Tuesday, 08 January 2013

ISRAEL PEACE PARTNER UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

Here, as reported by Sharona Schwartz in her blog at theblaze.com, are the words of Umm Osama, wife of Kahlil Al-Hayya, during a December interview on Al-Aqsa TV, which is broadcast in Gaza:

Women in Palestine play a great role in raising their children and in encouraging them to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. This is absolutely the most glorious thing a woman can do. Women play their role and are not inferior to men. When a man goes to wage Jihad, his wife does not say "Dont go" or try to stop him. She encourages and supports him. She is the one who prepares his equipment, bids him farewell, and welcomes [his Jihad].

She instills in her children the love of Jihad and martyrdom for the sake of Allah. If every mother were to prevent her son from waging Jihad for the sake of Allah, who would wage Jihad? Who would support Palestine? Palestine is dear to us, and its price is paid with our body remains and our lifeblood.

Is not Allah's reward precious? Allahs reward is Paradise. Paradise requires from us our blood, our body remains, and our efforts for its sake.[...]

Sister, Jihad is ordained for us. It is our duty to wage Jihad, because either we wage Jihad or...

Interviewer: We want to die as martyrs.

Umm Osama: Indeed we do. I am constantly praying: "Allah, make the end of our days be in martyrdom." I pray for this even for my husband and my children. None of us want to die in our beds. We pray that Allah will grant us Paradise.

If you want to see the entire interview, as recorded and translated by the invaluable resource MEMRI.org, just use the link I provided at the beginning of this blog.

These are the people the world demands Israel make peace with.

How?


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

This is one for the books.

Today's quote comes from Stephen Sweeney, the Democrat President of the New Jersey State Senate. 

Sweeney, after criticizing Republican Governor Chris Christie's record on job creation and noting that the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy, especially on the Jersey shore, will result in a construction boom, said this:

"I guess he prayed a lot and got lucky because a storm came"

Could this "man" be more disgusting or more stupid?  If so, how?

Sweeney, it should be noted, quickly apologized for the comment - much as a lawyer who wants to mount an insulting attack against a witness frames the insult as a question he knows will be successfully objected to, then immediately withdraws it. 

But I doubt that anyone with an IQ above, say, 43, has illusions about the sincerity level of his apology - which is nonexistent.

So congratulations to Stephen Sweeney for making this blog's "quote of the day" list.  How proud the people of your district must be.


PIERS MORGAN VS. ALEX JONES

Ken Berwitz

When an irresistible force such as you
Meets and old immovable object like me
You can bet as sure as you live
Something's gotta give, something's gotta give,
Something's gotta give.

Frank Sinatra recorded the great Johnny Mercer song, "Something's Gotta Give", in 1959.  Little did he know he was singing about last night's Piers Morgan show on CNN.  Piers Morgan is a take-no-prisoners left wing British expatriate (at least as of now; he's threatening to move back) and his guest was Alex Jones, a gun-toting right wing activist and syndicated talk show host. 

First, let me give credit to Morgan for asking Alex Jones on the show.  It took guts, because Jones is one of the prime movers in the petition demanding that Morgan be deported - which currently has over 100,000 signatures. 

My guess is that Morgan invited him to (verbally) duke it out, thinking that he would make short work of a right wing nutcake..

Well, it didn't exactly work out that way.

Want to see for yourself?  Ok.  Let me show just the beginning of the show:

Here is part of Jones' opening salvo, in which he explains - starting conversationally and ending with him yelling and gesticulating - why he was pushing the petition and why he thinks citizen ownership of legal guns is a positive, not a negative:

We did it as a way to bring attention to the fact that we have all of these foreigners, and the Russian government, the official Chinese government -- Mao said political power goes out of the barrel of a gun, he killed about 80 million people because he's the only guy who had the guns -- so we did it to point out that this is globalism, and the mega banks that control the planet and brag they have taken over -- in Bloomberg, AP, Reuters, you name it -- brag that they're going to get our guns as well. They've taken everybody's guns, but the Swiss and the American people and when they get our guns, they can have their world tyranny while the government buys 1.6 billion bullets, armored vehicles, tanks, helicopters, predator drones, armed now in U.S. skies, being used to arrest people in North Dakota.

The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting. It's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs. Take the woman in india, your piece earlier on CNN earlier, I was watching during Anderson Cooper's show, didn't tell you the women of India have signed giant petitions to get firearms because the police can't and won't protect them.

The answer is -- wait a minute, I have FBI crime statistics that come out of a year late, 2011, 20-plus percent crime drop in the last nine years, real violent crime because more guns means less crime. Britain took the guns 15, 16 years ago. Tripling of your overall violent crime. True, we have a higher gun violence level, but overall, muggings, stabbing, deaths -- those men raped that woman to India to death with an iron rod 4 feet long. You can't ban the iron rods. The guns, the iron rods, Piers, didn't do it, the tyrants did it. Hitler took the guns Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns, and I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! It doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there in the street begging for them to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?

That's why you're going to fail......

Morgan repeatedly tried to ask a question, with Jones talking over him.....until Morgan finally got to ask how many gun murders there were in the UK last year (versus the United States). 

Jones' answer, in part, was:

I already said earlier that England had lower gun crime rate because you took all the guns. But you have hoards of people burning down cities and beating old women's brains out out everyday. They arrest people in England if they defend themselves, that's on record. My God, you have a total police state. Everybody is fleeing the country because -- you've had to flee, bud. Yeah, you fled here. Why don't you go back and face the charges for the hacking scandal?

PIERS MORGAN: Answer this question. How many --

JONES: Why did you get fired from the Daily Mirror for putting out fake stories? You're a hatchet man of the New World Order. You're a hatchet man! And I'm going to say this here, you think you're a tough guy? Have me back with a boxing ring and I'll wear red, white, and blue, and you'll wear your Jolly Roger.

Jones was loud, obnoxious and showed complete disdain for Morgan.  Not good.

On the other hand, Jones also tossed in a lot of facts that a) the public should know but b) our compromised mainstream media somehow never get around to reporting. 

Plus, if anyone ever deserved to have the wood put to him, it is the arrogant, imperious Piers Morgan.  The fact that Jones was completely boorish does not change what Morgan is.

Want to see the entire segment (about 14 minutes' worth)?  Click here.  Make sure you have plenty of popcorn...and maybe some body armor.


OBAMACARE - NOW THAT THE ELECTION IS OVER

Ken Berwitz

Well, the election is over.  Barack Obama has won again.  So now our wonderful "neutral" media can feel free to report the news.

Case in point:  here is the beginning of Reed Abelson's article about the costs of ObamaCare, from Saturday's New York Times:

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administrations health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, said some insurance companies could raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

Surprised?  Not if you read this blog you aren't.

But if you are not a regular reader, and/or if you rely on Barack Obama's accomplice media for your information, this might be something of a shock.  You might even be asking yourself questions like "Mainstream media had to be at least somewhat cognizant that this would happen under ObamaCare.  So how come the network news shows and so many of the other newspapers, newsweeklies, etc. weren't warning us about it earlier, like before the election when it might have affected our votes?"

If that is your question, my answer is "After four years of so many media venues and individual "journalists" acting as Barack Obama's accomplice media, why would you expect anything else?

Or, put another way, a media which buried Operation Fast and Furious, the Benghazi scandal, the green scandal, Barack Obama's stand on infanticide (i.e. his blocking of BAIPA legislation in the Illinois State Senate), etc. etc. etc. wouldn't tell you about the real cost of ObamaCare, before the election, would they?

Besides, if ObamaCare doesn't work out, it will be George Bush's fault, just like the economy is.  Just ask President Obama.

And whose fault is this?  Who is to blame for the mess we are in?  Us.  That's who.  This is our fault.  We voted for four more years of government a la Obama and it is exactly what we will get, right through to 2016. 

I hope, by then, that there's something left.


HUGO CHAVEZ'S IMPENDING DEATH: TWO THANK-YOU NOTES

Ken Berwitz

When hugo chavez dies - and it appears that will happen very, very soon - there are two thank-you notes to be issued.

One of them is to chavez himself, for stubbornly believing by his own lunatic-left political rhetoric, and seeking treatment in Cuba, rather than in a country which might have had the doctors, the technology and the experience with cancer to save his life.

The other is to Michael Moore, whose hosannas over the wonderful Cuban health care system may have helped convince chavez to do so.

Excerpted from yesterday's Investors Business Daily editorial:

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is dying of cancer in Havana, in a live demonstration of Cuba's vaunted socialized medical care. He went there instead of Brazil because he wanted to make a political statement. What irony.

"In July 2011, during (a)... summit in Caracas, Brazil's President, Dilma Rousseff, told a few of her colleagues - in private - that Chavez was likely to die as a result of 'his excessive paranoia rather than as a consequence of his serious - yet treatable - cancer,'" wrote Venezuelan consultant Pedro Burelli in a newsletter.

"What she meant to say," Burelli added, "was that by choosing secrecy in Cuba over medical competence at the Sirio-Libanese Hospital in Sao Paulo (where she had been treated successfully for lymphatic cancer) Chavez had condemned himself to a shorter life."

He presented the diagnoses from Caracas and Havana and the Brazilian specialist "considered it treatable under world-class protocols available in his center."

According to a 2011 report in the Wall Street Journal, Chavez chose Cuban medical care over the world-class treatment in Brazil for "political" reasons.

"While Mr. Chavez often lauds Cuban doctors, switching from Cuban to Brazilian care would have suggested the Cubans aren't capable of world class care."

Praising CastroCare was a prominent feature of Michael Moore's 2008 phony "documentary," "Sicko," which provided a shot in the arm for efforts to set up a socialized health care system in the U.S. - including the costly monstrosity known as ObamaCare.

As Chavez suffers through four surgeries in Cuba, it's instructive to note it was the Brazilian hospital - a teaching institution with top-of-the-line tomotherapy equipment, 2,000 doctors, and a record of success for beating cancer - that cured Rousseff as well as then-President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay. But it gets no recognition from the likes of Moore, who still promotes CastroCare on his Web site, while ignoring the private U.S. hospitals the Brazilians model themselves after.

Cuba by contrast, remains substandard, with average Cubans forced to bring their own bandages, water and sheets to hospitals that haven't seen repairs in years.

Question:  are we supposed to be upset or distressed by this? 

Personally, I am.........for the Cuban people.  But not for hugo chavez.  With or without his own sheets, chavez has made his bed.  Now let him expire in it.

And if Michael Moore should ever become seriously sick, I'm sure he'll make a beeline to Cuba's hospital system too.

Right, Michael?  Uh.....Michael??


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

This is one for the books.

Today's quote comes from Stephen Sweeney, the Democrat President of the New Jersey State Senate. 

Sweeney, after criticizing Republican Governor Chris Christie's record on job creation and noting that the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy, especially on the Jersey shore, will result in a construction boom, said this:

"I guess he prayed a lot and got lucky because a storm came"

Could this "man" be more disgusting or more stupid?  If so, how?

Sweeney, it should be noted, quickly apologized for the comment - much as a lawyer who wants to mount an insulting attack against a witness frames the insult as a question he knows will be successfully objected to, then immediately withdraws it. 

But I doubt that anyone with an IQ above, say, 43, has illusions about the sincerity level of his apology - which is nonexistent.

So congratulations to Stephen Sweeney for making this blog's "quote of the day" list.  How proud the people of your district must be.


OBAMACARE - NOW THAT THE ELECTION IS OVER

Ken Berwitz

Well, the election is over.  Barack Obama has won again.  So now our wonderful "neutral" media can feel free to report the news.

Case in point:  here is the beginning of Reed Abelson's article about the costs of ObamaCare, from Saturday's New York Times:

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administrations health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, said some insurance companies could raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

Surprised?  Not if you read this blog you aren't.

But if you are not a regular reader, and/or if you rely on Barack Obama's accomplice media for your information, this might be something of a shock.  You might even be asking yourself questions like "Mainstream media had to be at least somewhat cognizant that this would happen under ObamaCare.  So how come the network news shows and so many of the other newspapers, newsweeklies, etc. weren't warning us about it earlier, like before the election when it might have affected our votes?"

If that is your question, my answer is "After four years of so many media venues and individual "journalists" acting as Barack Obama's accomplice media, why would you expect anything else?

Or, put another way, a media which buried Operation Fast and Furious, the Benghazi scandal, the green scandal, Barack Obama's stand on infanticide (i.e. his blocking of BAIPA legislation in the Illinois State Senate), etc. etc. etc. wouldn't tell you about the real cost of ObamaCare, before the election, would they?

Besides, if ObamaCare doesn't work out, it will be George Bush's fault, just like the economy is.  Just ask President Obama.

And whose fault is this?  Who is to blame for the mess we are in?  Us.  That's who.  This is our fault.  We voted for four more years of government a la Obama and it is exactly what we will get, right through to 2016. 

I hope, by then, that there's something left.


RICHARD COHEN: IS HE LYING, OBTUSE, OR BOTH?

Ken Berwitz

I'm starting to wonder if there is something wrong with Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. 

I'm not talking about Mr. Cohen's political views, which very often differ from mine.  I'm talking about what appears to be a severe diminution of his reading comprehension.

Cohen's latest column, titled "The tarring of Chuck Hagel", is a full-bore attack on Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, based on Mr. Stephens' commentary, titled "Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem".

What, specifically is wrong with the Stephens piece?  According to Cohen:

Chuck Hagel is accused of uttering the no-no phrase "the Jewish lobby" - supposedly a virtual confession of anti-Semitism.

The absurdity of this charge, leveled last month by editorial writer and columnist Bret Stephens.....

Beyond what you just read, Cohen gives us the vague "But Stephens's real beef with Hagel is not over speech but policy",  followed by a comment about Hagel's proposed policy of talking to Iran without sanctions.  Other than that, the term "Jewish Lobby" is the entire basis of Mr. Cohen's attack.

This means one of two things:  either Cohen is a liar (not out of the question) or he is so obtuse that he cannot understand what Bret Stephens has plainly, clearly written.

Take a look at this excerpt from the Stephens piece and see for yourself:

In 2002, a year in which 457 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks (a figure proportionately equivalent to more than 20,000 fatalities in the U.S., or seven 9/11s), Mr. Hagel weighed in with the advice that "Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace." This was two years after Yasser Arafat had been offered a state by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David.

In 2006, Mr. Hagel described Israel's war against Hezbollah as "the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon." He later refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. In 2007, he voted against designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, and also urged President Bush to open "direct, unconditional" talks with Iran to create "a historic new dynamic in U.S.-Iran relations." In 2009, Mr. Hagel urged the Obama administration to open direct talks with Hamas.

Is it just me, or does that reference a bit more than the "Jewish lobby" comment?

How is it possible that Richard Cohen missed this part of what Stephens wrote?  It is comprised of two full paragraphs (out of a total of only 14), and details a specific, plainly-stated chronology of hagel's anti-Israel positions. 

As I said before, Cohen is either willfully not seeing what is in front of his eyes (that's the sanitized way of calling him a liar) or is obtuse to the point of not understanding it.  

I'll leave it to you to decide which it is...or if it is a little of both.  But whichever you settle on, the conclusion is the same:  what Richard Cohen wrote is dead wrong, and has misinformed his readers.

Too bad for them, and too bad for Mr. Cohen.

free` Ken, Maybe the reason he did it is. From your commentary; "... and has misinformed his readers." (01/08/13)


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!!