And if you think that Congress can simply take over and run the program, that simply isn't the way the American Constitution works. So, yes, it is the case that is the case that we authorized-

CUOMO: I don't mean to cut you off. I don't mean to cut you off.

FRANK: Well, it takes some time to- responding to your distortions takes some time.

CUOMO: It's a longer conversation. I want to get you that time. I promise I'll try. Thank you for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.

Did you happen to notice what portion of the time frank was speaking?  Do you think he didn't get a chance to voice his positions?

Simply stated, barney frank is correct 100% of the time, every one else is the screwup except him, and if he isn't doing all the talking he is being horribly mistreated.

Thanks, Newton Massachusetts, for re-electing this whining crybaby incompetent clown again.  The comic relief could have been great fun. 

Unfortunately, however, frank chairs the financial services committee.  So it isn't fun at all.  It's a disaster.  A disaster peppered with unending hissy-fits every time someone blames him for...frankly, for what he should be blamed for.

Maybe next time you can replace him with Fred Flintstone.  He's probably as competent as barney frank, almost certainly funnier, and with his inimitable level of diplomacy and savoir-faire he could even double as chief of protocol.

Yabba Dabba Doo.


Ken Berwitz

This story by Bob Owens, writing for www.pajamasmedia.com ,  purports to show how dishonest Reuters is in reporting about Israel's report on Gaza. 

Please read it, look at the pictures, and decide for yourself:

Reuters: In the Service of Hamas

The news giant is once again blatantly mislabeling defensive measures from Israeli aircraft as offensive weapons.

January 6, 2009 - by Bob Owens
A series of captioned photos from Reuters over the past few days in the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip proves that the news organization employs editors that are either as politically biased or as technically incompetent as those they fired after Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj was exposed for Photoshopping images during the 2006 Israeli conflict with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

At least four Reuters photos released over the weekend purported to show Israeli aircraft deploying weapons against Hamas targets, when the photos clearly show that the helicopters and fighter aircraft were actually dropping flares to thwart possible surface-to-air missile attacks.


Actual scene: F-16 fighter, single flare

Reuters caption: An Israeli F-16 fighter jet flies over the northern Gaza Strip after deploying a weapons system January 3, 2009. Israeli forces bombed the Gaza Strip from the air and sea on Saturday, and desperate residents of the Palestinian enclave sheltered in their homes as the offensive entered a second week.

Actual scene: AH-64 Apache helicopter, single flare

Reuters caption: An Israeli Apache gunship flies over the northern Gaza Strip after firing a weapons system January 4, 2009. Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants battled in Gaza on Sunday after Israeli troops and tanks invaded the coastal enclave in the most serious fighting in the conflict in decades.

Actual scene: AH-64 Apache helicopter, three flares

Reuters caption: An Israeli Apache helicopter flies over the northern Gaza Strip after firing a weapons system January 4, 2009. Israeli tanks and infantry battled Hamas fighters in the Gaza Strip on Sunday in a ground offensive launched after eight days of deadly air strikes failed to halt the Islamist groups rocket attacks on Israel.

Actual scene: AH-64 Apache helicopter, multiple flares

Reuters caption: An Israeli Apache gunship flies over the northern Gaza Strip after firing a weapons system January 4, 2009. Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants battled on Gaza Citys outskirts on Sunday after Israeli troops and tanks invaded the coastal enclave in the worst fighting in the conflict in decades.


This deception is particularly heinous considering that Hajjs retouching of a photo of an Israeli F-16 and labeling defensive flares as offensive weapons was one of the reasons that he and a Reuters photo editor were fired and more than 900 of Hajjs photos were withdrawn by Reuters in 2006.

There is simply no excuse for a Reuters photo editor to again allow such deception, considering the high-profile disinformation that stung that organization in 2006. Captions created by Palestinian photojournalists with an obvious pro-Hamas bias are being furthered without competent editorial oversight by a news organization that has been caught fabricating anti-Israeli propaganda on multiple occasions.

Two Reuters employees were fired in disgrace the last time the news organization was caught with its bias too nakedly exposed. Obviously, the lesson was not learned.

Owens is 100% correct about Adnan Hajj.  You would think his phony pictures - hundreds and hundreds of them - were so  devastatingly embarrassing for Reuters that the agency would be triply careful before letting it happen again.

Well, you just saw the pictures.  Is this another blatant fraud? 

It sure seems so.

So the question then becomes why?  Why would Reuters do it again?

-Is Reuters so pro-hamas that it is willing to act as a propaganda arm for the organization?

-Is Reuters so anti-Israel that it is willing to blatantly lie about its military actions?

-Is Reuters so fearful of the repercussions if it reports honestly that it will go this far to appease the terrorists and other assorted crazies in Gaza?

Your call.

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!!