Wednesday, 07 January 2009


Ken Berwitz

Ann Coulter was the first guest on the Today show this morning.

This appears to be the result of her being booked, then banned from Today and every other NBC show, then unbanned and rebooked when The Drudge Report exposed the ban and NBC realized how idiotic it looked.

The interview, conducted by Matt Lauer, was a pathetic joke - not unlike Harry Smith's interview of Coulter on Tuesday.

Here is how it went, courtesy of Steve Gilbert at

Lauer/Coulter And Media Accuracy

January 7th, 2009

To give just one example of how our watchdog media cant even report the simplest things accurately, we present Matt Lauers interview with Ann Coulter on this mornings Today Show.

During Mr. Lauers inquisition interview he declared as a positive fact that Ms. Coulter had said she was banned for life. She never did. That was a quote from an NBC source reported by Matt Drudge.

Then Mr. Lauer offered another direct quote:

LAUER: You said all kinds of things. That one of the reasons you werent on the show was because the liberal mainstream media hates conservatives. I mean, you do know that

COULTER: I didnt say that.

LAUER: Yeah, you did.

COULTER: Where did I say that?

LAUER: I think it was on Hannity & Colmes, or something like that.

COULTER: That the mainstream media hates conservatives? I didnt say that

LAUER (over): You know that weve had every major conservative

COULTER: I have much more colorful language. I mean, youre capturing the thought, thats just not my language.

How many times have we seen the mainstream media confront a conservative live on the air with something that is purported to be a direct quote from them? Which, upon subsequent review, turns out to be not a direct quote after all?

As it happens Ms. Coulter did not say the mainstream media hates conservatives on Hannity & Colmes. (See below for the full H&C transcript.)

Admittedly this is a minor point. But it exemplifies an all too consistent pattern from our media masters.

Ironically, in another typical media ploy, later in the same interview Mr. Lauer pedantically chided Ms. Coulter for dropping the word almost from a sentence he quoted from her book.



FYI:  If you click on the "More" link you will get a complete transcript of Ms. Coulter's interview with Hannity & Colmes.

These people don't seem to realize that the only way to win when interviewing someone they obviously despise, is to conduct a straight interview that exposes what they despise about that person. 

When Harry Smith and Matt Lauer conduct interviews in a way that makes it clear they are interested in little other than "getting" their guest, it doesn't make the guest look bad.  It makes them look bad.

And it generates sympathy for the person they're going after.  The exact opposite of what they hope to accomplish.

Every book Ann Coulter writes zooms to #1 on the best seller lists.  I wonder how these guys feel about helping her sales along so much.


Ken Berwitz

Here is the headline from L. Brent Bozell's column of December 30, one week afterwards:

Sweet on Caroline

by L. Brent Bozell III
December 30, 2008

And here is the headline from Maureen Dowd's column in today's New York Times:

Sweet on Caroline

Published: January 6, 2009

I wonder what Dowd would say if the chronology were reversed. 

Don't you?


Ken Berwitz

Don't try this if you're a Republican.  It ain't gonna work

But if you have a (D-) after your name?  Heeeyyyyyy, that's good.  Very good.

What am I talking about?  I'm talking about Chris Dodd (D-CT) and his "favorable" (some would say "payoff") loan from Countrywide Financial. 

Here is the Wall Street Journal's editorial on how Dodd has been insulated from answering for this disgrace for a half year now - in no small part because our wonderful "neutral" media have looked the other way:

Waiting for Dodd

Where are those Countrywide papers?

With the opening of the 111th Congress yesterday, all of Washington is tingling with the allure of a fresh start. Not so fast. We've got some leftover business from the 110th Congress -- namely, Chris Dodd's July 2008 promise to release the details of his sweetheart loans from Countrywide Financial.

[Review & Outlook] AP

The Connecticut Senator got favored treatment from the subprime mortgage purveyor, even as he was a power broker on the Banking Committee that regulates the industry. When the news broke, the Senator first denied that he sought or expected preferential treatment. He later admitted that he knew he was considered a VIP at the firm but claimed he thought it was "more of a courtesy." He also promised the Connecticut press that he'd come clean with the documents and details of the loans. But six months later -- nada, zip, nothing.

The rest of the press corps may have moved on, but we'd still like to know. All the more so because former Countrywide Financial loan officer Robert Feinberg told us last fall that Mr. Dodd knowingly saved thousands of dollars on his refinancing of two properties in 2003 as part of a special program for the influential. Mr. Feinberg also reported that he has internal company documents that prove Mr. Dodd knew he was getting preferential treatment as a friend of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's then-CEO, and Mr. Feinberg has offered to provide those documents to investigators.

Dodd Bedfellows

Just before Mr. Dodd made his promise, Bank of America closed its acquisition of Countrywide and Mr. Dodd has continued to oversee BofA and the rest of the mortgage industry as Chairman of Senate Banking. He will now play a lead role in drafting legislation affecting the very business that gave him preferential treatment, yet he still refuses to release the mortgage documents that would illuminate this treatment. As the Senate Ethics Committee examines this case, Mr. Dodd's office reports that he is cooperating with the investigation and that he still intends to make good on his six-month-old pledge. But nothing in the Senate ethics process prevents Mr. Dodd from coming clean with the public whenever he wishes.

We suspect there's at least one habit of the 110th Congress that won't change in the 111th: The Members think they can get away with anything -- and usually do.

This is, of course, the same Chris Dodd who was neck-deep in the Enron scandal, as clearly detailed by Dick Morris in 2002.

I suppose, therefore, that we shouldn't be surprised by the decision of most media (with the notable exception of WSJ) to look the other way as Dodd continues to stonewall the information regarding his deal with Countrywide. 

After all, if you can get away with Enron, this is just small potatoes.

How sweet it is to be a Democrat.  You have a firewall between your actions and any accountability. 

Just ask Chris Dodd (D-CT).


Ken Berwitz

By now you have heard, probably numerous times, that Israel fired a missile into a school and dozens of civilians (presumably children among them) have been killed or injured.

The world community is aghast.  How can those Israelis be so barbaric?  They are lower than low.


The "school", like other schools, and mosques, and community buildings, was specifically being used to stockpile weapons and fire them at Israel. 

In other words, hamas was using its people at human shields in the hope that, given a choice, Israel would rather allow its own people to be attacked than to fire on a "school", kill civilians, and suffer the propaganda catastrophe it would create.

Most of the time they're right. In this military operation they aren't.  

Here is a nice summary of what happened from Noah Pollack:

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Hamas Wired School to Explode!

Noah Pollak on the Gaza school incident in which school children were killed:

Allow me to propose a metric for evaluating whether a journalist is behaving responsibly or not: If he reports that Israel bombed a UN school and killed 30 civilians, he is irresponsible. If he reports that Hamas used a UN school as a weapons cache and base of operations for launching mortars at the IDF, and the IDFs return fire killed the Hamas cell along, tragically, with a yet-unspecified number of civilians, then he is behaving responsibly. If he wishes to be particularly scrupulous, he might additionally note that Hamas had rigged the school with explosives which detonated after the IDF took out the mortar team, killing a large additional number of civilians. And he might add that you can go to the IDFs Youtube channel to view footage from 2007 of Hamas using the very same school as a mortar-launching base.

Journalists who abjure reporting the vital details of this story should be called what they are activists masquerading as reporters.
I checked out his links.

From the Jerusalem Post:
Witnesses: Hamas fired from school
Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. The two spoke with The Associated Press by telephone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
The school grounds were being used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at troops stationed nearby, and the soldiers responded by firing mortars back, the army said. According to the IDF, the dead included members of the Hamas rocket cell, including senior operatives Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar.

Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there.
The UN is disputing the claim. But then, the UN is driving terrorists around in their ambulances.

The blog you just read provides a link to footage of the same "school" being used to fire missiles at Israel last year.  I urge you to click on it and see for yourself.

Next, we have Michelle Malkin's piece on the "school" attack with the same footage from Pollack's commentary:

Lead Story

About that Israeli strike on the UN school Updated

By Michelle Malkin    January 6, 2009 12:14 PM

Scroll for updates

For context, watch this video from the UNRWA boys school in Gaza in 2007:

Terrorists from the Gaza Strip fire mortars from an UNRWA boys school in Gaza on 29 Oct. 2007. Hamas and other terror organizations in Gaza make deliberate use of civilians living in populated areas as human shields.

Heres another clip.

Fast forward to 2009:

An Israeli official says Palestinian militants fired on Israeli soldiers from the courtyard of a U.N. school where dozens of people died in fiery explosions.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he said the army is still drafting the countrys official response to the incident.

Palestinian medics said 34 people were killed in an Israeli strike outside a U.N. school in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya. The United Nations confirmed 30 were killed and 55 injured.

The Israeli official said hostile fire was directed at the soldiers from within the school. He said soldiers returned fire and multiple explosions went off, presumably emanating from munitions stored there.

Related: Hamas operatives are in the hospital and have disguised themselves as nurses and doctors, one official said.

Flashback - more human shield ploys: Ambulances for terror.


Lawhawk has more. So does Israellycool.

Update: The Israeli consulate has issued a statement:

Earlier today, upwards of 35 Palestinian civilians were reportedly killed in two unfortunate accidents in Gaza, one at a school run by UNRWA and the second at an apartment in Gaza City. These deaths are indeed a tragedy, and investigations are underway to ensure that further operations continue to avoid civilian casualties.

These initial investigations indicate that Hamas used the UNRWA school to fire at IDF forces, indicating once again that Hamas is more than willing to sacrifice Gaza citizens to promote terrorism. International law recognizes that the presence of civilians in an area of conflict does not delegitimize a military target. Israel and the IDF will continue to abide by these laws and to make every effort to avoid harming civilians in conducting further operations. We urge the international community to strongly condemn Hamass cynical exploitation of its citizens and firing of rockets, which remain the most effective way to ensure peace for Gazans and Israelis alike.

Update: Related video and analysis from Allahpundit here.

And more from Jim Hoft, who writes that IDF says the bodies of two Hamas jihadis were found at the school along with a missile launcher with anti-tank missiles.

Finally, I will post a short commentary from, which describes how the "neutral" humanitarian and media sources are treating this despicable set-up:

Wednesday, January 7, 2009


Hamas' use of the children and other innocents as human shields at the UN school got it desired effect yesterday.  They they fired mortars on Israeli troops, the troops returned the fire, and dozens of civilians died or were injured, along with the terrorists. There is a library full of evidence proving it isn't the first time Hamas has used innocents as human shields.
Hamas built armories in the basements of Mosques and schools, private homes and hospitals. They create their bunkers and weapons factories in crowded neighborhoods. All of this "construction" was done out in the public. Under the watchful eye of the UN as well as human right's organizations such as Amnesty,  Human Rights Watch (HRW), and B'tselem. 

Where was Ken Roth, head of Human Rights Watch when Hamas was violating international law and setting up children as human shields? He was busy trumping up accusations of collective punishment against Israel for defending herself.
How about Irene Khan the Secretary General of Amnesty International, surely she must have noticed that Hamas was "drawing targets" on hospital beds? No She was too busy blasting Israel for occupying Gaza, even though Israel left Gaza three years ago.
David Kretzmer and Gila Svirsky of B'tselem were too busy working on their annual report fabricating Palestinian civilian casualties to prevent any REAL civilian casualties. 
Where is the outrage? Why is no one complaining that these supposed Human Rights groups have chosen to distort international law, ignoring the real danger to Gaza civilians. 

The blood of the innocent women and children called out to these groups, but they fell on deaf ears, these organizations were too busy creating false charges and anti-Israel propaganda to notice the real human rights crimes.

Shame on you Ken Roth and HRW, Shame on you Irene Khan and Amnasty International, Shame on you David Kretzmer and Gila Svirsky of B'tselem. Their blood stain you just as if you killed these human shields with your own hands. YOU DID!
Ok.  There are the facts. 

At some point reasonable people must come to the conclusion that a) this is what hamas and their pals intentionally do and b) they have intentionally been doing it for a long time, not just this week:

Please remember how completely this story is being propagandized when you read the inevitable new condemnations of Israel's action against its enemy.  And don't expect them to be any more accurate than the "school" attack story is.


Ken Berwitz

I didn't think hapless harry reid could be so egotistical and so imbecilic that he would make this big a fool of himself twice in one day. 

But I was wrong.  Making a fool of himself seems to be the one thing he has a genuine talent for.

This morning reid reversed his stand of yesterday and agreed to seat Roland Burris as Barack Obama's replacement in the senate.

This afternoon reid declared unequivocally that Norm Coleman will not serve as a senator - regardless of whether he wins his court battle and is declared the winner in Minnesota.

Hard to believe, isn't it, that reid could be this ridiculous.  But here is the proof, straight from Josh Kraushaar of

January 05, 2009

Reid: Coleman will "never ever serve"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered the toughest language he has ever used in arguing that Norm Colemans career in the Senate is finished.

Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate, Reid told Politicos Manu Raju. He lost the election. He can stall things, but he'll never serve in the Senate.

Al Franken was declared the winner today by the states Canvassing Board in the closely-contested Minnesota Senate race, defeating Sen. Norm Coleman by 225 votes. Colemans campaign has said it is contesting the result, preventing Franken from receiving an election certificate until all the legal challenges are resolved.

Reid added that he will not be trying to seat Franken in the Senate on Tuesday.  When asked if Franken would be sworn in tomorrow, Reid said: "No."

In his victory statement today, Franken said he was ready to go to Washington and get to work just as soon as possible. But a Franken campaign spokesman said he has not yet made plans to travel to Washington.

Senate Republican leadership has threatened to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken before his victory is officially certified.

This, folks, is the man Democrats have made majority leader of the senate.

Hapless harry is the guy who had to reverse his idiotic position on Roland Burris this morning because it flew in the face of legal procedure.  And  his "learning curve" was to fly in the face of legal procedure again this afternoon regarding Norm Coleman.

Can there possibly be a worse choice for majority leader - or, for that matter, senator from Nevada - than this?


Ken Berwitz

What a difference a day made 
Twenty-four little hours 
Brought the sun and the flowers 
Where there used to be rain

The late, great Dinah Washington sang that so well.  Little did she know that she could have been singing it about Roland Burris.

According to CBS2News-Chicago, Mr. Burris, who was rejected for the US senate by hapless harry reid, dumbfounded dick durbin and their Democratic cohorts on the grounds of unacceptability just yesterday, apparently will be seated today:

Senate Democrats Plan To Accept Burris

Blagojevich's Senate Pick Meets With Reid, Durbin

WASHINGTON (CBS) - Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat.
Burris was scheduled to meet Wednesday with the Senate's top two Democrats -- Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and assistant leader Dick Durbin of Illinois -- on Wednesday, a day after his paperwork was rejected at the opening of the 111th Congress.

Senate officials in both parties, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for Senate members, said there is a growing expectation on Capitol Hill that the saga will end with Burris being seated.

Burris was selected by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in late December, and went to the U.S. Capitol for the swearing-in ceremony on Tuesday, but he was denied access to the Senate floor.

After going to the Capitol Tuesday, Burris, who introduced himself as the "junior Senator from the State of Illinois," told reporters outside the Capitol in Washington: "I presented my credentials to the Secretary of the Senate and was advised that my credentials are not are in order, and I will not be accepted, and will not be seated, and will not be permitted on the floor," Burris said. "Therefore, I am not seeking to have any kind of confrontation. I will consult with my attorneys on what my next step will be."

Burris's attorney, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the Secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter."

Blagojevich shocked Democratic leaders by appointing Burris to finish the final two years of Obama's six-year term in the Senate just three weeks after the governor was arrested on corruption charges in what federal prosecutors said was a scheme to sell or trade Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Blagojevich denies the accusations and has yet to be indicted. There has been no indication that Burris was involved in the alleged scheme, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Democrats have repeatedly said the issue is Blagojevich, not Burris' qualifications.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Rules Committee, told reporters Tuesday evening that Burris should be seated.

"If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America," the California Democrat said. "Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been attorney general, he has been controller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled."

So what do you figure happened?

-Did Mr. Burris become more qualified overnight?

-Did rod blagojevich become legally able to appoint him overnight?

-Did Illinois secretary of state Jesse White's certification become legally irrelevant overnight?

The answers, in order, are:  no, his qualifications were the same yesterday as they are today; no, his appointment was as legal yesterday as it is today; no, White's certification was just as legally irrelevant yesterday as it is today.

Hmmmmmmmmm.  There must be something that changed, mustn't there?

Well, here are two things: 

1) Roland Burris threatened legal action.  And, since there is absolutely no legal basis for rejecting him, it would make reid look as hapless, inept and stupid as he is; 

2) Democratic senator Feinstein jumped ship, demanded that Mr. Burris be seated and pointed out that, if he is not, it will affect the legality of every other Governor to appoint senate replacements (like Paterson of New York, maybe?????).

Could those factors have had something to do with it?  Doh.

Let's review: 

-Barack Obama is going to become President.  This leaves his senate seat open;

-Mr. Obama's seat can be filled either by Governor blagojevich appointing a replacement or the state legislature authorizing a special election;

-The state legislature, which is run by Democrats, declined to authorize a special election.  Presumably it did so out of fear that, because of the scandals associated with blagojevich and other Democrats, a Republican might win;

-This left Governor blagojevich solely responsible for appointing a senate replacement;

-blagojevich is under suspicion for lots of wrongdoing, very much including an attempt to "sell" the senate seat in return for major personal benefit.  However, he has not been so much as indicted for, let alone tried and convicted of, anything at all.  In the eyes of the law he is as legitimate as any other Governor in the US;

Democrats were in a real bind. If they allowed the election (which would obviously have been the best idea, since it gives the people their choice) a Republican might have won.  So forget that; the people be damned.

On the other hand, they did not want blagojevich's selection for the senate as a political albatross around their necks.

With this in mind, hapless harry, dumbfounded dick and their pals cooked up the idea of no election AND no appointed replacement - unless they got to dictate who the appointed replacement would be.

The result?  They looked even more hapless, inept and stupid than before - which is no small accomplishment.  And it became clear, even to this dense-as-asbestos bunch, in just one day.

So suddenly Roland Burris - the same Roland Burris who was turned away, George Wallace-style, by hapless harry on Tuesday - is going to be a senator on Wednesday.

Like the song says, "what a difference a day made".

steve schneider my favorite part of this was the shameless hypocrisy of the democratics. at the same time they were saying they couldn't seat burris because he lacks a certificate from the secretary of state they were calling for al franken to be seated despite his lack of the same certificate. today the great harry reid said that coleman would never be seated. although i believe franken will eventually get the certificate( by way of shenanigans well documented by you) wouldn't it be great if coleman won his case and it was he who received the certificate. steve (01/07/09)


Ken Berwitz

Well, there's at least one person who isn't seeing Barack Obama as a Messiah.

Here are the particulars, from the Associated Press:

Report: Al-Qaida No. 2 blames Obama for Gaza fight

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader lashed out at President-elect Barack Obama in a new audio message Tuesday, accusing him of not doing anything to stop Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip, according to an intelligence monitoring center.

The recording purportedly by Ayman al-Zawahiri was al-Qaida's first comments on the Gaza crisis since Israel launched its offensive against the Islamic militants of Hamas on Dec. 27.

In the comments, which were posted on a militant Web site and obtained by the SITE Monitoring Service, al-Zawahiri described Israel's actions in Gaza as a "crusade against Islam and Muslims" and called it "Obama's gift to Israel" before he takes office later this month.

"This is Obama whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America," al-Zawahiri said, according to SITE. "He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection."

Al-Zawahiri, who is Egyptian, also criticized Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, calling him a "traitor" for keeping Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip closed since Hamas seized power.

"At the time when Israeli planes drop their bombs from the air, he closes the borders with his forces so that the plan of the killing of believers in Gaza is fulfilled," al-Zawahiri said, according to SITE.

He urged Egyptians and Muslims around the world to pressure Mubarak into opening the border and to take a more active role in fighting Israel.

Thousands of people in cities worldwide have held mass street demonstrations to protest Israel's offensive, but al-Zawahiri said those were not enough.

"Fight the Zionist Crusader campaign," al-Zawahiri said, according to SITE. "Strike its interests everywhere you can reach them. Support and back your mujahedeen brothers and children against them."

The audio message was accompanied by a still photograph of the al-Qaida leader sitting with a gun in his lap.

The recording could not be immediately verified, but SITE said it was posted on Web sites commonly used by Islamic militants. The recording also carried the logo for al-Qaida's media production house, Al-Sahab.

No one said it would be easy.  But I wonder if Mr. Obama expected to be blamed for Israel's action in Gaza -- two weeks before his inauguration.

Barack Obama is going to become President of the United States.  Therefore, he's going to be blamed for everything, regardless of facts, logic or sanity. 

I hope he gets used to it.  Just like George Bush did.


Ken Berwitz

Ezra Levant is a brilliant thinker, brilliant writer, and a guy who made Canada's Kangaroo, I mean Human Rights Tribunal look like the frauds that they are.  I think the world of him.

Here is Mr. Levant's perspective on what is happening in Gaza, and whether certain parties have the moral ground to criticize it:

Reality check on Gaza

The Israeli war against Hamas terrorists in Gaza begs the question: what should a sovereign state do in response to terrorists?

Well, we could listen to anti-Israel words. Or we could listen to deeds.

For example, we could look at how Russia dealt with its Islamist threat in Grozny. In the mid-nineties, Russia basically shelled the city until it turned to rubble -- killing 27,000 Chechens. Oh -- and that was just one of three Russian attacks on the city. You can tool around on Google maps, satellite view, and still see flattened areas of the city. I'm sure the United Nations General Assembly is just polishing up the wording on their resolution to condemn Russia right now.

How about Sri Lanka? Their civil war with the terrorist Tamil Tigers has cost 70,000 lives. When will Sid Ryan and CUPE* call for a ban on Sri Lankan academics?

Or how about the French? How about their own tangle with Arabs, in the case of Algeria? 150,000 dead?

But we need not go that far back. How about the first Gulf War, in which Canada participated? Depending on who you ask, between 20,000 and 200,000 Iraqis died.

Or, my favourite yardstick of over-reaction: Canada's October Crisis**, where a handful of bombs going off in mailboxes and a couple of kidnappings was enough for the Liberals to put tanks in the street and suspend civil liberties in the whole country. Geez, what would Trudeau have done if actual rocket attacks had been launched, Gaza-style?

My point isn't to disparage any of the above military missions, though some were clearly excessive. My point is to compare the dainty approach taken by Israel -- which actually mass-dials Palestinian cell phones in advance of attacks, warning civilians to get out of the way -- with the brutal approach taken by other countries, especially Israel's critics.

I haven't even mentioned China's approach to Tibet or East Turkmenistan, let alone the response by other Arab countries to Islamists, like the massacre in Hama, Syria, where that city was surrounded and just shelled and shelled until 40,000 people -- about a quarter of the population back then -- were killed. By their own government.

The idea of any other country in the world -- including the very ethical U.S. -- acting as carefully as Israel in combat is unthinkable. (When the world saw the U.S. "shock and awe" attacks that opened the 2003 Iraq War, the global response was amazement and admiration, not human rights complaints.) And the thought that Arab nations, or dictatorships like China, would have any advice worth listening to, is execrable. 

Usually I have follow-up remarks when I post someone else's commentary.  But not this time.  Mr. Levant has said it all.


* Canadian Union of Public Employees

**In October 1970, two cells of the Front de Libration du Qubec (FLQ), a revolutionary organization promoting an independent and socialist Quebec, kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec Justice Minister Pierre Laporte. Armed forces were sent into Quebec to help the police and the federal government invoked the War Measures Act, temporarily suspending civil liberties. (from

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, 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!!