Thursday, 22 January 2009


Ken Berwitz

The following story describes a scandal of unspeakable proportion.  It comes to us from the Associated Press, via

Senate Democrats move toward seating Franken

Wed Jan 21, 6:28 pm ET

WASHINGTON It's no joke: Senate Democrats are moving toward letting comedian Al Franken join the chamber while Republican Norm Coleman's election lawsuit is pending.

"We're going to try to seat Al Franken," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Wednesday, a few hours before he posed with Franken for photos just off the Senate floor. "There's not a question in anyone's mind, an assertion by anyone, that there's been any fraud or wrongdoing in this election."

Coleman's lawyers are challenging the results of the election and the re-count in a trial set to begin in state district court on Monday. A three-judge panel that will hear the case is considering Franken's argument to dismiss it altogether.

Franken finished the re-count ahead by 225 votes. But Coleman's campaign said it will push for a review of all 12,000 absentee ballots that were not counted in the race. Coleman's attorneys said the new proposal could bring as many as 7,000 ballots to the race.

Reid did not say when Franken would be seated provisionally, but he said the two were meeting to hash out the agenda and Franken's committee assignments.

Not so fast, said Republicans.

"If Al Franken truly believes he won this election, he should respect the laws of his state and allow this legal review to be completed," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Minnesota has not certified al franken or Norm Coleman as its senator.  There are legal issues pending in the Minnestota courts which may result in thousands of ballots being added to the vote total.  


But hapless harry reid, the incompetent fool Democrats have installed as majority leader, has decided that the election is over -which it clearly is not.  And he has declared that no one doubts the election was on the up and up  - despite the fact that countless venues, including this blog, have chronicled how badly the recount stinks and how arbitrarily it was allowed to go forth, with no uniformity from district to district. 

The truth?  What you are seeing is a sickening attempt at dictatorial power by a man who thinks he and his party are above the law.   

This country voted for one-party governance.  And when you get one party governance, this is what happens. 

So settle back folks.  You have two years to "enjoy" the consequences before you can do something about it.   


Ken Berwitz

As regular readers are aware, I use the term "LAMB" to describe members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.  And LAMB's are certainly in ascendancy now that Barack Obama is President.

With that in mind, I thought I would show you the first looney-tune  theory of the new administration.  It comes to us from a truly classic LAMB web site,

Do you believe Justice Roberts bobbled the oath accidentally or was it intentional?


We are all human beings, all capable of making mistakes. And this is especially true in a pressure situation.

But sometimes you have to look at circumstances and wonder, "Was that really a mistake?" Perhaps, as fancy psychological experts will tell us, the subconscious may have more of an impact than we really give credit for, so we end up making mistakes in certain situations without consciously thinking about it.

Such was the scenario on Tuesday, say just after noon on Tuesday in Washington, DC. Two people, with the attention of the world, but only one of them leading the presentation. And that person
chose consciously or subsconsciously to work without notes.

Of course, we are speaking of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose role is to administer the oath to the incoming president of the United States.

The other major oath of the day went very smoothly. The senior Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, at 88, gave a pleasant oath that required way more words than Roberts had to struggle with.

But did Roberts bungle the oath on purpose? Or did he mess up subconsciously filled with emotion over having to administer the oath to Barack Obama? After all, Obama was one of 22 senators not to vote to confirm Roberts to the Court.

Regardless of political viewpoints, the pattern has been clear where extreme eight-wing justices don't put aside politics when ruling from the bench or conducting themselves in public. After all, then Chief Justice
William Rehnquist said to President Clinton in 1993 after swearing him in, "Good luck, you'll need it."

The Supreme Court later ruled that the Paula Jones case would not "distract" from the presidency, thus giving Ken Starr the opening he needed to set impeachment in motion.

And of course, Rehnquist, Scalia, et al went after every judicial precedent to declare in the most political decision to grant George W. Bush the presidency despite the likelihood that if all the votes were counted, Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, would be the winner.

The right-wing went nuts, even though Roberts was clearly at fault (and actually messed up the words a second time), portraying Barack Obama as illegitimate since the oath wasn't read properly. And it's not as if Roberts has to worry about job security. Roberts turns 54 on Tuesday in a lifetime job.

(The oath was retaken flawlessly but that won't be the lasting impact, especially among the right-wing.)

If you are willing to assume the possibility that perhaps it was an innocent mistake, consider that Stevens, a Republican selected by Gerald Ford, and 34 years older than Roberts, was flawless. Subconsciously or not, there is that possibility that there was some malice involved.

But let us know what you think? Was it an innocent mistake or was there more to it?

There you go.  Did Justice Roberts flub a couple of words on purpose on behalf of the "right wing" and to tweak a Senator who voted against him?  Or, put another way, did Justice Roberts intentionally make himself look bad in front of hundreds of millions of people around the world just to "get" Barack Obama?

This must be the first looney-tune theory, because it is about the first thing that happened when Mr. Obama became President.  So I congratulate Mark Karlin of for being a true pacesetter. 

And, knowing what I know as a regular reader of his site, I have little doubt that there is plenty more to come.


Ken Berwitz

President Bush's term of office ended at noon on Tuesday.  His actions during the transition of power ro President Obama were exemplary from start to finish.

This, according to,  is his goodbye from Speaker of the House nancy pelosi:

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.

No, Ms. pelosi, the ten pound anvil is what's IN your head, you absolutely useless, nasty, vindictive, vituperative, incompetent loser.

George Bush has more grace and maturity in his pinky-toenail than you have in your entire life.



Ken Berwitz

Question:  Now that Israel's attack on Gaza is (currently) ended and hamas is (currently) not firing the mortars and artillery at Israel which caused the attack, what wars will media report on?

Response:  Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, since those are the only other ones in progress.  Everybody knows that.  Why would you even ask that?  It's insulting.  We read the newspapers.  We watch the nightly news.  We're not ignorant.

Question:  Er, you really think those are the only two wars going on right now?

Response (with a sneer):  That's right.  If there were other ones, we'd be reading about them in the newspapers and seeing them on the network news.  What are you, a right wing tinfoil-hat nutjob?

Question (indulgently):  Well, if that's the case then what about these?

At this point I will post a compendium of some (not all) of the wars currently in progress.  I got it from, of all places,  See how many you've ever heard about from our wonderful "neutral" media:

Ongoing wars and conflicts around the world

Democratic Republic Of Congo

Kivu Conflict
2004 - Present
An armed conflict between the Military of the DR Congo and rebel forces of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), led by Laurent Nkunda. Despite a peace deal signed in January 2008, the rebel forces have restarted the conflict. Nkunda says he is fighting to protect his Tutsi community from attack by Rwandan Hutu rebels in DR Congo. All sides are accused of committing atrocities against civilians, including mass rape. Since the fighting started officials state 5.4 million people have been killed, and some 45,000 continue to die each month. Children account for almost half of the deaths, many dying from disease and malnutrition as a result of the conflict.


War in Dafur
2003 - Present
An ethnic and tribal conflict in the Dafur region of western Sudan. On the one side is the Sudanese Military and the militia group the Janjaweed. On the other side are rebel groups such as the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement. An accurate death toll has been difficult to state due to the government's attempts to cover up the conflict, but estimates state 450,000 deaths and 2.5 million people displaced. The UN Mission has accused Sudan's government of orchestrating "gross violations" and taking part in war crimes against the people in Dafur.


Civil War in Chad
2005 - Present
Ongoing conflict involving the Chadian government and rebel groups such as the United Front for Democratic Change. Because of the rebel group's affiliation with Janjaweed militias, the Chad War has largely become an extension of the conflict in Dafur. Sudan has been accused of involvement but denies allegations. Estimates of deaths and
casualties: over 400 Chadian forces and almost 700 rebel forces.


Somali Civil War
1988 - Present

It began with an insurgency against the repressive regime of dictator Siad Barre, who was ousted from power in 1991. The situation soon spread to a humanitarian crisis and a state of anarchy. The conflict has since led to a number of self-declared autonomous states within Somalia and order has still not been restored. According to human rights groups the Islamist-led insurgency that began in early 2007 has killed almost 9,000.


Lord's Resistance Army insurgency
1987 - Present
A Guerilla campaign by the Lord's Resistance Army waged against the Ugandan government. This is one of Africa's longest-running conflicts and has led to a severe humanitarian crisis, with the LRA accused of widespread human rights violations such as torture, rape, abduction of civilians, use of child soldiers and massacres. The estimated death toll is 12,000, with many more dying from disease and malnutrition as a direct result of the conflict.


Conflict in the Niger Delta
2004 - Present
Ongoing ethnic and political unrest. Nigeria's Delta region is home to vast oil reserves, making the country one of the world's largest oil exporters. Competition for oil wealth has fueled violence between a number of ethnic groups. Armed militia groups, such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, are dedicated to the struggle against what they see as exploitation of the region. The favoured tactics of armed rebels are sabotaging oil production and kidnapping foreign workers for ransom. The death toll is unknown.

Algeria, Mauritania and Morocco

Insurgency in the Maghreb
2002 - Present
Conflict waged against the government by the Islamist militia group the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, which has allied itself with the Al Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb. Insurgency is marked by terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings. Death toll 6,000 on both sides.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lankan Civil War
1983 - Present
Between the government and the Tamil Tigers, an armed separatist organisation which is fighting for the creation of an independent state named Tamil Eelam. It's one of the world's deadliest ongoing armed conflicts, killing 70,000 people since it began. 200,000 people have been displaced within the country.


The War in North-West Pakistan
2004 - Present
An armed conflict between the Pakistani Army and local Islamist militants the Taliban, as well as foreign extremists. The tensions stem from the Pakistani Army's search for members of Al Qaeda in the mountainous Waziristan area, which was met by armed resistance from local tribesmen. The death toll: 5,000 militants, over 5,500 civilians and 1,500 Pakistani soldiers.


Mexican Drug War
2006 - Present
An ongoing armed conflict between rival drug cartels and government forces. Mexico is the main supply route of Colombian cocaine entering the United States. As a result of government crackdowns, many cartels have been left without leaders, but this has led to violent power struggles between potential new leaders. Around 14,000 have been killed on both sides.


The Colombian Armed Conflict
1964 - Present
Ongoing guerrilla insurgency campaigns against successive Colombian governments ever since the organizations the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army were founded in the 60's. Estimates suggest that the conflict has claimed the lives of over 34,000 combatants and over 18,000 civilians.


Insurgency in the Philippines
1969 - Present
Double-sided insurgency against the government by both Islamist and Communist armed groups who carry out bombings, assassinations and abductions. The conflict has caused the deaths of over 160,000 since the start. Many of the militant groups are deemed "foreign terrorist organisations" by the US. Since the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002 (aimed at advising the Filipino army in combating
terrorism) just over 400 Filipino soldiers and almost 1,000 militants have been killed.


The Turkey-Kurdistan Workers Party Conflict 1970s - Present A conflict between the Republic of Turkey and armed ethnic separatist group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which says Turkey is denying Kurdish identity. Both the PKK and the Turkish army have been accused of committing human rights abuses throughout the conflict. According to the Turkish military, the conflict has resulted in the death of 32,000 PKK members, 6,482 soldiers, and 5,560 civilians.


Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
1989 - Present
Ongoing violence mainly on the Indian side of the disputed territory of Kashmir, caused by confrontation between Kashmiri separatists.
Human rights groups have labeled Kashmir as the most volatile region in the world, with an average of 2,500 incidents of militancy every year. The death toll is estimated to be over 60,000 since the conflict began.


South Thailand Insurgency
2004 - Present
A separatist campaign by Islamist rebels in Thailand's Southern provinces. There is almost daily violence including shootings and bombings, despite a massive military presence in the region. The true identity of the insurgents remains a mystery. Death toll: 3,500, including over 1,600 civilians.


Internal Conflict in Burma
1948 - Present
Low intensity armed conflict between the government and various ethnic groups who are against the military regime that has ruled the country since 1962. The uprisings began as soon as Burma gained independence from Great Britain in 1948. This is the oldest current conflict in the world. Over 7,000 people have been killed during anti-government uprisings.


Surprised?  You probably are.  And believe me, this isn't the full extent of things. 

Yet if you count on our media, all you know is that there is Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza (only because Israel, though justified in responding to hamas' attacks, disproportionately reacted to them and blew it into a real war.) 

Oh, and there is also the potential for an Israel/Iran confrontation, but Saint Barack can diffuse it just by chatting with ahmadinejad - no preconditions necessary. 

In other words, our wonderful "neutral" media have created the illusion that every war in the world is because of the USA and Israel.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

The story of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's sudden withdrawal from consideration as a senate replacement for Hillary Clinton is now confirmed.

Not surprisingly, there are countless news sources for this story.  But the one I've decided to post below embodies what may be the key problem with Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg's candidacy.  It comes to us from Marcia Kramer of CBS News.  I have put the phrase that caused me to choose Ms. Kramer's story in bold print:

Kennedy Drops Senate Bid For 'Personal Reasons'

Despite Conflicting Reports, Princess Of Camelot Informs Gov. Paterson She Is Withdrawing From Consideration

Cuomo, Suozzi, Maloney, Israel Catapulted To Head Of Pack

The Question Now Is Why Caroline Has Withdrawn From Contention


From front runner to out of contention. That's the course Caroline Kennedy has taken overnight. The question Thursday morning is why the Princess of Camelot has withdrawn her name from the highly publicized Senate bid.

There was complete confusion Wednesday night over whether or not Kennedy had in fact dropped her bid for Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat.

However, late Wednesday night Kennedy confirmed an earlier New York Post report by releasing a statement saying she is removing herself as a candidate for the now vacant New York Senate seat.

"I informed Gov. Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate," Kennedy said in a statement obtained by CBS 2 HD.

This should put an end to confusion surrounding her status. It started with numerous reports of Kennedy's withdrawal that later turned into a lot of 11th-hour back-pedaling.

Two sources, including one very close to Kennedy, told CBS 2 HD late Wednesday that the Post's earlier story may have been a mistake.

It was only Tuesday that New York Gov. David Paterson offered praise for both Kennedy and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

There were reports Wednesday night from CBS News, The Associated Press, the New York Times and the Post saying Kennedy has decided to take herself out of contention for the position.

But then The AP story changed as sources told the wire service Kennedy had renewed her determination to take on the position. Initially she had misgivings about the job after her surviving uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, suffered a seizure on Inauguration Day, the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak for Kennedy.

But that, as it turned out, was just one in a long line of stories.

"It's a dramatic story Caroline Kennedy out of the running we're told that Gov. Paterson had decided not to select her," said Fred Dicker, state editor of the New York Post.

The Post and Times offer different versions about why Kennedy reportedly decided to withdraw her name from consideration. The Times said it's concern over uncle Ted Kennedy's health. The Post's Dicker said it was because Gov. Paterson decided not to pick her.

"The governor got a lot of feedback from the political community and it was disappointing feedback about Caroline Kennedy," Dicker said.

Meanwhile sources tell CBS 2 HD that the governor apparently found something in Kennedy's background check that he didn't like. And members of the New York Congressional delegation told CBS 2 HD they complained to Paterson about Kennedy's lack of Washington chops.

Also Paterson emissaries apparently didn't get a good response when they asked if sitting congressmen would accept a non-elected official.

There are still many candidates on the governor's short list.

"Andrew Cuomo is clearly on the short list," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2 HD. "[Paterson] had indicated some favorable discussions toward Randi Weingarten. He's indicated to Congressman Israel, Congressman Maloney, so he had a long short list.

The list includes Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island and Rep. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of Hudson County, as well as Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi.

"The issue is who helps the Democrats in 2010 when all the Democrats -- newly empowered -- are up for election," political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said.

The governor is expected to announce his decision by Friday or Saturday.

As of this moment, we can only speculate about why Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg suddenly said "no".  But I suspect one reason that may have had a major impact involves that ridiculous "Princess of Camelot" line from the still-mesmerized Marcia Kramer.

Caroline Kennedy has always had an aura of tragedy and sympathy around her. People my age remember those beautiful pictures of her playing under the oval office desk while daddy JFK was tending to affairs of state.  She was a sweet, lovable little doll. 

Then the life she knew was tragically changed by the assassination of her father.  After that was the assassination of her Uncle Bobby, then her mother dying at an early age and, finally, her brother killed in an airplane crash.  Understandably, there was nothing but sympathy and well wishes from everyone.

Eventually Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg became an ivy league-educated lawyer.  She spent her adult years both raising a family and working for a variety of social causes.  Who could possibly have a bad word to say about that?

Now, however, Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg is a 51 year old woman who decided that, despite having no elective or appointive governmental experience, she wanted to be a US senator.  Out of nowhere. 

If Governor-by-chance David Paterson appointed her, it would be ahead of people like Andrew Cuomo, Carolyn Maloney and others who have worked long years in politics and paid their dues. 

Why would she want the US Senate, and be willing to leapfrog obviously more qualified people to get it?  Well, why not ?  Who ever said "no" to Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg about anything?  Who ever had a bad word to say about her?  Everything she has ever done has been with fawning adoration.  How could a move to the US Senate be any different?

And what could she offer Mr. Paterson?  Her family name and her limitless family fortune as resources for his 2010 election campaign, that's what.

Now for the bad news.

How did this look to the public?  It looked like the "Princess of Camelot" was buying her royal highness a senate seat she had no business getting.  Is this fair?  You tell me.........

Worse still, the people Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg was leapfrogging over had to be angry at her for doing so.  And, because they are experienced, connected politicians, they have plenty of pals in the media to use as outlets for expressing that anger. 

So suddenly, for the first time in her life, "Princess Caroline" was being attacked in the press.  I can't imagine this was easy to take.

Then her problems were exacerbated by the fact that she was refusing interviews.  There were comments that she avoided interviews because she couldn't handle them, and/or felt she would be embarrassed if asked to justify going straight into the senate from essentially nowhere.  Not good.  The pressure to be accessible to media became greater and greater.

So, because of that pressure  she did do interviews.  They were a disaster.  Next to Caroline, "y'know", Kennedy Schlossberg, Sarah Palin sounded like Eleanor Roosevelt incarnate.

At this point, I speculate, she realized that a lifetime of sympathy, deference and unconditional adoration was about to end.  Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg realized that she would not be hailed and heralded by a fawning media and loving voters, but rather snickered at as a rich lady who cynically, unfairly "bought" a political office. 

Maybe that is why she withdrew.  I certainly don't know for sure.  But I think it is a realistic possibility.  

What do you think?


Ken Berwitz

Here is a video compilation by Bette Bentley, an intern working with www,  It shows Diane (hic) Sawyer after what appears to be a few too many trips to the open bar on (hic) inaugural night.

Is she drunk?  Watch it and judge for yourself:




Maybe it's just me, but I think that if you were judging whether Barack Obama was more inaugurated or Diane Sawyer was more inebriated, you'd come away with a tie.

Is Ms. Sawyer embarrassed by this performance?  Hmmm, what a sobering thought.......


Ken Berwitz

It's time for another round of GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!

Here is a story about a six term member of the Alabama state senate.  He was convicted on 48 (not a typo) counts of corruption. 

Read it through.  Every word.  Then.....GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!

Alabama senator convicted on all charges

Associated Press - January 21, 2009 7:44 PM ET

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - A federal court jury in Birmingham has convicted state Sen. E.B. McClain and Jefferson County minister Samuel Pettagrue on all charges in a corruption case.

The jury returned the guilty verdict on all 48 counts late this afternoon.

McClain is a six-term legislator, but he will forfeit his office because of the conviction. The governor will have to schedule a special election to fill it.

Prosecutors said Pettagrue accepted nearly $760,000 in state grant money obtained by McClain to run a nonprofit foundation and then gave McClain more than $300,000 in kickbacks.

McClain said after the verdict that all of his dealings with the minister were above board.

U.S. Attorney Alice Martin says the conviction sends a message that politicians can't get away with putting public money in their pockets.

This article was written by the Associated Press.  Do you see any mention of party affiliation for E. B. McClain?

No you do not.  Nor would you if you read the Birmingham News article (McClain represents the Birmingham area)).

Now the big question:  Do you have any doubt at all that he is a Democrat?

Of course you don't.  Democrats are the ones who get a free ride on party affiliation.  Not Republicans.  That is the ongoing policy of our wonderful "neutral" media.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

Do you remember the Jenin massacre that wasn't?

In 2002, during the "second intifada", Israel determined that terrorist attacks were emanating from the Jenin area of the west bank, and went in to clean things up.  After they did, Palestinian Arabs claimed Israelis had massacred hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people.  The stories of Israel's outrageous atrocities went out via every news agency, and people across the world were outraged.

Except there was no massacre.  No one could produce video footage of it.  No one could produce the corpses. 

Eventually, the same people that made these claims had to suck it up and admit that only about 50 - 60 people people died -- most of them young men who were fighting the Israeli troops.

You'd think this would make these same news agencies a little gun-shy when reporting Palestinian Arab claims about Israelis killing innocent civilians in Gaza, wouldn't you?  Well, if so, you would be wrong. 

Read the following story from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, via Ha'aretz, and see for yourself.  Please pay special attention to the passages I've put in bold print:

Italian paper: Gazans say Hamas kept them in homes used by gunmen
By Haaretz Service
Palestinian civilians have accused Hamas of forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers during the recent hostilities in Gaza, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported Thursday.

More than 1,250 Palestinians were reportedly killed during Israel's offensive against Hamas in the coastal territory. Israel has been harshly criticized for the large number of civilians among the Palestinian dead, of whom they numbered more than half according Gaza officials.

ut the Italian paper also quoted a doctor at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital as disputing the number of Palestinians said to have been killed in the campaign.

"It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas - who sent them to their deaths," he said.

13 Israelis were also killed during the 3-week operation, which was aimed at halting rocket fire on southern Israel and destroying Hamas' infrastructure.

The Gaza doctor was further quoted as saying: "Perhaps it is like Jenin in 2002. At the beginning they spoke about 1,500 dead, and at the end it turned out to be only 54 - of whom 45 were militants."

He was referring to the Israel Defense Forces battle with Palestinian militants in the West Bank town that took place during Operation Defensive Shield at the height of the second intifada.

Top IDF officer: Hamas made 'monstrous' use of children during Gaza op

The IDF Gaza Division Commander on Thursday, meanwhile, branded Hamas' use of women and children during the offensive in Gaza as "monstrous" and "inhumane."

Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg said the civilians were sent by Hamas to transfer weapons to gunmen during the offensive. He also accused the Islamist militant group of booby-trapping many of the civilians' homes.

"Entire families in Gaza lived on top of a barrel of explosives for months without knowing," Eisenberg said.

The officer asserted that despite international calls for investigations into alleged war crimes, the Israel Defense Forces soldiers adhered to moral principles while fighting in Gaza.

Do you smell another fraud here?  I sure do.

I remember the Jenin lie very well.  I remember that the news media came up with exactly one "eye witness" willing to be quoted, who claimed he personally saw elements of the massacre. 

His name?  So help me god he said he was Kamal Anis.  Google that name and you can still read his "account" of the alleged atrocities.

Now, do yourself a favor.  Say Kamal Anis out loud and accent the first syllable both times.  What do you hear?

Yep, you got it.  These "brilliant" journalists were sold a phony bill of goods by someone who actually used the name CAMEL ANUS.

I wonder how many camel anuses they're currently listening to in Gaza....

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!!