Thursday, 26 February 2009


Ken Berwitz

How many times does Jackass Joe Biden have to be wrong before mainstream media start nailing him?  Or is that -D after his name so much of a protective shield that it doesn't matter what he says?

I suppose I should know better than to think our wonderful "neutral" media will treat Vice President Biden with anything but kid gloves.  Not after it largely gave him a pass during the Vice President debate, when he completely misstated the responsibilities of the office he was running for.  But, silly me, I keep thinking that somehow, somewhere, media will start holding him to account.

Mr. Biden's latest display of abject ignorance concerns the job situation in Louisiana.  I'll let Fred Childers of tell you all about it:

Reality check for Vice President Joe Biden
Posted: Feb 25, 2009 07:19 PM EST

Updated: Feb 26, 2009 11:38 AM EST

By Fred Childers - bio | email

SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) - Giving the republican response to President Obama's speech Tuesday night, Governor Bobby Jindal pointed out fundamental differences in how republicans and democrats see the economy. "But what I don't understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do?," asks Joe Biden while on the Early Show. 

   And That rhetorical question to Governor Jindal on the Early Show, was followed with this. "in Louisiana there's 400 people a day losing their jobs, what's he doing?" asks Biden. 

    But that claim is wrong, if you look at the numbers from the Louisiana Workforce Commission. "In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release that added employment over the month," says Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission. According to her, not only is Louisiana not losing jobs. "The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures.

     You don't even have to take my word for it, these are number you can check out yourself if you just go to, there you can find the latest unemployment statistics, statistics that appear to directly contradict what the vice president said this morning.

    The latest stats show this - from the week ending January 17th there were 4,527 claims for unemployment insurance in Louisiana, for the next week, that number receded to 4,179.  

    Folks who crunch the numbers credit a diverse economy for Louisiana's resilience to unemployment.

    It's unclear where the VP gets his numbers, but they certainly don't match numbers from the labor department.   The unemployment rate in Louisiana has gone up, from 5.3 to 5.9. Some blame that on a bigger workforce in the state. However, that rate is still less than the national average, which sits at 7.2%.  We called the Whitehouse press office today and left a message for the vice president's office, but have not received a call back.

Translation:  Biden is flat-out wrong.  He doesn't know what he's talking about.  And, so far, mainstream media are giving him a free pass on both his big mouth and his ignorance.

Why would they be that deferential to Jackass Joe?  Who do they think he is?  Nancy Pelosi?


Ken Berwitz

On February 19th I blogged about Barack Obama's apparent selection of Charles W. Freeman Jr. as head of the National Intelligence Council. 

I pointed out that Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia,  is a Palestinian Arab apologist who blames all problems in the Middle East on Israel.  He also feels that hostility toward/condemnation of hamas is "unreasoning".  (That's right, it is irrational to feel that way about terrorist murderers).

Well now, according to Paul Mirengoff at, it is official.  Freeman has been appointed:

It's official

February 26, 2009 Posted by Paul at 5:55 PM

Charles Freeman, the "Saudi-Manchurian candidate," will chair the National Intelligence Council which is responsible for producing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs). The selection of Freeman is shocking -- as much as I distrust Obama on issues pertaining to Israel, I would never have predicted this.

How much impact Freeman will have remains to be seen. It's clear now that Obama does not consider the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis -- that American Jews have a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress, and use it to advance Israeli interests at the expense of those of the U.S. -- beyond the pale. But then he didn't consider Rev. Wright's views beyond the pale either; he just thought they were "controversial."

The administration clearly contains voices that potentially can counterbalance Freeman. But supporters of Israel, and indeed anyone who disfavors an American foreign policy that tilts strongly towards Saudi Arabian interests, plainly have cause for concern.

Freeman's appointment should also represent "strike three" on National Intelligence Estimates. Strike one was when an NIE concluded that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed WMD. Strke two occurred when the NIE was hijacked by those who wanted to pretend that Iran stopped its work on developing nuclear weapons. (This may actually have counted as two strikes -- the NIE's conclusion was so far-fetched and policy-driven that even President Obama has always assumed in his public utterances that it is not true).

Now that the NIEs fall under the jurisdiction of a Saudi financed apologist, and an apologist for the Tiananmen Square massacre to boot, they will have zero credibility. This is probably a good thing. If so, it's the only good thing associated with the Freeman appointment.

I'll end here the same way I ended the first blog about Freeman:

To the 78% of Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel:  I hope you're happy with this, because you helped make it happen.

As one of the other 22% I can assure you I'm not.


Ken Berwitz

This slot in the Darwin Award finals goes not to an individual, but to the Colorado State Patrol.  Read the following Associated Press report and you'll see why:

Injured good Samaritan ticketed for jaywalking

DENVER A good Samaritan who helped push three people out of the path of a pickup truck before being struck and injured has gotten a strange reward for his good deed: A jaywalking ticket.

Family members said 58-year-old bus driver Jim Moffett and another man were helping two elderly women cross a busy Denver street in a snowstorm when he was hit Friday night.

Moffett suffered bleeding in the brain, broken bones, a dislocated shoulder and a possible ruptured spleen. He was in serious but stable condition Wednesday.

The Colorado State Patrol issued the citation. Trooper Ryan Sullivan said that despite Moffett's intentions, jaywalking contributed to the accident.

Moffett had been driving his bus when the two women got off. In the interest of safety, he got out and, together with another passenger, helped the ladies cross.

Moffett's stepson, Ken McDonald, said the driver of the pickup plowed into his stepfather, but not before Moffett pushed the two women out of the way.

When he awoke in intensive care, he learned of the ticket. "His reaction was dazed and confused. I was a little angry," said McDonald.

The other man also was cited for jaywalking, while the pickup driver was cited with careless driving that led to injury. Sullivan said the two elderly women haven't been cited but the investigation is ongoing.

Hey, why stop there.  Toss the old broads in the clink too, and make sure they both get a cavity search.

Are these people NUTS????? 

If ever there were jaywalking tickets that should not have been written, these are the ones. 

So to the Colorado State Patrol, and Trooper Sullivan, who wouldn't let the men's intentions or Jim Moffett's injuries get in the way of mindlessly "going by the book", congratulations.  You have earned a place of honor at the awards dinner. 

And you better make damn sure you drive the speed limit on your way there. 


Ken Berwitz

I don't know if I was the first person to call President Obama's chief of staff Seedy Rahm (I originally used the pun on December 12 for this blog). 

But I know that it fit then.  And it fits now.

Here's why, courtesy of Dick Morris and (his wife) Eileen McGann:


By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

Published in the New York Post February 17, 2009

News broke last week that Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, lived rent- free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.) - and failed to disclose the gift, as congressional ethics rules mandate. But this is only the tip of Emanuels previously undislosed ethics problems.

One issue is the work Emanuel tossed the way of De Lauros husband. But the bigger one goes back to Emanuels days on the board of now-bankrupt mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

Emanuel is a multimillionaire, but lived for the last five years for free in the tony Capitol Hill townhouse owned by De Lauro and her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

During that time, he also served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - which gave Greenberg huge polling contracts. It paid Greenbergs firm $239,996 in 2006 and $317,775 in 2008. (Emanuels own campaign committee has also paid Greenberg more than $50,000 since 2004.)

To be fair, Greenberg had polling contracts with the DCCC before - but each new election cycle brings its own set of consultants. And Emanuel was certainly generous with his roommate.

Emanuel never declared the substantial gift of free rent on any of his financial-disclosure forms. He and De Lauro claim that it was just allowable hospitality between colleagues. Hospitality - for five years?

Some experts suggest that it was also taxable income: Over five years, the free rent could easily add up to more than $100,000.

Nor is this all that seems to have been missed in the Obama teams vetting process. Consider: Emanuel served on the Freddie Mac board of directors during the time that the government-backed lender lied about its earnings, a leading contributor to the current economic meltdown.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency later singled out the Freddie Mac board as contributing to the fraud in 2000 and 2001 for failing in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention. In other words, board members ignored the red flags waving in their faces.

The SEC later fined Freddie $50 million for its deliberate fraud in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Meanwhile, Emanuel was paid more than $260,000 for his Freddie service. Plus, after he resigned from the board to run for Congress in 2002, the troubled agencys PAC gave his campaign $25,000 - its largest single gift to a House candidate.

Thats what friends are for, isnt it?

Now Rahm Emanuel is in the White House helping President Obama dig out of the mess that Freddie Mac helped start.

The presidents chief of staff isnt subject to Senate confirmation, but his ethics still matter. Is this the change that we can depend on?

At the end of the column Mr. Morris asks "Is this the change we can depend on?". 

Between Emanuel, and Geithner, and Daschle, and Richardson, etc., the answer appears to be yes.

In "The Color Purple", Miss Celie Johnson said "the more things change, the more they stay the same".  Who knew that she was a futurist channeling the Obama administration?


Ken Berwitz

Want to see what happens when someone with a big mouth is egged on by someone with a similarly big mouth, to talk about a subject she clearly is ignorant of? 

Ben Smith, from can help you on this one:

Pelosi's doubts

Nancy Pelosi signaled that Congressional Democrats may be reluctant to embrace Obama's slower withdrawal from Iraq than promised on the campaign:

MADDOW: Doesn't 50,000 seem like an awful lot of residual force?

PELOSI: It does, it does. I completely agree with that. And the president hasn't made a statement, so I don't know what he's going to say. I know that the rumor is-- and I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present, the 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there's a need for some. I don't know that all of them have to be in country. They can be platformed outside.

But I'll just be interested to see what the president has to say. But I do think that -- I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000.

But again, I don't know what purpose he has in keeping them there, whether it is to fight terrorism, train the whatever -- the training of the Iraqis, which seems to have been going on forever. I don't know what the purpose of those are.

So we have to see what the purpose is, how it fits the mission of our national security, and why that number is important. But again, he hasn't said it yet, so I would love to see what he has to say. But I am pleased that we are, at long last, on a path to responsibly end the war. He said 19 months, but he said by 19 months -- so I would hope that it could be sooner than that.

Tra la la la....I think that sounds like too many troops, so here's how much I think it should be instead.  I have no idea of what they're doing there or how much troop strength is necessary for what they're doing, but here's the number I came up with, apropos of nothing. 

That, folks, is our speaker of the house.  An incompetent fool with a hardline agenda who admits she doesn't know what she's talking about but keeps talking anyway.   

Enjoy her for at least the next two years.


Ken Berwitz

Shortly after Barack Obama won the presidential election, his chief-of-staff-to-be, Rahm Emanuel, told a conference of business executives that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste".

This is probably the best explanation for what Barack Obama is doing that you will come across.

We are in a serious economic crisis (not the most serious one since the great depression, that's just a lie to scare people).  Based on the Emanuel philosophy, it gives President Obama a great window of opportunity to push through legislation he'd never be able to sell under other circumstances and blame it all on the previous administration - as if President Bush caused the sub-prime meltdown intead of trying to prevent it and being stopped by Democrats.

To accomplish this, President Obama first scared the excrement out of people by assuring them there will be catastrophic consequences if we don't act immediately.  Democrats then proposed a huge "stimulus package", rushed it through the congress they dominate, and put it out for a vote without any member of the house or senate being given enough time to so much as read it, let alone digest and think about its contents. 

And, again taking Emanuel's philosophy into account, Democrats overloaded the package with funding for an entire social agenda, much of which won't do a thing to stimulate the economy any time soon (if ever). 

How could he do this?  Nothing to it, really.  Just keep scaring people and blaming Bush.

The result?  Last week our Democratic congress and Democratic President saddled us with an $800 billion dollar or so "stimulus package". 

But why stop there?  You don't waste a serious crisis, remember?  So, yesterday, Democrats passed a $410 billion dollar spending bill, laden with earmarks for every harebrained waste of taxpayer money they could think of.  And now President Obama tells us he needs another $750 billion in additional bank bailout money. 

Current estimates are that this will result in a deficit of $1.75 TRILLION dollars for 2009 - and I'm betting it will be a lot more.

To sum up:  Democrats are running headlong to socialize the USA, while ringing up impossibly insane deficits which they will blame on former President Bush.  (Bush, you may recall, is the guy who wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac years before the bottom fell out, but was stopped by some of the same Democrats who are now blaming him for their collapse). 

It certainly won't be the fault of Saint Barack.

The good news is that some people are finally starting to realize how badly they're being suckered.  Mr. Obama's approval ratings, while still strongly positive, have dropped significantly - more than the normal falloff when the "honeymoon period" for a new President wears off.  The bad news is that it's too late and he - along with his left wing cohorts - are running the show through 2010.

From personal experience I have heard from Obama supporters both in and out of my family who think this is flat-out crazy.  One close relative, who couldn't find a thing wrong with Mr. Obama thoughout the election, told me that "we are spending money we don't have" and expressed his acute fear that it can take down the country.

We deserve this too.  A majority of voters elected Barack Obama and gave him a Democratic congress driven by hardline leftists.  What did they expect?  Nonpartisanship?  Moderation.

We have two years to live with this political atrocity before we can do something about it.  I hope that, by then, it won't be too late.

free` I am sure most people wont remember this but the budget deficit was actually shrinking under Bush until the democrats got control of congress. (02/26/09)


Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I mentioned that Jackass Joe Biden didn't even understand the job he was running for.  I have been challenged to prove that. 

So I will.

Here, straight from their debate, is the verbatim transcript of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden answering questions about the duties of the Vice President.  In order to demonstrate that everything is 100% in context, I am posting the entire exchange, even its extraneous commentary.  I have put the key passages in bold print: 

IFILL: Everybody gets extra credit tonight. We're going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.

PALIN: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a vice president does.

BIDEN: They didn't get yours or mine? Which one didn't they get?

PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That's near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, that's where I want you, I want you to lead. I said, I can't wait to get and there go to work with you.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: Gwen, I hope we'll get back to education because I don't know any government program that John is supporting, not early education, more money for it. The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind, the money was left behind, we didn't fund it. We can get back to that I assume.

With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues.

I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice.

And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?

BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

To summarize:

-Sarah Palin said the Vice President's job was to preside over the Senate and that there was flexibility for the President to expand a Vice President's role - i.e. give him/her additional duties.  That is correct.

-Joe Biden said Article I of the constitution defines the role of the Vice President and that is the executive branch.  Dead wrong.  Article I of the constitution defines the LEGISTLATIVE duties, just as Cheney said they did.  Look it up and see for yourself.

Biden then said that the Vice President presides over the senate only in time of a tie vote.  Dead wrong.  The Vice President always presides over the senate (though he/she doesn't have to be there all the time) and only votes in case of a tie.

-Biden finishes up by saying that the only legislative authority a Vice President has is to vote in case of a tie.  Since the Vice President also presides over the senate, obviously that's dead wrong too.

How ironic that Sarah Palin, who was out of Alaska about 36 days, knew far better what job she was running for than Joe Biden, who was in Washington for 36 years.

And how telling that our wonderful "neutral" media nailed Palin, not Biden, as being an ignoramus.

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

Oh, one other question:  If Dick Cheney was "bizarre" for thinking that the Vice President's duties were in the legislative branch -- and he was right and Joe Biden was wrong - what does that make Joe Biden?

Just asking.......


Ken Berwitz

Geert Wilders is a marked man.  I would not at all be surprised if he was assassinated one day in the near future.

I do not want this to happen, I assure. you.  But he has taken so strong a stand against radical Islam that, like his countryman Theo Van Gogh, it is very possibly how he will wind up.

Wilders is the man who produced "Fitna", a 15 minute lesson in what radical Islam is, what it wants and why it is so dangerous.  I have twice put it up in this blog, so regular readers have seen it.  But for anyone else, you can just click here.

On September 25 of last year, Mr. Wilders gave a speech at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York.  I do not agree with everything he said.  But I agree with most of it -- enough so that I feel it should be posted in its entirety. 

Here it is.  Make of it what you will:

America as the last man standing

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, thats new to me.

Its great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Romes ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. Its the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear whore, whore. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they understand the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call respect. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators settlers. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allahs personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allahs word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allahs own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means submission. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam the most retrograde force in the world, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: Islam has bloody borders. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islams territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a right-wing extremists or racists. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europes history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I dont think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europes last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europes children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.


Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from Fox News, which got it from The Sun.  I post it without further commentary:

Man, 28, Dies After 'Guzzling' Viagra During 12-Hour Romp

Thursday, February 26, 2009 

A Russian man died after guzzling a bottle of Viagra to keep him going for a 12-hour orgy with two female pals.

The women had bet mechanic Sergey Tuganov $4,300 that he wouldnt be able to follow through with the half-day sex marathon.

But minutes after winning the bet, the 28-year-old died of a heart attack, Moscow police said.

We called emergency services but it was too late, there was nothing they could do, said one of the female participants who identified herself only as Alina.


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!!