Monday, 07 February 2011

CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

The founder of a Muslim-oriented New York television station has been convicted of beheading his wife in 2009.

Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan (moo-ZAHM'-mel Mo HAH'-sahn) never denied that he killed Aasiyah (AH'-see-ya) Hassan inside the suburban Buffalo station the couple established to promote cultural understanding. A jury on Monday rejected his claim he was the victim of spousal abuse.

Does this help your cultural understanding?

 

Frankly, I hope not.  Because millions of Muslims live in the United States in peace.

 

What you should understand is that, unlike those millions, practitioners of radical Islam are a very, very different story.  Even if they appear assimilated and run a media outlet.

 

This is what we must fight and this is what we must defeat.


HENRY WAXMAN: A BAD JOKE CONTINUES

Ken Berwitz

Henry Waxman is a Democrat, who represents a California congressional district that is overrun with the Los Angeles rich, many of them in the entertainment business, thus is eminently safe for him or any other Democrat. 

Waxman was first elected in 1974, and - being the paradigm of left wing positions that he is - has been a very popular incumbent ever since.

Until Republicans took over the House of Representatives last November, Waxman chaired the Energy & Commerce Committee.  During his time as committee chair, Waxman ran an ongoing series of partisan witchhunts, while protecting his own party from any real scrutiny. 

But now that Mr. Waxman is no longer chairing the committee?  Suddenly he is singing a very different tune.

When the current committee chair, Fred Upton (R-MI) convened hearings on ObamaCare, Mr. Waxman fired off a letter to him which said, in part:

"I am a strong supporter of congressional oversight, and I respect and support the Committee's right to seek information about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. But I do not believe your oversight powers justify going on fishing expeditions or making extensive requests for internal e-mails and other communications where there is no evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse of any kind."

Really?

 

This would be comical - if it weren't so pathetic.  Henry Waxman complaining that someone went on a political fishing expedition is like Charlie Sheen complaining that someone drank and took drugs.

 

But, I am very happy to report, Rep. Upton is clearly not going to put up with this BS.  He sent back a letter to Mr. Waxman , just two pages, which blows him away.  I urge you to use the link and read it all.  But here is a taste:

I would note that in the 111th Congress, the Democratic majority refused to hold a single hearing in the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or its implementation.  This refusal to conduct even the most basic oversight of the government takeover of the private health care industry was not due to a lack of available subjects.  During the months following passage of the bill, the American people were subjected to rising premiums, increased costs, employers that were considering ending their health care coverage, unpopular policies secretly inserted into regulations without public comment, insurers exiting the market altogether, and the need to exempt many businesses from the disastrous effects of the PPACA.  Yet this Committee remained silent.

You state in your letter that HHS has already made public certain information related to the 222 waivers HHS has granted thus far to unions and businesses in order to protect them from the economically devastating effects of the health care reform law.  However, it is our understanding that HHS has in fact granted over 700 such waivers.  Thus, HHS has apparently granted more than three times as many waivers as you cite in your letter.  This fact alone underscores the dire need for oversight of the health care law, its effects, and its implementation by this Administration. 

How's that for lowering the boom?  Upton makes Waxman look like the ridiculous, disingenuous, partisan joke that he is.

Obama & Co. gave out 222 waivers?  Uh-uh, Henry.  Though that by itself would be a scandal, your number isn't even close.

As Mr. Upton notes (and I blogged about last week), Obama & Co. have granted well over 700 waivers to their pals. 

 

Either Henry Waxman didn't have the slightest idea of what actually took place, or he just lied about it.  Can someone tell me which of these two is the good choice?

 

I doubt that Mr. Waxman is going to seek out my advice.  But if he did, I would suggest that, if he wants any chance to hold that big gavel again, he should consider just shutting up.  His ridiculousness might wow 'em in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.  But every time he opens his mouth he risks losing votes in places where Democrats can lose elections. 

 

As a point of reference, Mr. Waxman might consider last November.


OBAMA SELLING OUT THE UK (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

This is the third blog I am writing about the Obama administration's apparent sellout of the UK - specifically that it gave sensitive UK nuclear intelligence to Russia, in return for Russia's agreement to the START treaty.

As I wait, and wait, for most of our wonderful "neutral" media to start covering this international scandal, Investors Business Daily has checked in with an editorial detailing just how disastrous this selling out of an ally is.  Here are a few excerpts:

The Betrayal Of Great Britain

 

Alliances: When spies give military secrets to a foreign power, it's espionage. When an American president does it, betraying an ally to befriend a longtime foe, what do we call it?

 

According to diplomatic cables obtained by Britain's Daily Telegraph, mined from the thousands of classified documents released by WikiLeaks, the U.S. government agreed to provide Russia with information on the British nuclear deterrent as part of the deal behind the ratification and signing of the New START treaty.

 

Specifically, the Telegraph reports, the U.S. provided Moscow with the serial numbers of each Trident missile in the British ballistic missile submarine inventory.

 

The State Department denies this, and spokesman P.J. Crowley said via Twitter that the U.S. simply "carried forward requirement to notify Russia about U.S.-UK nuclear cooperation from the 1991 treaty." So why did we, according to the Telegraph, have to ask Britain in 2009 for permission with detailed and classified information on the British Tridents, permission that was reportedly denied?

 

Indeed, according to one leaked memo, "the Russian Federation will receive unique identifiers for each of the missiles transferred to the UK, which was more information than was disclosed under START." So the State Department seems to have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

 

The British have quietly gone along with the State Department explanation, but then why wouldn't they? It wouldn't serve the new government of Prime Minister David Cameron well to acknowledge, after a series of snubs and insults from this side of the pond, that the U.S. had just thrown it under the strategic bus.

 

Our special relationship with Britain seems to have deteriorated into a special animus. Perhaps to this administration it was an inconvenient reminder of the days of Reagan and Thatcher, when the U.S. led the world instead of apologizing to it. It was a day when we and our presidents believed in American exceptionalism, not that at a meeting such as the G-20 we were just one of the gang.

 

It was President Obama who returned a bust of Winston Churchill loaned to President George W. Bush from the British Government's art collection after the Sept. 11 attacks. During a visit by the president of France, it was President Obama who proclaimed to British chagrin: "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people."

 

Well, we did. Certainly the British people must be wondering, with friends like these ...

It is unbelievable that a US President and his administration would do this.  And doubly unbelievable that a fawning, adoring press would largely bury it on their behalf.

If you want to see just how far we have descended under President Obama here is an exercise for you:  create a page with two lists of countries:  one list of of enemies we have bowed to/apologized to/looked the other way for, and the other list of allies who we have snubbed/publicly mistreated/sold out.  Then be sure to show the page to all of your friends, because it is an education unto itself.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.


WHY WE FIGHT RADICAL ISLAM (CONT.)  Ken Berwitz

Why do we fight radical Islam?  Because of people like  Said Musa.

Excerpted from an article at today's London's Daily Mail:

One-legged Afghan Red Cross worker set to be hanged after converting to Christianity

By Daily Mail Reporter

 

An Afghan physiotherapist will be executed within three days for converting to Christianity.

 

Said Musa, 45, has been held for eight months in a Kabul prison were he claims he has been tortured and sexually abused by inmates and guards.

 

Mr Musa, who lost his left leg in a landmine explosion in the 1990s, has worked for the Red Cross for 15 years and helps to treat fellow amputees.

 

He was arrested in May last year as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.

 

He claims he was visited by a judge who told him he would be hanged within days unless he converted back to Islam.

 

But he remains defiant and said he would be willing to die for his faith.

 

He told the Sunday Times: 'My body is theirs to do what they want with.

 

'Only God can decide if my spirit goes to hell.'

 

Defence lawyers have refused to represent him, while others have dropped the case after receiving death threats.

 

Mr Musa was arrested after a TV station showed western men baptising Afghans during secret ceremonies.

If we fight radical Islam we may win and we may lose.  But if we don't fight, we will most assuredly lose, because radical Islam will keep fighting regardless.

And if that were to happen, western civilization as we know it would end. 

To be replaced by what?  A society where a man is jailed, tortured and will be hanged for the "crime" of having religious beliefs?  A society where defense lawyers will not represent him, either out of hatred for his Christianity, fear of being killed for daring to mount a defense or both?

Obviously there are people who, for whatever their reasons, want to live this way.  And if they do, they're welcome to it.  But I don't.  And I suspect that you don't either.

That is why we fight. radical Islam.

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

One other thing:  What does President Obama have to say about this?  We are currently defending the Afghani government with our troops and our money.  This is what Mr. Obama called our "necessary war" - one that he has troop-surged to the point where we have almost four times as many military there than former President Bush ever agreed to. 

As Mr. Obama tells Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in every way he can think of that it is time to leave, does he have a word to say about Afghanistan's practice of putting people to death if they do not believe in Islam?  What will he do if the government we are supporting actually hangs Mr. Musa?

And what does our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have to say?  Anything at all?  Even one word?

Is this leadership?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.


THE LEFT AND DEMOCRACY

Ken Berwitz

Here is the beginning of a very interesting article by Carol A. Tabor, writing at americanthinker.com.  It talks about which "democracies" the left seems to like most.

See if you agree:

Historically, the only kind of Middle Eastern democracies Democrats like are the ones that are anti-American.

 

When George W. Bush forcibly established democracy in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the left called him imperialist, dictatorial, and evil.  They began to cheer Iraqi democracy only when President Obama began to pull out troops as Iran began flexing its power in the area.  When the Iranian people protested for democracy and were shot in the street for their trouble, the left yawned and even celebrated President Obama's inaction as statesmanship.  Meanwhile, the left cheers Turkish democracy despite the fact that current prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is an ardent Islamist; they cheer democracy in Gaza despite the fact that the people elected the terrorist group Hamas to lead them.

 

Now they cheer Egyptian democracy, which will likely result in the removal of an American ally, Hosni Mubarak, in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood-infused government allied with Iran and Syria.  They cheer Palestinian protesters who seek to topple the Jordanian ruling family in favor of yet another radicalized anti-Israel regime.

My opinion is that I wish I could find a lot to disgree with there.  But, truth be told, I can't.

There is a lot more worthwhile information and analysis in Ms. Taber's piece, so please use the link I've provided and read it all.

free` The President made clear what his definition of freedom and democracy means to him.--- Obama: Corporate Profits "Have To Be Shared By American Workers" ---------------------------------------------------- But don't you dare call him a socialist you racists. (02/07/11)


AARON SORKIN: MORE LEFT WING "CIVILITY"

Ken Berwitz

From CBS Sunday Morning, during Lesley Stahl's interview with screenwriter (and cocaine addict -- two rehabs so far, and counting...) aaron sorkin:

Sorkin:  "I have a big problem with people who glamorize dumbness. And demonize education and intellect. And I'm giving a pretty good description of Sarah Palin right now."

Stahl:  "He seems to be having a second career these days, going after Sarah Palin. In an essay for The Huffington Post, he called her a 'witless bully.'"

Sorkin: 
"Sarah Palin, she needs a therapist, okay. We need the smartest guys, the best Ph.D.'s around, to be solving these problems. I don't have any patience with the glamorization of dumbness."

No, Ms. Stahl did not ask sorkin whether he felt that civility was a problem with political discourse. 

I wonder if sorkin's comments will be featured, and condemned, on the MSNBC lineup tonight, the way a conservative who said something like that about, say, John Kerry would be condemned. 

I'd put the chances right up there with Hosni Mubarak leaving Egypt, moving to Lancaster, PA and becoming an Amish farmer.


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!!