Wednesday, 30 December 2009


Ken Berwitz

I found this at  It should give you a smile - even if it is through gritted teeth.


Somali Pirates



Ken Berwitz

Last year, when Ron Paul was running for the Republican presidential nomination, I wrote blog after blog exposing him as a lunatic - and as a hero of White supremacists and nazis.  I talked about his newsletter from years ago - the one that insulted and denigrated Black people.  I talked about his hatred of Israel.  Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Well, in case you think that Paul has changed in any way, please read this.  It comes to us from the blogger who uses the name "allahpundit":

Ron Paul on the airline plot: Theyre terrorists because were occupiers!

posted at 10:00 pm on December 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

Ive already written about how his isolationist garbage leads inexorably to nonsense like this, so let me just add two points. First, and most obviously, there is no U.S. occupation of Yemen or Nigeria. The only way the airline plot is a reaction to U.S. occupation is if you accept the jihadist premise that there are no Arab/Muslim nation-states but rather only one Islamic caliphate waiting to be born. Only in that way does the U.S. occupation of Iraq warrant a reprisal from, say, a Pakistani or Yemeni. And yet, needless to say, if Britain was attacked tomorrow and Obama pledged U.S. forces to assist in the reprisal, Paul would be the first guy to scream that we should scrupulously observe national boundaries and not go fighting another countrys battles for it.

Second, as usual, his facts are wrong. He uncritically accepts Abdulmutallabs assertion that the bomb plot was retaliation for the U.S. airstrike on jihadi camps in Yemen. Not so: As Jake Tapper explained yesterday, this turd had already been mobilized and had even bought his Northwest ticket before we struck. Purely and simply, Americas Greatest Patriot is parroting propaganda cooked up by jihadist pieces of sh*t because it happens to fit his insane foreign policy agenda. Support him and his disciples at your peril.

Nope.  ron paul hasn't changed a bit.  He is still the same hate-filled jerk as he always has been.


Ken Berwitz

From Jamie Glazov, writing for

In an ideal world, Abdul Mutallab would be getting waterboarded right about now. I would volunteer to do the honors if no one was really up for it.


We know that the use of enhanced techniques of interrogation on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed which included waterboarding forced KSM to give up crucial information that prevented countless terrorist attacks and saved an infinite amount of innocent lives. It allowed, for instance, the U.S. to capture key al- Qaeda terrorists and to thwart a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.


Abdul Mutallab has already admitted he was trained by al Qaeda in Yemen. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attempted attack. Abdul Mutallab, therefore, has vital information about who the evil-doers are and their upcoming plans of doom for our civilization and the human beings who inhabit it.


But now, thanks to the Obama administration and its fascinating approach to the terror war, Abdul Mutallab will be getting a lawyer and not have to say anything to anyone.


Why is it that I fail to get a sense of peace and serenity with Obama in charge and with Napolitano assuring us, without knowing anything, that Mutallab is not part of a larger terrorist conspiracy?

Do you agree or disagree?  Think about it.



Ken Berwitz

Leave it to Jeff Jacoby, great columnist (and house conservative) for the Boston Globe, to nail this. 

Here, without further comment, is his latest column:

The wake-up call from Flight 253

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
December 30, 2009

AFTER THE SEPT. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it was widely asserted at the time, nothing would be the same. What Pearl Harbor had been for our parents and grandparents, 9/11 would be for us: a shattering national wake-up call revealing both the gaping holes in America's homeland security and the reality that we were at war with an implacable enemy whose defeat would require years of sacrifice and resolve.

But it became clear after a while that for many Americans, 9/11 had not marked a break with old ways of thinking. As the near-unanimity of 9/11 receded, Americans divided into what the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes dubbed September 12 people, for whom 9/11 had changed everything, and September 10 people, who believed the terrorist threat was being exaggerated by the Bush administration and who regarded the fight against Islamist extremism as chiefly a matter of law enforcement.

Would that divide have closed if Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had succeeded in blowing up Northwest Airlines flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day? If al-Qaeda, which reportedly trained Abdulmutallab in Yemen and is claiming responsibility for the thwarted attack, had succeeded in carrying out another 9/11, would the short-lived unity and moral clarity of that terrible day in 2001 have returned?

Had Flight 253 ended in the mass-murder the bomb plotters intended, Americans would today be filled with grief and fury. They would also be grappling with some hard lessons -- lessons that in recent years too many had been inclined to dismiss. Among them:

  • Terrorism isn't caused by poverty and ignorance. Abdulmutallab came from a wealthy and privileged family, and had studied at one of Britain's top universities. He wasn't trying to kill hundreds of Americans out of socioeconomic despair. Like the 9/11 hijackers and countless other jihadists, Abdulmutallab was motivated by ideological and religious fanaticism. The teachings of militant Islam may seem monstrous to outsiders, but that is no reason to doubt that their adherents genuinely believe them, or that by giving their lives for jihad they hope to change the world.
  • The global jihad is real. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was widely derided for initially insisting that Flight 253 wasn't blown up in mid-air because "the system worked" and "the whole process went very smoothly." Far more troubling, however, was her effort to downplay the suggestion that Abdulmutallab's attempted attack was "part of anything larger" -- this even after he had terrorist acknowledged his ties to al-Qaeda. Of course Abdulmutallab is part of something larger: He is part of the global jihad -- the relentless assault by Islamist radicals whose deadly serious goal is the submission of America and the West to Islamic law. If government officials like Napolitano cannot bring themselves to speak plainly about the jihadists' ambitions, how will they ever succeed in crushing them?
  • Terrorists can always adapt to new restrictions. After 9/11, knives and sharp metal objects were banned from carry-on luggage, so Richard Reid attempted to detonate a shoe bomb. Thereafter everyone's shoes were checked, so the 2006 Heathrow plotters planned to use liquid-based explosives. Now liquids are strictly limited, so Abdulmutallab smuggled PETN, an explosive powder, in his underwear. There is no physical constraint that determined jihadists cannot find a way to circumvent. Yet US airport security remains obstinately reactive -- focused on intercepting dangerous things, instead of intercepting dangerous people. Unwilling to incorporate ethnic and religious profiling in our air-travel security procedures, we have saddled ourselves with a mediocre security system that inconveniences everyone while protecting no one.
  • The Patriot Act was not a reckless overreaction. Security in a post 9/11 world has not come from pressing a "reset button," sending Guantanamo inmates off to Yemen, or refusing to use terms like "war on terrorism." It has come from stepped-up surveillance and stronger intelligence-gathering tools, and from working to pre-empt terror attacks in advance, rather than prosecuting them after the fact. Congress was not out of its mind when it enacted the Patriot Act in 2001, and the Bush administration was not trampling the Constitution when it deployed the expanded powers the law gave it: They were trying to prevent another 9/11 -- and they succeeded. President Obama has repeatedly and ostentatiously criticized his predecessor's approach. Perhaps it is not just a coincidence that Obama's first year in office has also seen an unprecedented surge in terrorist threats on US soil.

We came fearfully close to having to re-learn those lessons the hard way last week. Only the failure of Abdulmutallab's explosive to ignite and the bravery of the passenger and flight attendants who rushed him prevented what would have been the bloodiest attack on US soil in more than eight years. The world remains extremely dangerous, and the war against radical Islam is far from over. Flight 253 was another wake-up call. Did the September 10 people hear it?


Ken Berwitz

One look at Chris Matthews' ratings will tell you that he should know something about unmitigated disasters. 

With that in mind, here is his "Titanic" comment about Parker Griffith, the Alabama congressperson who, earlier this month, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party:

"Well, I wonder what voters think of politicians who switch sides.  I mean, people watching right now, what do you think of guys who switch sides? They remind me of the guys on the Titanic who put on women's clothes and then hid on the lifeboats. Just my thought."

Over the past year or two I have put up a number of Chris Matthews' more bizarre comments.  It has never been much of a problem to do so, since Matthews has provided so many to choose from.  But this is a classic, even for him.

Did he say the same thing about Arlen Spector's move from the Republican to the Democratic Party?  Somehow I doubt it.

What a titanic jackass.


Ken Berwitz

Here, via Mike Allen's piece at, is what Dick Cheney thinks about the way President Obama is addressing terrorism...(whoops, sorry, not supposed to use that word):

Dick Cheney: Barack Obama 'trying to pretend'

By MIKE ALLEN | 12/30/09 4:21 AM EST


Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of trying to pretend we are not at war with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term war on terror and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.


[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we arent, it makes us less safe, Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO. Why doesnt he want to admit were at war? It doesnt fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesnt fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency social transformationthe restructuring of American society.


Cheney was joining a chorus of Republicans who have criticized Obama following the Christmas Day attack, in which a Nigerian suspect is accused of trying to blow up a loaded airliner with a bomb stitched into his underwear.


A senior Democrat said in response: Its telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.


Foreshadowing the partys strategy for next years midterm congressional elections, GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident, and have baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.


Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence committee, said Tuesday on NBCs Today show: I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system. I wish they had put him into a military tribunal so we could get as much intelligence and information out of him as we could.

Here is Cheneys full statement:


"As Ive watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we wont be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we wont be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we wont be at war.


He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we wont be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, war on terror, we wont be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we arent, it makes us less safe. Why doesnt he want to admit were at war? It doesnt fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesnt fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency social transformationthe restructuring of American society. President Obamas first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."


Although Cheney and other Republicans have accused Obama of a muted response to the attack, President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.

Obama went before cameras on Monday, the third day after the fizzled bomb attempt.


It was six days after the attack when Bush finally discussed the incident, saying as part of a response to a question at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.: [W]eve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.


The day before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had refused substantive comment, saying: Thats a matter thats in the hands of the law enforcement people. Earlier, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had said officials were continuing to monitor events.


Also, Democratic officials maintain that Obama is, in fact, comfortable with the notion that the U.S. is at war with terrorists. Near the start of his inaugural address, he said: Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.


And John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, declared in an August speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies: [A]s the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaidas murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.


The senior Democrat said: There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible -- al-Qaida, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, terrorism.


As indicative of what they contend is Obamas world view, conservatives passed around the recording of a statement Obama made while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio on Nov. 21, 2007: I truly believe that the day Im inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If Im reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that Ive lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view.


The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And thats something that this administration has failed to understand.

Is Dick Cheney right?  Sure he is.  And it's no surprise either, since, unlike President Obama, Mr. Cheney (a former Secretary of Defense) actually has expertise on the matter.

I think my favorite part of this article, though, is not what Cheney said, but the comment attributed to John O. Brennan that...

The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible -- al-Qaida, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, terrorism.

What did this genius think the Bush administration was fighting?  Did he think we invaded Afghanistan to shut down al qaeda, or to demand that it use a different tactic?.

And what was this use of the word "terrorists" anyway?  Has the administration not made it clear that it is forbidden to do so? 

A couple of days ago the administration issued a statement about thwarting a terrorist attack, and I noted that it was surprising, since they are so averse to using the word.  In the Napolitano era, there are no terrorist attacks, there are "man-made" or "man-caused" disasters. 

But then, when I saw President Obama speak about the attack, in his open-neck shirt, between rounds of golf in Hawaii, I noted that he did not use the word at all.  The terrorist who tried to blow up an airplane loaded with passengers as it approached Detroit was a "suspect" and people who act in this manner are "extremists". 

Not terrorists.  Extremists.

Every couple of days we get an email from the DNCC, often "signed" by a well-known Democrat, which refers to Republicans as extremists.  If I were gullible enough to believe anything Barack Obama says, I would be forced to conclude that he thinks the simple fact of being a Republican and to his political right, is equal to blowing up a plane with 280 passengers and crew aboard.

Little wonder Mr. Obama's poll numbers have dropped so far - lower than just about any President has ever been at this point in his tenure.

And pretending that terrorism either doesn't exist, or trivializing it into a mindless political strategy, isn't going to raise those numbers any time soon.


To prove that, even in a story like this, you can find some comic relief:  I just read someone's comment that "he won't have the balls to try this again".  I admit that I laughed out loud - and am still laughing as I type this.

Zeke SOMETHING EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ... .... On July 8, 1947, witnesses claim a spaceship with five aliens aboard crashed on a sheep-and-cattle ranch outside Roswell, New Mexico, an incident they say has been covered up by the military.... .... On March 31, 1948, almost exactly nine months after that day, Al Gore was born. (12/30/09)


Ken Berwitz

From Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) comes this example of the lying and treachery Israel lives with every day:

PA, Abbas Bless Rabbis Murderers as Martyrs

 by Hana Levi Julian


( Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas publicly proclaimed three terrorists who murdered a Jewish father of seven children to be shaheeds holy martyrs, according to a report by the PA media watchdog, Palestinian Media Watch.


Abbas declared the killers all members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- to be shaheeds and sent his personal emissary to visit their families following last Thursdays attack. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is part of the Fatah faction, which is headed by Abbas. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad personally visited the families, along with a number of top PA officials, and condemned the IDF operation.


Rabbi Meir Avshalom Chai, a 40-year-old Israeli resident of the Samaria Jewish community of Shavei Shomron, was murdered in a hail of bullets fired by four terrorists in car that overtook him as he drove home from a nearby community. On Friday night, IDF soldiers tracked down three of the terrorists and killed them after they opened fire during an attempt to arrest them. The fourth surrendered to PA police, who have not turned him over to Israeli authorities.


The response of the PA government has been one of unequivocal support for the terror attack, with statements by its leadership and that of the Fatah faction referring to the terrorists as Palestinian heroes and shahids.  One member of the factions central committee described the terrorists as [military] commanders, brave heroes, and fighters, according to a news report in the daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida translated by PMW.


PA government-controlled media, meanwhile, has described Israels killing of the rabbis murderers as an assassination and murder in cold blood.


Abbas: 'Not Me - Won't Turn to Violence' 

Abbas claimed in an English-language interview posted this week on the Palestine Media Center web site, and clearly intended for international readership, that he is opposed to violence and terrorism, regardless of circumstance. The PMC is the media outlet and general secretariat for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), of which Fatah is a member.


The statement was made in response to a question regarding his views on whether the PA would agree to a single-state solution or insist on the establishment of an independent PA country, as stated in the Road Map plan.


I will not turn to violence, he replied. No matter where you drag us, I will not return to violence.


And if violence forces itself upon you? he was asked.


Not me. I am against this, he claimed. I will not accept violence, terrorism, gunfire or a military intifada. Absolutely not.

Abbas, let's remember, is the guy our media continually tout as being a "moderate". 

In reality, he is a lying Jew-hating scumbag who mouths all the right words to English-speaking media, all the Jew-hating, violence-supporting garbage to his people in Arabic, and gets away with it because our media are too lazy, and/or incompetent, and/or prejudiced to bother checking the difference.

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!!