Sunday, 22 February 2009


Ken Berwitz

I found this video at .  What a wonderful antidote for that unbalanced nut job with the angelina jolie obsession who now has 14 children under the age of 8 for California taxpayers to support.

This should give you a far different outlook - and make you smile from ear to ear:

From YouTube:

The Laughing Quadruplets


Ken Berwitz

This unsettling piece comes to us from John Hinderaker of  Read it and wonder how long it will be before they go back to what they do best:

Would-Be Terrorist Goes Free

Binyam Mohamed is being transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Great Britain by the Obama administration, where he will be let go. Mohamed is generally being characterized as a martyr due to his claim that after his arrest in Pakistan, he was sent to Morocco, where he was tortured. Whether this is true or not is impossible to say, based on the public record. Al Qaeda instructed its operatives, if captured, to make false claims that they were tortured. Whether this is an instance of such deception or Mohamed was actually abused while in Morocco, we simply don't know.

What we do know, as Tom Joscelyn points out, is that Mohamed was a dedicated member of al Qaeda who tried to carry out terrorist acts against the U.S.:

According to the U.S. government's allegations, Osama bin Laden visited the al Farouq camp "several times" after Mohamed arrived there in the summer of 2001. The terror master "lectured Binyam Mohamed and other trainees about the importance of conducting operations against the United States." Bin Laden explained that "something big is going to happen in the future" and the new recruits should get ready for an impending event.

From al Farouq, Mohamed allegedly received additional training at a "city warfare course" in Kabul and then moved to the front lines in Bagram "to experience fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance." He then returned to Kabul, where the government claims he attended an explosives training camp alongside Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber.

Mohamed was then reportedly introduced to top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. By early 2002, the two were traveling between al Qaeda safehouses. The U.S. government alleges that Mohamed then met Jose Padilla and two other plotters, both of whom are currently detained at Guantnamo, at a madrassa. Zubaydah and another top al Qaeda lieutenant, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, allegedly directed the four of them "to receive training on building remote-controlled detonation devices for explosives."

At some point, Padilla and Mohamed traveled to a guesthouse in Lahore, Pakistan, where they "reviewed instructions on a computer ... on how to make an improvised 'dirty bomb.'" ...

Zubaydah, Padilla, and Mohamed allegedly discussed the feasibility of the "dirty bomb plot." But Zubaydah moved on to the possibility of "blowing up gas tankers and spraying people with cyanide in nightclubs." Zubaydah, according to the government, stressed that the purpose of these attacks would be to help "free the prisoners in Cuba." That is, Zubaydah wanted to use terrorist attacks to force the U.S. government to free the detainees at Guantnamo.

According to the summary-of-evidence memo prepared for Mohamed's combatant status review tribunal at Guantnamo, Mohamed was an active participant in the plotting. He proposed "the idea of attacking subway trains in the United States." But al Qaeda's military chief, Saif al Adel, and the purported 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), had a different idea. Al Adel and KSM allegedly told Binyam that he and Padilla would target "high-rise apartment buildings that utilized natural gas for its heat and also targeting gas stations." Padilla and Mohamed were supposed to rent an apartment and use the building's natural gas "to detonate an explosion that would collapse all of the floors above."

It may have been this "apartment building" plot that Mohamed and Padilla were en route to the United States to execute when they were apprehended. In early April 2002, KSM allegedly gave Mohamed $6,000 and Padilla $10,000 to fly to the United States. They were both detained at the airport in Karachi on April 4. Mohamed was arrested with a forged passport, but released. KSM arranged for Mohamed to travel on a different forged passport, but he was arrested once again on April 10. Padilla was released and made it all the way to Chicago before being arrested once again.

The gravity of the charges against Mohamed is rarely reported in the media. The Bush administration and U.S. intelligence officials believed he was part of al Qaeda's attempted second wave of attacks on U.S. soil.

Andy McCarthy has more. Dozens of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have subsequently returned to terrorism and have been recaptured or killed. It is hard to see any reason to believe that Mohamed will not join them.

Remember the movie Ghostbusters?  Remember when a dedicated, but unbelievably arrogant and obtuse, EPA guy forces them to turn off the power grid necessary to contain all the ghosts?  Remember that it causes the chamber they're stored in to explode and the ghosts go flying out in every direction? 

That was a very funny scene in a very funny movie.  But this is a very unfunny parallel in a very unfunny situation.

The Obama administration is releasing dozens and dozens of al qaeda operatives; people whose purpose in life is to see our culture ended and us either under shari'a law.  We are "turning off the power grid" and allowing them to go on their merry ways.

And when we, or Israel, or one of the numerous other countries targetted by these people, are attacked?  Who will Obama and his cohorts blame it on?  Bush?

This is insane.

free` What Obama is doing as president should not be a shock to anyone. He is doing all the things he said while running for president. the majority of voters decided these would be good things, i guess we just have to live with it. If you are feeling discouraged think about this, if 1/3 of the people who didn't vote for Obama convince 1 person that did vote for him how dangerous he is and to vote for Republicans next time we will be able to stop what Obama wants to do. (02/22/09)


Ken Berwitz

The UN's first "anti-racist conference", held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, was little more than an Israel hate-fest.  Under President Bush, the US refused to participate in that despicable fraud.

Well, that was then and this is now. 

It is 2009, there is going to be another UN "anti-racist conference".  Its intent is exactly the same as the first.  But with the Obama administration in control, we are happy to aid and abet it.

Ann Bayefsky of Forbes Magazine has the particulars.  Although her article is longer than what I usually post here, I can't excerpt it because there is nothing I'd leave out.  Nor will I put any part in bold print, since every word is important.

Here it is:.

The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel
Anne Bayefsky 02.22.09, 11:48 AM ET

The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference has just taken a new twist: cover-up. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn't.

The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva "outline[d] our concerns with the current outcome document" and in particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism." One member of the delegation told The Washington Post: "The administration is pushing back against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference." In fact, tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.

Getting involved in activities intended to implement the 2001 Durban Declaration--after seven and a half years of refusing to lend the anti-Israel agenda any credibility--was controversial to be sure. But late on Saturday Feb. 14, the State Department slithered out a press release justifying the move. It claimed that "the intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading."

Following what was clearly a planned public relations exercise, Washington Post columnist Colum Lynch championed the U.S. bravado in an article based on the story orchestrated by the American delegates. In his Feb. 20 article entitled: "U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks," he fawned: "The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments ... to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April."

The reality, however, was nothing of the sort. Instead, Obama's Durban II team slipped easily into the U.N.'s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that "fitting in" was best accomplished by staying silent.

On Tuesday, the Palestinian delegation proposed inserting a new paragraph under the heading "Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives ... for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance..." with the subtitle "General provisions on victims ... of discrimination." The paragraph includes: "Calls for ... the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory." In other words, it claims that the Palestinian people are victims of Israeli racism and demands that all U.N. states provide protection from the affronts of the racist Jewish state.

Furthermore, the new Palestinian provision "Calls for ... implementation of international legal obligations, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall..." This is a dramatic attempt to change an "advisory opinion" into a "legal obligation"--a status which attaches to no advisory opinion. The ICJ decision, which advises that the Israeli security fence is illegal, has always been rejected by the United States--hitherto. And with good reason. The Egyptian judge had voiced his opinion on the result before the case was even heard, in his capacity as a leading Egyptian diplomat. The terms of reference from the General Assembly who asked for the decision, and the documents they laid before the Court, predetermined the outcome. And as the strong dissent by the American judge and Holocaust survivor Tom Buergenthal pointed out, the Court came to its preposterous conclusion that "the right of legitimate or inherent self-defense is not applicable in the present case" without considering "the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel is being subjected."

But when the Palestinian delegation laid their new proposal before the drafting committee, what did Obama's team do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They made no objection at all.

It is impossible to argue that their silence was unintended. Over the course of the week's negotiations the American delegation had objected to a number of specific proposals. They had no trouble declaring "we share reservations on this paragraph," in the context of a demand to criminalize profiling. They "called for the deletion" of provisions undermining free speech like the suggestion to "take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols."

Their silence when it came to Israel was, therefore, deafening. It also had the very concrete result of not placing the Palestinian paragraph in dispute, and the diplomatic rule of thumb is that paragraphs that have not been flagged as controversial cannot be reopened for discussion, as negotiations finalize an end product.

The Obama team was not only silent on the new "Israel is racist" language, it also said nothing when faced with Holocaust denial. Negotiators from the European Union suggested on Wednesday a new provision to "condemn without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end." Iran--whose president is a Holocaust-denier--immediately objected and insisted that the proposal be "bracketed" or put in dispute. The move blocked the adoption of the proposal and ensured another battle over the reality of the Holocaust in April--at these supposedly "anti-racism" meetings. After Iran objected, the chair looked around the room, expecting a response. He said: "Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn't seem the case. We move on." U.S. delegates said nothing, even after the prompt.

Again, the American silence must have been deliberate. In marked contrast, after the E.U. objected to a provision calling for limits on free speech, the American delegation had no trouble piping up immediately: "I want to echo the comments from the E.U. This ... call for restrictions is something that my government is not able to accept."

Evidently, a U.S. team bent on legitimizing Durban II believed it would be counter-productive to object vigorously to sections most likely to be noticed by Americans skeptical about participation in the conference. They must have figured that no objection would mean no controversy, which in turn would mean there would be no cause for complaint from U.S. observers. That's one way to buy favors on the international stage, but it sure doesn't forward a stated intention of changing the Conference direction. Nor does it promote the ultimate need to change the anti-Semitic and anti-democratic direction of global human rights policy.

The week's events also revealed that European negotiators have adopted the same strategy at Durban II that they did at Durban I. After the United States and Israel walked out of Durban I on Sept. 4, 2001, it was the European Union that cut the deal trading off a mention of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for a reference to Palestinians victims of Israeli racism. Likewise, this week the European Union said nothing in response to the Palestinian proposal but pushed the Holocaust reference instead. No matter that discrimination against the Jewish state, and against Jews for supporting the Jewish state, is the major form of anti-Semitism today.

The manipulation of Holocaust remembrance--knowing that Israel is the bulwark of the Jewish people against "never again"--is as cynical as it gets.

European Union delegates confirmed that their silence on the Palestinian proposal was deliberate, commenting off-camera that the references to Israeli racism had already been made in the Durban I Declaration, and the purpose of Durban II is to implement Durban I.

State department officials and U.S. delegates to Durban II's planning committee insist that their minds have not been made up. Friday's State department press release said "the United States has not made a decision about participating in the Durban Review Conference or about whether to engage in future preparations for the Conference, but the work done this week will be important information for taking these decisions." Similarly, The Washington Post reports, quoting an American delegate: "This is a fact-finding mission; it's just a first step ... Negotiations will probably resume in March or early April."

The strategy is painfully obvious--spin out the time for considering whether or not to attend the April 20 conference until the train has left the station and jumping off would cause greater injury to multilateral relations than just taking a seat.

The delay tactics are indefensible. The U.S. administration attended four full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following: the failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial, a new proposal to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without brackets, broad objections to anything having to do with sexual orientation, vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims), and numerous attacks on free speech.

This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms. It is legitimizing a forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction.

But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why?

If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible. His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.

Yes, this is the same Barack Obama who promised supporters of Israel that he was 100% with them.  Does it look like he is to you?

According to the exit polls, about 78% of all Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.  I hope they're happy with what they've got. 

Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I'm not.


Ken Berwitz

Read this piece by Rick Moran of, and thank your lucky stars that the electorate got it right - last time, anyway:

February 21, 2009

Our Keystone Cops Foreign Policy

Rick Moran

It appears that Barack Obama's foreign policy team is going to make us pine for the days of the Bush Administration's competency by comparison very soon.

I'm not sure what exactly this story illustrates except there doesn't seem to be anyone home at the White House yet. You may recall the hubbub over Senator Kerry being handed a letter that was from Hamas which he promptly turned over to the American consulate at his next stop which happened to be Jerusalem.

Well now Kerry swears he didn't know it was from Hamas (who did he think it was from, Santa Claus?) because it was "sandwiched among other promotional papers" from the UN. And the US is up in arms because (gasp!) the UN is tattling to Hamas about the schedule of
high level US personnel:

U.S. officials in Jerusalem are outraged at the United Nations Relief and Works agency for apparently handing the letter off to Kerry.

The official source who spoke to FOX News argued that if the U.N. had a letter from Hamas, it should have given U.S. officials a heads-up before the news was leaked to media organizations.

The Hamas official who wrote the letter confirmed to FOX News that he wrote Obama personally, asking him not to be biased toward Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and to act fairly. He also said Hamas is ready to talk directly to a new American administration. 

This Hamas official insists he had the backing of the group to write the letter, but it appears the official acted alone.

Kerry turned the letter over to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem on Friday and his spokesman told FOX News that the Democratic senator was not aware that the letter was from Hamas when he accepted it from an official with the U.N. relief agency.

Kerry told FOX News that he never read the letter because it was sandwich among other promotional papers the U.N. gave him. A State Department official confirmed to FOX News that it was from Hamas and is now under review.

A potential concern was whether such a letter would violate the United States' policy toward Hamas. Obama has said his administration will not engage in diplomatic talks with Hamas unless the group renounces terrorism and affirms Israel's right to exist.

In addition, a U.S. official said there were security issues with the letter. The official who spoke to FOX News said there is concern that Hamas had advance notice that Kerry was visiting, which may raise issues of trust with the U.N. on future diplomatic trips.

As bad as Bush was about some things, we should thank the lord every night when we hit our knees that John Kerry lost in 2004.

John Kerry is one of the longest-running embarrassments in the US Senate.  He has been a senator for over a quarter century, high-profile for virtually all this time, and we're still waiting for the first bill of any consequence that he has sponsored and seen through to passage.  That is a record of non-achievement which few can match.

What he has been good at doing, however, is talking down the USA every time we try to defend ourselves or show more than lip-service concern about our national security.

And Kerry was the guy who used weasel-words to imply that he was Irish for years and years, so that he could mine the large contingent of Irish voters in Massachusetts.  He did things like issuing proclamations on St. Patricks Day that started "Those of us of Irish heritage...".  '

As you either know by now or maybe knew already, Kerry doesn't have one drop of Irish blood in him; only a name that sounds Irish and can be used to fool voters.

Now he's being handed communiques from hamas and he goes into a Homer Simpson routine.  "Doh, how should I know who gave it to me?".

This man could have been President.  God help us.

Instead we got Barack Obama, who is using Kerry as if he were competent and/or useful to our foreign policy.  .

Can I get another God help us?  Thanks.

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!!