Sunday, 08 February 2009

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COUNTRY APPEASES RADICAL ISLAM?

Ken Berwitz

Here, from Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com, is the answer to that question. 

Biggest Terror Threat Comes From UK

February 8th, 2009

From the UKs Telegraph:

CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US

Barack Obama has been warned by the CIA that British Islamist extremists are the greatest threat to US homeland security.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
07 Feb 2009

American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.

They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.

Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.

A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain

The CIA has already spent 18 months developing a network of agents in Britain to combat al-Qaeda, unprecedented in size within the borders of such a close ally, according to intelligence sources in both London and Washington.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who has advised Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably al-Qaedas best mechanism for launching an attack against North America

"Around 40 per cent of CIA activity on homeland threats is now in the UK. This is quite unprecedented."

Information gleaned by CIA spies in Britain has already helped thwart several terrorist attacks in the UK and was instrumental in locating Rashid Rauf, a British-born al-Qaeda operative implicated in a plot to explode airliners over the Atlantic, who was tracked down and killed in a US missile strike in November.

But some US intelligence officers are irritated that valuable manpower and resources have been diverted to the UK. One former intelligence officer who does contract work for the CIA dismissed Britain as a "swamp" of jihadis

The dramatic escalation in CIA activity in the UK followed the exposure in August 2006 of Operation Overt, the alleged airline bomb plot.

The British intelligence official revealed that CIA chiefs sent more resources to the UK because they were not prepared to see American citizens die as a result of MI5s inability to keep tabs on all suspects, even though the Security Service successfully uncovered the plot.

MI5 manpower will have doubled to 4,100 by 2011 but many in the US intelligence community do not think that is enough.

For their part, some British officials are queasy that information obtained by the CIA from British Pakistanis was used to help target Mr Rauf, a British citizen, whom they would have preferred to capture and bring to trial

Probably none of this should have been made public.

Still, it sure is chilling. Though it is not any too surprising, given recent history both here and over there.

Hopefully, the ACLU and CAIR will ride to the rescue of these innocents. And protect them from the CIA and their detestable racial profiling.

After all, protecting the enemies of our country is their job.

Read it and think, long and hard, about whether this can be our future. 

Then keep an eagle eye on how this administration operates.  Let's hope Mr. Obama thinks long and hard about it too.

free` After reading reports like this>> By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4. <<<< and reading how Obama has called off all trials of the enemies we have at GITMO, I can believe that is exactly what is in our future. (02/08/09)


GUEST COMMENTARY: MELANIE PHILLIPS ON BARACK OBAMA'S FIRST TWO WEEKS IN OFFICE

Ken Berwitz

Here, from the London Spectator, is Melanie Phillips' take on the new Obama administration. 

I don't agree with 100% of Ms. Phillips' views, but I agree with most of them.  See what you think:

America -- what have you done?

Saturday, 7th February 2009

President Obama has had, by general consent, a torrid First Fortnight. To put it another way, it has taken precisely two weeks for the illusion that brought him to power to be exposed for the nonsense that it so obviously was. The transformational candidate who was going to sweep away pork-barrel politics, lobbyists and corruption has been up to his neck in sleaze, as eviscerated here by Charles Krauthammer. Despite the fact that he came to power promising to ban all earmarks, his stimulus bill represents billions of dollars of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections -- which have nothing to do with kick-starting the economy and everything to do with favouring pet Democrat causes.

He has been appointing one tax dodger, lobbyist and wheeler-dealer after another. After appointing one official,Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had unaccountably forgotten to pay his taxes, he then watched his designated Health Secretary Tom Daschle fall on his sword because he too had taken a tax holiday. Daschle was furthermore a prominent actor in the world of lobbying and influence-peddling. Leon Panetta, Obamas nominee for Director of the CIA has also, according to the Wall Street Journal, consulted for prominent companies and sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. The Weekly Standard reports that Secretary of Labour nominee Hilda Solis was not only involved with a private organization lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she helped sponsor, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.

In foreign policy, Obama has started by trashing his own country through grossly misrepresenting its history and grovelling to Americas enemies such as Iran, which has flicked him aside with undiluted contempt.  He has gratuitously upset Americas ally India by suggesting that America should muscle in and resolve the Kashmir question.

His right hand doesnt seem to know what his left hand is doing. He reportedly asked retired Marine General Anthony Zinni to be US ambassador to Iraq, but then abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation after it had been confirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the precise role he is offering Dennis Ross special envoy to Iran? Special adviser to Hillary? Special adviser to other special advisers? remains mired in confusion.

I have argued before however that, given Obamas radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the undermining of Americas fundamental values that is likely to be this Presidents most strategically important goal. I have also suggested that, since this agenda is promoted through stealth politics which gull the credulous middle-classes while destroying the ground upon which they are standing, his second-tier appointments should be closely scrutinised.

And heres a humdinger. Obama has picked a man called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values.  As FoxNews reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children's Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18. 

The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:

In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ...

In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified -- because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:

There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.

And how did the 44th President react to the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of the pram -- or perhaps that should read, he got into the pram. For he fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds instead. As the Telegraph reported:

We were just tired of being in the White House, he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman and reading them a book.

Tired of being President after two weeks!

Tax cheats, pork-barrel politics, ancillary child abuse, incompetence, chaos, treachery and infantilism. America what have you done?!

Sadly, every indication is that Barack Obama is in way, way over his head. 

I certainly hope I'm wrong about this (though that hope seems more and more distant with each passing day).  Because, if he is, it will be the people around him - the Pelosi's and Reids, for example - who will be running the country.

God help us.


CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO: IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, DELETE 'EM

Ken Berwitz

It's not like liberal/left talk radio hasn't had a chance.  It has had many chances.  Air America is among the most notable, but there have been plenty more than that.

It is that liberal/left talk radio doesn't do well.  With few exceptions it does not generate enough of an audience to be profitable.  That is why so many station owners who tried it eventually dropped it.

So what do you do when your opponent continues to beat the gazongas off of you in the ratings?  You try to get your opponent off the air, or at least neutralized, based on something other than what people actually want to listen to. 

With that in mind, here is Brian Maloney's latest commentary from www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com.  It is excellent:

Bill Press Wants Government To Regulate Talk Radio

PRESS-ING CENSORSHIP

In Op-Ed, Libtalker Pushes Talk Radio Regulation
Calling free speech on the airwaves a mere "failed experiment" from the Reagan era, libtalker Bill Press is using today's Washington Post Op-Ed section to call for government regulation over American talk radio content.

Unhappy over the collapse of Washington's ratings-challenged OBAMA 1260-AM, resulting in a format change that's expected tomorrow, Press is decrying the overwhelmingly-conservative state of talk radio, both locally and nationally.

Using rhetoric similar to Obamists who are pushing for a government-led free speech crackdown, he claims the airwaves lack "diversity" because commercial talk leans to the right. Not mentioned in the piece is the apparently-secret existence of NPR, where Obama is seemingly revered as god-like on a daily basis.

As evidence of unfairness, Press cites the District of Columbia's population, where "Democrats outnumber Republicans 10-to-one". As a host himself, however, it's hard to believe he doesn't realize that talk radio's traditional audience base has always been in suburbs and rural areas, not the inner city. That's the case across the nation.

In the District itself, a variety of FM formats fill that niche, between Urban outlets, rock and pop stations, college radio and of course, public broadcasting, with its left-leaning news and talk programs.

From his piece:
If you're looking for a break from those conservative voices that dominate talk radio, take time out today to listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM. You'll hear the progressive voices of Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lionel -- or, during morning drive, my own "Bill Press Show" -- providing welcome relief from the constant Obama-bashing by Rush Limbaugh and others. Unfortunately, today's the last day you'll be able to do so.

As reported by The Post [Style, Feb. 2], Dan Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting Co., owner of OBAMA 1260, has announced plans to jettison all progressive talk and replace it with pre-recorded financial advice programming.

The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that's not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For the past two years, OBAMA 1260 -- even with a weak signal that cannot be heard in downtown Washington -- was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our nation's capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air.
Here, Press cites "successful" examples of liberal talk radio, using it to build the case that a "conservative media conspiracy" is preventing its success elsewhere:
Why? Station owners complain they can't get good ratings or make any money with progressive talk, but that's nonsense. In Minnesota, independent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF (950 AM) profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM, 92.1 FM, just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1. Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more than hold their own in ratings -- and make money for their stations.
Yes, liberal talk has worked in a few of these places, mostly far-left college towns. Portland is unusually radical politically, so it's no surprise that it has succeeded there. But Clear Channel gave libtalk several years to find an audience in many major cities and it went absolutely nowhere.

One market Press cites is Providence,
where WHJJ-AM took a disastrous ratings tumble when it dumped a successful conservative format for Air America's programming. Signal strength was not an issue. So why should any station owner in Rhode Island run programming that has already been rejected by the public?


The former CNN host doesn't stop with mere whining, however: he alleges a "conspiracy" to keep his comrades off the air:
For years, the Fairness Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance in programming.

That experiment has failed. There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.
But the sad truth, as we've covered many times here, is that today's radio execs lean almost exclusively to the left. If they could get away with dumping Rush and Hannity, they'd do so in a flash. If there was really a conspiracy, conservatives would not so often be forced to lock horns with broadcasting's corporate suits.

Clearly, Press is following up on the recent calls by a number of Democrats in Congress, including Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI),
who just a few days ago made a similar plea for government regulation of free speech in American broadcasting.

Especially interesting is how Press admits that fellow libtalker Ed Schultz will be the one survivor of OBAMA 1260-AM's failure, which he calls an effort "to mollify critics".

Why Ed's program as opposed to Bill's? It's no accident: while Schultz has sought to emulate some of the characteristics of successful conservative talk radio, such as incorporating some entertainment value, Press has not. He's just a bitter whiner.

And it's just downright disingenuous to cite Michael Smerconish as an example of DC's conservative talk stranglehold,
given his public endorsement of Obama for president.


One element of conservative success not often seen in its liberal counterpart is good old-fashioned hard work. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other popular syndicated talkers spend an incredible amount of time every day, including weekends, prepping for their programs, while some on the left have treated their shows as mere stepping-stones to more frequent cable talk appearances.

Now that she has a full time TV gig, that's exactly what Air America's Rachel Maddow has done:
dumped her radio show. Conservatives, however, know that radio is actually the more powerful medium when it comes to real, long-term national influence.

Press, for one, has a nasty habit of frequently taking time off from his own program, most likely to pursue other activities. That may work for him, but what about potential affiliates? Why should they commit to him, when his own enthusiasm is so minimal?

We know where this is going:
the left is slowly building the case for an Obamist-led crackdown on the airwaves. But to those in the Democratic Party who believe mowing over conservative talk radio will be easy, guess again: the Barack-lash will be unprecedented.

Like the title of this blog says, "if you can't beat 'em, delete 'em. 

Evidently it is the only way the left can win the talk radio battle, so that's the way it is going to play. 

It will be interesting (and more than a little scary) to watch this censorship attempt unfold.


THE TEN DOLLAR SECURITY SYSTEM

Ken Berwitz

From my west coast pal Russ:

A TEN-DOLLAR HOME SECURITY SYSTEM

 
1.  Go to a second-hand store and buy a pair of
men's work boots, used, size 14-16.  - $2.00
 
     

2.  Place them on your front porch, along with a
copy of Guns & Ammo Magazine.  Magazine - $3.00
 
     

3.  Put a few giant dog dishes next to the boots and
 the magazine.   - $5.00
 
     

4.  Leave a note on your door that reads

 

'Hey Bubba, Big Jim, Duke and Slim,

I went for more shotgun shells and to pick my check up from the slaughterhouse.  I should be back in an hour. 
     
Don't mess with the Pit Bulls--don't know what got into them, but they attacked the mailman this morning and messed him up real bad.
 
I don't think Killer took part in it but it was hard to tell from all the blood.  Anyway, I locked all four of 'em in the house. Better wait out here on the porch.'

'Cooter

 

free` Hahahahahhaa (02/08/09)


ASHLEY JERKK THROWS INTELLIGENCE TO THE WOLVES

Ken Berwitz

Why do so many hollywood movie stars do this?  Why do they open those mouths and show what idiots they can be? 

Is it because they are so unused to people telling them "no", that their hubris level goes into overdrive?  Do they really think their celebrity status as entertainers makes them experts on everything else?

The latest example is Ashley Jerkk....er, Judd.  I'll let Tim Graham of www.newsbusters.org take this one without further comment, because he says it very well and doesn't need any help from me:

Some Humanitarian: Ashley Judd Hates Shooting Wolves, But Favors Partial-Birth Abortions

So the pulchritudinous actress Ashley Judd is starring in a new advertising campaign by the group Defenders of Wildlife against Gov. Sarah Palin for promoting "the brutal aerial killing of wolves." Palins accused of "casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife." Viewers are urged to help stop Palins "senseless savagery."

Last year, Judd appeared on a panel of the Clinton Global Initiative  and promoted her pro-abortion agenda. She declared to our gang at CNSNews.com that "a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." So lets get this straight. According to the humanitarian ethics of Ashley Judd, Sarah Palin shouldnt allow wolves to be shot from an airplane, but she should allow human babies to have their skulls vacuumed out and killed in a partial-birth abortion. Who here is in favor of "senseless savagery" again?

This actress-playing-a-scientist makes no attempt to engage in any "sense" on the other side. Shes for letting the lovable wolves live. But the wolves are being killed to increase the moose and caribou population. If she was against "senseless savagery," why is she pro-wolf? Its pretty funny that a group called "Defenders of Wildlife" is completely in favor of wolves slaughtering caribou. Theyre defenders of wildlife from humans, but they love all wildlife indiscriminately enough to completely avoid the issues of how animals savagely kill and eat each other.

Palin knows from personal experience that moose is an important food source for humans in Alaska, but Ashley Judd doesnt care about the humans in Alaska unless theyre buying movie tickets.


THE STEALFROMUS PACKAGE: DO WE NEED IT AT ALL?

Ken Berwitz

An interesting question, no?

Well, www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com has posted Congressional Budget Office data that seem to suggest we don't need it at all - that this will clear up on its own by the second half of 2009.

The post also links to a Washington Times article that suggests, based on CBO data, that the Steamfromus Package will actually hurt rather than help our recovery.

Here it is:

Sunday, February 08, 2009

CBO Predicts Recession Will End in 2009 Without Stimulus

The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the current economic recession will end in the second half of 2009 without the trillion dollar stimulus.
From
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 (pdf):

CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II. (The longest such recessions otherwise, the 19731974 and 19811982 recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the current recession were to continue beyond midyear, it would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBOs estimates, economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potentialthat is, the level of output that would be produced if the economys resources were fully employed (see Figure 1). This ecession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment rate. That rate, in CBOs forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 19811982 recession.
The Congressional Budget Office even says the Obama Stimulus will actually hurt, not help, the economy.

The CBO (
Table 2, page 12) also predicts that the GDP will drop to 14,224 Billion in 2009. This is 1.9% or $63 billion drop from 2008:

Click to Enlarge
And, Democrats want to pass a trillion dollar Spendulus bill to fix this?
Please note that I do not know when these CBO data came out.  If they are, for example, a half year old, this would be pretty meaningless since it would not take our current financial meltdown into account. 
But if the data are recent - i.e. they do take the financial meltdown into account - it is one helluva good argument against this legislation.
 
What do you think?


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!!