Monday, 02 November 2009

OBAMA'S PAL KHALIDI

Ken Berwitz

If you are a supporter of Israel who voted for Barack Obama, this should be a very interesting little blog for you.  It comes from Ed Lasky, writing at www.americanthinker,com:


November 02, 2009

Obama's Mideast tutor bemoans Hamas' inability to fire more rockets into Israel

Ed Lasky

In a front page Los Angeles Times article "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama" , a going away party for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian academic and activist with a long-record of anti-Israel action, Barack Obama gave a special tribute to Khalidi, his friend and frequent dinner companion. Then state senator Obama spoke warmly about the meals prepared by Khalidi's wife and credited his many talks with Khalidi as being:


"... consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."


The article made clear that Obama's private conversations over the years -- not Obama speeches or campaign literature -- gave them hope that America's policies would radically change. He was present at many events where anger at Israeli and US Middle East policy was freely expressed.

 

Now comes word that Khalidi, who now is the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University (itself a hotbed of anti-Israel activity among staff and students) bemoans that it is "unsatisfactory" that Hamas, the Palestinian terror group, is "too weak" to have fired rockets into Israel  in the last nine months since the end of Operation Cast Lead (the operation that Israel engaged at the end of last year to stop the incessant rocket attacks). And he has tenure.

 

I wonder if Khalidi text messages Obama with more tutorials about the Middle East? Maybe something like this, from Candace de Russy of NRO's phi beta cons blog:

 

In an interview sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, out-and-out declares it "unsatisfactory" that Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization, is "too weak" to have fired a rocket in almost nine months since the end of Israel's attack on Gaza in January

rashid khalidi is a serial anti-Semite, Israel-hater and a big Obama supporter.....exactly the same description I would give jeremiah wright, whose church Barack Obama was such a big fan of, until it was poltiically damaging to say so.

Does this go any distance towards explaining President Obama's attitudes toward Israel?  Does it go any distance towards explaining why US relations with Israel are so strained now? 

You tell me.

free` Plus he is wrong, many rockets and mortars from gaza have been fired into Israel since operation cast lead ended. Also rockets have been fired from lebanon. Just because our media doesn't report on it doesn't mean it isn't happening. I recommend two blogs and one news site if you want to stay current on what is going on in Israel the blogs israelmatzav.blogspot.com/ and elderofziyon.blogspot.com/ and the news site israelnationalnews.com/ (11/02/09)


PELOSICARE -- EVEN WORSE THAN OBAMACARE

Ken Berwitz

Is the Nancy Pelosi-driven version of ObamaCare the worst bill ever?

That would be a pretty tough argument to make, and I'm not the one who will make it

But the Wall Street Journal will.  And it has some pretty good reasons for its opinion.

Here, without further comment is WSJ's entire editorial.  Please read every word, and understand what is being foisted on us:

The Worst Bill Ever

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

 

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

 

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every levelfor the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

 

The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty levelthat is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

 

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

 

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

 

Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicarenow north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

 

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

 

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal programup from today's 57%governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

 

European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expirenot counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

 

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

 

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

 

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

 

The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

 

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

 

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

 

***

 

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

 

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive.

 

Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitableespecially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

 

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Bottom line:  PelosiCare isn't just bad.  it is borderline insane.

But if Democrats pass this monstrosity it will be because they have the votes to do so; the lopsided majority in both houses that renders Republicans virtually powerless.

And whose fault is that?  Who voted these majorities into office?

The single best hope against PelosiCare is tomorrow's elections.  If  the Virginia gubernatorial race goes Republican, the 23rd house district in New York goes Conservative/Republican and the New Jersey gubernatorial race either goes Republican or is Democrat by a razor-thin margin (after three - count 'em - three visits by Obama on behalf of Corzine), it might cause enough so-called "blue dog" Democrats to stop, think, reconsider and vote nay. 

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.  To say the least.


DEDE SCOZZAFAVA: "MODERATE"???!!!

Ken Berwitz

Are you as tired as I am of reading that Diedre "Dede" Scozzafava, the "Republican" candidate in NewYork's 23rd district who had to drop out because so few people would be voting for her, was a moderate?

What position does this woman have that is not liberal/left Democrat? 

Let's talk plain here.  Dede Scozzafava's candidacy was ridiculous.  Just as her endorsement of the Democrat, after taking Republican money for an entire campaign was ridiculous, and traitorous to boot. 

And the national Republican party, which put her up against William Owens - whose opinions she shares, but at least he has the honesty to say he is what he is - made fools of themselves.  I include Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich and a bunch of others.

Trying to win elections at the cost of their beliefs, and the betrayal of their positions, is what moved their party from majority status to minority status to borderline expansion-team status in the first place.

Ironically, if Hoffman wins (and that's a very good possibility) they will get someone who actually adheres to most Republican views - and be rid of a non-Republican Republican in the bargain. Not because they did a thing right, but due to pure dumb luck.

But will the Republican "brain trust" (as if!) learn anything from this? 

Well, they're politicians.  So the answer is.....probably not.

We'll see.

Zeke ... Dede is a moderate, middle of the road R. Frank Rich's column in this past Sunday NY Times said so (there was a little box saying to look at the on-line article, which was updated after she announced her withdrawal ... but before she Benedict Arnolded the party that supported her candidacy). ... ... Frank Rich's article, "GOP Stalinists Invade Upstate New York", was filled with adjectives and metaphors, but lacking in logic and analysis : ... preposterous, killing-field, Depression-era screwball comedy, farces, full “tea party” drag, wacky, paranoid cult, eager to eat its own, the cross of right-wing ideological purity, etc, etc, etc. It all could be summed up by saying, "If you aren't a lefttard, then you are a Poo-Poo-Head", ( a term any 2nd grader is familiar with ). (11/02/09)


CHRIS CHRISTIE: CAN HE WIN? (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

From Quinnipiac University's poll - and please pay special attention to the segment I've put in bold print:

November 2, 2009 - New Jersey Gov Race Tips To Christie By 2 Points, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Daggett Voters Key As Race Is Too Close To Call

 

In the see-saw New Jersey Governor's race, Republican challenger Christopher Christie has 42 percent to Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine's 40 points, with 12 percent for independent candidate Christopher Daggett, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Six percent remain undecided.

This compares to a 43 - 38 percent Gov. Corzine lead, with 13 percent for Daggett, in an October 28 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

Among Daggett supporters, 38 percent say they might change their mind: 39 percent say Corzine is their second choice, while 29 percent say Christie is number two.

Only 10 percent of Christie voters and 13 percent of Corzine backers say they might change their mind.

Corzine leads 77 - 6 percent among Democratic likely voters, with 12 percent for Daggett. Christie leads 78 - 10 percent among Republicans, with 9 percent for Daggett, and 47 - 32 percent among independent voters, with 17 percent for Daggett.

"Daggett is the key to an incredibly close New Jersey election," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

From October 27 - November 1, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,533 New Jersey likely voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.

I've said many times that I do not believe political poll numbers.....but I do place some validity on the movement in a given poll from wave to wave (on the theory that whatever deficits may exist in the poll they remain the same each time so the movement from one wave to the next has credibility.)

If these data are accurate, that is a 7% swing in favor of Chris Christie in less than a week.  And, most importantly, it is the last week.

That old gambling adage, "what you win at the end, they can't take away", is just as true in politics.

I don't predict a Christie victory tomorrow.  But this poll suggests that his prospects are getting better and better.

================================================================

UPDATE:  The Public Policy Institute just released its final New Jersey poll.  In it, Chris Christie has jumped to a 6% lead (47% - 41%) over Jon Corzine.  Plus, it indicates that 60% of Christie's supporters are "excited" to vote for him, versus 34% of Corzine's supporters.

President Obama made three trips to New Jersey in just the last few weeks to prop up Corzine.  How'd that work out?  And what might it tell us about President Obama's coattails?


AL GORE & INCONVENIENT BS: THE OTHER SIDE SPEAKS

Ken Berwitz

I apologize to you for not putting up Suzanne Fields' excellent column last week, when it was published.  I am involved in a lot of real-world activity in addition to blogging, and it slipped past me. 

But today is another day.

Here is what Ms. Fields had to say.  And please note the part I've put in bold print, which describes the only way a film with this subject matter would ever get any exposure:

An Inconvenient Rebuttal

by Suzanne Fields

 

Ann McElhinney's low-budget documentary refuting the global warming hype and hysteria arrives in Washington just in time to break Al Gore's crystal ball. "Not Evil Just Wrong," the feature-length film she made with her husband Phelim McAleer, coolly reveals how Al's disguise of hot fanaticism as cold fact arrives as the Senate begins to gear up for debate on "climate change" legislation.

"We know you can't teach religion in school," McElhinney says. "But there is a religion being enforced, a green religion."

Her film illustrates just how schoolchildren have been indoctrinated with fear, loathing and foreboding, as Al's film attempts to recruit them as tiny prophets of doom. Her camera shows children in Northern Ireland describing how the sea level rises when the ice caps melt and polar bears drown. "It may (happen) here, and we will all die," says a little girl on the verge of tears, trying hard to look as though she understands what she has been taught. Pipes up an earnest little boy: "And most of us can't even swim."

 

The emotional abuse of the children in the film, first shown to an audience the other night at the Heritage Foundation, illustrates the frightening tactics employed by certain environmental groups.

President Obama joins the hysteria from time to time, as in his doomsday remarks in September at the economic summit in Pittsburgh: "Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees ... the time we have to reverse this tide is running out."

But lately even some environmentalists think the facts, like the children, have been abused by the politics of what now must be called "climate change," since the globe is inconveniently cooling, not warming. Gerd Leipold, a leader of Greenpeace, defends the tactic of "emotionalizing issues" to get public attention, but concedes that mistakes were made, as in the claim that Arctic ice will disappear by 2030.

Al and his like-minded cohorts insist that the argument is over, but it isn't. The mistreated facts have been resisting Al's disguise and occasionally get a little relief. In 2006, a British court characterized Al's Oscar-winning documentary as riddled with exaggeration and error, and said the film could not be shown to schoolchildren without counter arguments and balancing evidence. The judge cited nine significant errors and misleading statements. Polar bears, for example, hardly face extinction, as Al suggested, and their numbers have actually increased five-fold over the last half-century.

"Not Evil Just Wrong" demonstrates how the politics of environmentalism directly affects the lives and livelihood of men and women who live less stylishly than the sophisticated bicoastal greens who have made Al Gore their icon.

McElhinney's film focuses on people (not polar bears) whose paychecks and families are dependent on coal-generated energy, and whose interests are usually ignored in abstract statistics.

One mother proudly shows off her new house at the edge of a small town in Indiana, and worries that her good fortune is threatened by environmental activism that will destroy jobs and raise prices for gasoline and electricity. "I'm not the one traveling in a private jet," she says. "When I have to go somewhere, I get in a car." The camera follows her when she drives to Al Gore's mansion outside Nashville to deliver a letter to tell him her side of the story.

Elitism is the target this film hits with savage insight. It's about who makes what sacrifices. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an outspoken critic of what he calls the sloppy scientific evidence of global warming, observes wryly that environmental "experts" collect lots of frequent flyer miles delivering lectures telling others that they shouldn't fly.

The makers of "Not Evil Just Wrong" have bypassed the Hollywood distribution system by organizing grassroots private showings in homes, churches, schools and think tanks. On opening night, they screened their documentary 6,000 times in 27 countries.

McElhinney tells me how she was transformed from "really liberal" to environmental conservative when she saw mindless policies destroying lives in the developing world. The film describes the tragedy of DDT, the miracle insecticide that almost eradicated the mosquito that carries the malaria virus. But DDT was banned after publication of Rachel Carson's 1962 best seller, "Silent Spring."

Millions in Africa have died of malaria since, and after the World Health Organization lifted the ban, concluding that it had acted on unscientific science, the incidence of malaria plummeted. Hysteria has wounded the facts, but the wound may not be mortal.

Do I know Al Gore is dead-wrong?  No I do not. 

Do I know that there is a lot of science and a lot of common sense that suggests he is?  Yes I do.

Do I know that our wonderful "neutral" media, and our ever-evenhanded Hollywood stalwarts are giving the other side of the global warming debate roughly the same reception that a chicken would give Colonel Sanders?  Unfortunately, the answer to that one is also yes.

But now you know the film exists.  See if you can find a copy, or possibly contact Ann McElhinney to find out about arranging a showing -- if you're interested in knowing about both sides of the issue, that is.  If not, just rely on the usual sources.

Zeke ... Global Warming is real .... Sean Penn told me so. Declining temperatures in the last 10 years PROVE we are in the midst of Global Warming. ... We've had record low incidents of Hurricanes and Typhoons this year. ... The mid-West has had record early snowfalls this year. The Northeast has had a very cool summer. (11/02/09)


MIKE ALLEN'S WISHFUL (AND BIASED) THINKING

Ken Berwitz

I don't know who is going to win New York's 23rd congressional district race, now head-up between Democrat William Owens and Conservative/Republican Douglas Hoffman.   Neither do you.  And neither does Mike Allen of www.politico.com.  But...

if we look at the latest (and just about last) poll data, it appears that Hoffman has a clear lead over Owens.  In addition, there are a good many absentee ballots, which might move in either direction.

If Mr. Allen had said that previous paragraph he wouldn't have been derided this morning by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.

But he didn't.  And here is how Scarborough reacted to what he did say, courtesy of Mark Finkelstein at www.newsbusters.org:

Politico Allen's Idea Of 'Real Toss-up': Hoffman Ahead By 17%

 

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
November 2, 2009 - 07:23 ET

 

When you're an MSMer, you're an MSMer all the way--even when faced with facts that might make you like, well, ridiculous . . .

 

Mike Allen, appearing on Morning Joe, has declared the NY-23rd race a "real toss-up" despite a new poll from a respected organization showing Doug Hoffman with a 17-point lead.

 

The claim by Allen, Politico's chief political correspondent's, was so absurd that, on the spot, host Joe Scarborough offered 3:1 odds to Allen and anyone else wanting to place a few kopeks on Dem Bill Owens.

 

MIKE ALLEN: This is a real toss-up, because there are a lot of absentee ballots that are already in, we don't know who those are for. And this could be the race that keeps Democrats from having a real black Tuesday.

 

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Would you do me a favor, Mike? As we show this poll that came out last night from Public Policy Polling. If you could find all, gather up all the people that say this race is a toss-up now, and give them my email address, and tell them I will give them 3:1 odds, I will be glad to take any bets--if that's legal--any bets on this race. It's not a toss-up. You know my email: tell your friends, anyone who wants to bet, they get 3:1 odds, and Joe's the bookie.

 

A long--and I mean protracted--silence from Allen ensues.

 

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Mike?

 

ALLEN: We're in.

 

So Allen rates the race a "real toss-up" based on absentee ballots he admittedly knows nothing about?  This is wishful MSM thinking at its worst.

 

As per its website, Public Policy Polling was rated by the Wall Street Journal one of the two most accurate pollsters in its analysis of swing state polls in 2008. It's story on the 23rd is entitled "Hoffman Primed For Dominant Victory."

 

So, Mike's "in" on Dem Owens. For how much?

Do I know that Allen is wrong?  No, I do not.  Is what he says flying in the face of the information we have, and dramatically upgrading prospects for the Democrat, based on nothing?  Yes, it is.

Maybe Mr. Allen should change his web site to www.politicizedinfavorofDemocrats.com.


THE 'PEACE PROCESS' FOLLIES CONTINUE

Ken Berwitz

From John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com:

"Peace Process" Follies

November 1, 2009 Posted by John at 5:51 PM

 

Peace is not a process. Peace exists when one of two conditions is met: 1) two groups of people have no wish to kill one another (e.g., the U.S. and Canada), or 2) one or both of the groups would like to kill the other, but is deterred or otherwise prevented from doing so (e.g., the Cold War). In neither case is a "process" typically involved. Negotiation, unlike peace, is indeed a process. But negotiations, even when they lead to a treaty or agreement, cannot bring peace unless one of the above conditions is also met. (See Munich, Oslo, countless others).

 

People have been talking about a "peace process" in the Middle East for a long time, but those discussions have little or nothing to do with the actual existence of peace, which has depended on other factors. See number 2 above.

 

Most recently, Palestinian Authority spokesmen have accused the United States of undermining the "peace process" by backing off on demands that Israel stop all settlement construction:

 

Pointing an accusing finger at the United States, the Palestinians on Sunday said Washington's backing for Israeli refusal to halt Jewish settlement expansion had killed any hope of reviving peace negotiations soon. ...

 

On a one-day Middle East visit on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed Israel's view that settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming negotiations -- contradicting the Palestinian position. ...

 

Stung by Obama's about-face and Clinton's remarks, the Palestinians voiced their frustration.

 

"The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel's intransigence and America's back-pedaling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said.

 

Negotiations are not an end in themselves, however. We hear a lot about obstacles to the "peace process," much less about the actual obstacles to peace. The latter were on display on Friday, as tens of thousands of Islamic Jihad supporters rallied in Gaza:

 

Tens of thousands of Islamic Jihad loyalists held a rally in Gaza on Friday to commemorate the group's slain founder.

Holding plastic models of rockets and wearing masks and mock suicide bomber's vests, the members chanted "death to Israel" and "Muhammad's army will be back to wipe off the Hebrew state."

 

An Islamic Jihad leader, Nafez Azzam, called on the crowd Friday to reject negotiations with Israel and support violent resistance. ...

 

Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization smaller than Hamas, has carried out dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli civilians..

I've asked this many times, and I'm asking again now:

How do you make peace with these people?  HOW?

Zeke ... HOW ? why, the very same way the impartial and wise US made peace in Honduras ... trample on the rights and protections of a country's citizens to dictate a solution that will lead to tyranny ... the very same tyranny we see in Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. ... Ignore any sense of justice and right ... (11/02/09)


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!!