Wednesday, 17 April 2013

THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes from Justin Trudeau, son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and brand new leader of Canada's Liberal Party (he assumed this position on Monday, just two days ago).

Mr. Trudeau asked how he would have responded to the Boston Marathon terrorist attack.  Here is his answer:

"Now, we don't know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue.  But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?

"Yes, there's a need for security and response.  But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don't emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society."

A serious political party picked Justin Trudeau to be its LEADER?   Holy maple leaf.

Three dead, upwards of 180 injured, some horribly disfigured, by two bombs - loaded with nails and ball bearings to maximize death and injury, then detonated in a crowd of innocent people - and this genius can't figure out it is a terrorist attack? 

But that is not to say he has no strong reaction.  He most certainly does.  His strong reaction is sympathy, compassion and understanding....for the terrorist.   After all, this poor soul feels completely excluded, alienated from society and has tensions too.  Give the little lamb a hug.

Oh, yeah, and - as an afterthought - there's a need for security and response. Sorry, almost forgot.

If I were part of the Liberal Party hierarchy and heard this prime example of oral idiotica, I'd go to bed tonight praying that Justin Trudeau would disappear from my party and surface somewhere more appropriate to his state of mind.  Maybe to a commune far up in the Northern Territories, where he can hold hands with everyone and sing Kumbaya all day. 

But I am not part of the Liberal Party hierarchy.  I just blog at hopelesslypartisan.com.  And I congratulate Justin Trudeau for what he said.

Why?  Because when comments are this moronic, obtuse and divorced from reality, it makes assigning Quote Of The Day honors easy.  He wins, hands (and IQ) down.


AN UGLY COMPARISON

Ken Berwitz

The news yesterday and today has been all Boston marathon terrorist attack, all the time. Very understandable.

But kermit gosnell, the monster from Philadelphia who stands accused of killing and damaging far more people than the 3 dead and roughly 170-180 injured in Boston (looking at murder alone, gosnell is charged with 8 counts, but the grand jury report indicates he may have personally killed or overseen the deaths of 100s of live, out-of-the-womb babies), has been on trial for a month. - and for most of that month the trial has received no media attention at all.

Does this have anything to do with the fact that, although he is accused of mass murder, kermit gosnell is an abortionist - thus, in mainstream media's eyes, a protected species, to be given deferential treatment?

That's worth thinking about.


THE "BENEFITS" OF BOYCOTTING ISRAEL

Ken Berwitz

Probably because I put up a "happy birthday" blog yesterday, to commemorate the 65th anniversary of Israel's founding in the modern era, my sister sent me a link to an 8 1/2 minute video titled "So You Want to Boycott Israel"?, which provides a partial list of what has been created or advanced in Israel, thus what a serious boycotter would miss out on.

Actually, the video is several years old and I have posted it here already.

But, on the theory that it is worth reposting every now and then to remind readers of how profoundly productive Israel is and what we would lose if it did not exist, I am going to do so again.

So click here, sit back, watch the video....

...and then think about how much material you would find in a video describing the innovations and advances being provided by Israel's enemies in the region.    

I promise it won't take long.


REPUBLICANS SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT

Ken Berwitz

Try though I might, I cannot come up with any good reason for almost all Republican Senators joining a very few Democrats and voting down the Manchin/Toomey background check proposal this afternoon.

Not only did this legislation make sense (how can any reasonable person be against background checks before someone can buy a firearm), but unless Senator Manchin is lying to their faces, it specifically forbade the creation of a national gun registry - which was, at least ostensibly, a key reason for Republican opposition.

Stupid is as stupid does.  This was stupid and then some. 

What's wrong with these people?

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

UPDATE:  I just read a comment that suggested the Attorney General may not be able to create a national gun registry, but other parts of government - say, homeland security - may be able to.   Was Senator Manchin being disingenuous by claiming it was forbidden?  I'll wait to see more information.

Zeke .... .... ... The reason? Seems even the Legislators do not trust the Government to follow the laws. ..... ..... One way or another, such a registry WOULD be created, and that has been the initial step of EVERY country that has banned private ownership of guns. (04/17/13)


THE NEW YORK TIMES' IDEA OF INDEPENDENT & NON-PARTISAN

Ken Berwitz

The New York Times has an editorial in this morning's paper, titled "Indisputable Torture".  Here are two key paragraphs:

A dozen years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, an independent, nonpartisan panel's examination of the interrogation and detention programs carried out in their aftermath by the Bush administration may seem to be musty old business. But the sweeping report issued on Tuesday by an 11-member task force convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, provides a valuable, even necessary reckoning.

It is the fullest independent effort so far to assess the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the C.I.A.'s secret prisons. Those who sanctioned the use of brutal methods, like former Vice President Dick Cheney, will continue to defend their use. But the report's authoritative conclusion that "the United States engaged in the practice of torture" is impossible to dismiss by a public that needs to know what was committed in the nation's name.

That's pretty clear, isn't it?  Bush and his people are brutal torturers.  An "independent, nonpartisan panel" said so, didn't it?  Hang 'em by their thumbs until they confess!

Except...

Clay Waters of newsbusters.org dredged up this article from the January 17, 2005 edition (three days before President Bush's second inaugural) of...well, well, well, the New York Times:

''This does not seem like a hospitable place for Democrats this week,'' said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, a nonprofit group that studies constitutional issues, who is heading to a spa in Belize. ''Obviously, as an ardent Democrat, I was very disappointed by the election results, and in the past, I've gone to counterinaugurals at friends' houses. But this year, there was just so much emotion behind this election, it seemed like a good time to get out of town.''

FYI:  Virginia Sloan is not only the President of the Constitution Project, she is its founder.  And as you can see by her own words, she is an ardent Democrat, who hated President Bush so much she couldn't even stand being in the country for his inauguration. 

Does that look "independent" and "nonpartisan' to you?

But wait.  There's more. 

Who did the interviewing for this supposedly nonpartisan group's report?  Why Neil Lewis - a former New York Times reporter who - surprise of surprises - has consistently been criticized by conservative web sites as a hard-leftist, that's who (What?  Did you expect a Times reporter to be criticized for being too conservative?)

Excerpted from yesterday's artcle in the Times - which also characterizes the Constitution Project as independent and non-partisan, of course:

The panel studied the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the C.I.A's secret prisons. Staff members, including the executive director, Neil A. Lewis, a former reporter for The New York Times, traveled to multiple detention sites and interviewed dozens of former American and foreign officials, as well as former detainees.

And, in case you think this is some kind of one-time aberration from an otherwise neutral group, click here to read the Constitution Project's own statement of issues.  See if you detect a lean to one side (hint:  it makes the Tower of Pisa look straight-up by comparison).

It is getting harder and harder to recall that the New York Times once had a good deal of credibility.   And fraudulent BS like this isn't likely to help it regain that credibility any time soon.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes from Justin Trudeau, son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and brand new leader of Canada's Liberal Party (he assumed this position on Monday, just two days ago).

Mr. Trudeau asked how he would have responded to the Boston Marathon terrorist attack.  Here is his answer:

"Now, we don't know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue.  But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?

"Yes, there's a need for security and response.  But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don't emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society."

A serious political party picked Justin Trudeau to be its LEADER?   Holy maple leaf.

Three dead, upwards of 180 injured, some horribly disfigured, by two bombs - loaded with nails and ball bearings to maximize death and injury, then detonated in a crowd of innocent people - and this genius can't figure out it is a terrorist attack? 

But that is not to say he has no strong reaction.  He most certainly does.  His strong reaction is sympathy, compassion and understanding....for the terrorist.   After all, this poor soul feels completely excluded, alienated from society and has tensions too.  Give the little lamb a hug.

Oh, yeah, and - as an afterthought - there's a need for security and response. Sorry, almost forgot.

If I were part of the Liberal Party hierarchy and heard this prime example of oral idiotica, I'd go to bed tonight praying that Justin Trudeau would disappear from my party and surface somewhere more appropriate to his state of mind.  Maybe to a commune far up in the Northern Territories, where he can hold hands with everyone and sing Kumbaya all day. 

But I am not part of the Liberal Party hierarchy.  I just blog at hopelesslypartisan.com.  And I congratulate Justin Trudeau for what he said.

Why?  Because when comments are this moronic, obtuse and divorced from reality, it makes assigning Quote Of The Day honors easy.  He wins, hands (and IQ) down.


REPUBLICANS SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT

Ken Berwitz

Try though I might, I cannot come up with any good reason for almost all Republican Senators joining a very few Democrats and voting down the Manchin/Toomey background check proposal this afternoon.

Not only did this legislation make sense (how can any reasonable person be against background checks before someone can buy a firearm), but unless Senator Manchin is lying to their faces, it specifically forbade the creation of a national gun registry - which was, at least ostensibly, a key reason for Republican opposition.

Stupid is as stupid does.  This was stupid and then some. 

What's wrong with these people?

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

UPDATE:  I just read a comment that suggested the Attorney General may not be able to create a national gun registry, but other parts of government - say, homeland security - may be able to.   Was Senator Manchin being disingenuous by claiming it was forbidden?  I'll wait to see more information.

Zeke .... .... ... The reason? Seems even the Legislators do not trust the Government to follow the laws. ..... ..... One way or another, such a registry WOULD be created, and that has been the initial step of EVERY country that has banned private ownership of guns. (04/17/13)


KERMIT GOSNELL: THE GRAND JURY REPORT

Ken Berwitz

I did not realize until today that the Grand Jury Report on kermit gosnell is on line.  But it is, and you can read it by clicking here

I want to show you just one small excerpt - from the top of page 105 to the middle of page 108. 

What you are about to read is posted verbatim.  I suggest you keep all food or drink far away before continuing.

Here it is;  please pay special attention to the last part, which I have put in bold print:

Gosnell's illegal and unorthodox practices resulted in the birth and then killing of many viable, live babies.

 

Killing really had to be part of Gosnell's plan. His method for performing late term abortions was to induce labor and delivery of intact fetuses, and he specialized in patients who were well beyond 24 weeks. Thus, the birth of live, viable babies was a natural and predictable consequence. The subsequent slitting of spinal cords, without any consideration for the babies' viability, was an integral part of what Gosnell's employees called his "standard procedure."

 

Steve Massof described this "standard procedure." It required the clinic's unequipped staff to manage a clinic full of sedated patients who were thrown into full labor, and then to "deal" with whatever precipitated, including live babies - all while the doctor was at home, or jogging, or working at a clinic in Wilmington. In particular, Massof described what Gosnell expected him to do when babies precipitated in the afternoon and evening before the doctor arrived:

 

A: As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Gosnell would dilate the cervix to make room for passage of the products. And with the Cytotec, softening the cervix, the outlet of the uterus, well, mother nature would take its course. Every woman is different.

 

Q: What would happen?

 

A: Well, the fetus would precipitate.

 

Q: What do you mean?

 

A: Oh, come right out, right out. Just you know, I would be called, somebody would call me and at that point what I would have to do is, I'd have to go and tend to that patient. 

 

Q: How would you do that? What would you do?

 

A: As - well, my first - my first reaction would be is at that point it depended sometimes it happened in the waiting room, sometimes it happened in the bathroom because, you know, a woman would be pushing in the bathroom.  Sometimes, you know, it happened everywhere in the clinic.  So what I would do is, I'd make sure that when - if the fetus precipitated, the cord was cut. Also, a standard procedure, the cervical spine was cut, as well as make sure that there wasn't bleeding or, in other words, the placenta came down and that's the way - we insured less blood would be lost.

 

Q: How often did this happen?

 

A: More times than I really care to remember. I would have to say every week it would happen to at least 50 percent of the patients.

 

Q: Fifty percent of the time?

 

A: Yeah, easy, easy. That - you know, and that is how, you know, and that's what would happen.

 

Q: You said it was standard procedure to cut the - first to cut the umbilical cord?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: That's from the mother or how is that attached?

 

A: Well that is from the mother to the fetus.

 

Q: And where would it be? Would it still be - the placenta would still be in the mother's uterus?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Okay.

 

A: Yes. And so I would cut the attachment and you know, then the cervical portion of the spine at that point. Those were the larger patients.

 

Q: So you said that was standard procedure. What do you mean when you say standard procedure?

 

A: Well, that's - that was his standard procedure.

 

Q: When you say his, do you mean Gosnell?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Did he show you how to do that?

 

A: Yes, he did.

 

Q: When did he show you how to do that?

 

A: He showed me how to do that maybe 2004, sometime within a year I started working there, that is what he did during his [second-trimester] procedures.

 

Tina Baldwin corroborated that this was Gosnell's standard procedure. She explained that after a fetus was expelled, Gosnell "used to go ahead and do the suction in the back of the neck." She saw this "hundreds" of times. Gosnell told her that this was "part of the demise."

 

Gosnell's technique of aborting pregnancies by inducing labor and delivery, while unnecessarily painful for the women, did not itself constitute a crime. What made his procedure criminal was that he routinely performed these abortions past the 24-week limit prescribed by law. Not only was this a crime in itself, it also meant that he was

regularly delivering babies who had a reasonable chance of survival.

 

Except Gosnell would not give them that chance. Pennsylvania law requires physicians to provide customary care for living babies outside the womb. Gosnell chose instead to slit their necks and store their bodies in various household containers, as if they were trash.

 

Although the Grand Jury learned that there is some difference of opinion as to the earliest point of viability, the experts who appeared before the Grand Jury all agreed that, by 24 weeks, organs are sufficiently developed that prognosis for survival is good. These babies can sometimes breathe on their own, though many require assistance. When a woman delivers at 24 weeks or later in a responsible medical setting, such assistance is provided, and resuscitation of the baby is routine. Indeed, a doctor's failure to provide assistance constitutes infanticide under Pennsylvania law.

 

Gosnell's intent to never resuscitate was obvious from his failure to employ even minimally qualified personnel or to have the equipment necessary to save the lives of newborn infants. The policy he instituted and carried out was not to try to revive live, viable babies. It was to kill them.

The level of depravity described in this report is stunning.  If kermit gosnell is guilty of these crimes, he is the most prolific mass murder in the history of the United States - and by plenty.

Yet, except for a day or two when they where shamed into it, there has been virtually no coverage of his trial by our mainstream media. 

How can these people call themselves journalists? 

They are not journalists.  They are propagandists determined to look the other way, even when a mass murderer is in front of their eyes.

The only reason I can think of  for their news blackout is that they avoid covering the trial of this monster because, if they did, so-called "women's groups" might attack them for daring to cast a negative light on an abortionist.   Can this possibly be true?   

Let me say it plainly:  to bury the kermit gosnell story is to have no journalistic professionalism.  Or ethics.  Or integrity.  But they are burying it anyway.

They are beyond shame.


THE SINGLE SICKEST ARTICLE ON THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING (SO FAR)

Ken Berwitz

What is the single sickest article on the Boston Marathon bombing so far?  

See if you think this one, from slate.com, makes the cut:

Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 07:24 PM EDT

Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

By David Sirota

Brilliant.  Just brilliant.

Let's "root" for the bomber to be a White terrorist - so slate can attack White Americans instead of Islamists. 

After all, it is common knowledge that we have no reason to be more wary of Islamist fundamentalists than White people we meet on the street.  Therefore, let's all hope and pray for a White person to be the bomber.  What a wonderful, uplifting feeling of equality we can all have about that, right?  

Can David Sirota really be this big an anal cavity?  Evidently, the answer is yes.

Slate.com must be proud as punch to have him on board.

(Anon) .... ..... ..... "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American" - - - - I can't believe David Sirota said that. .... .... Now, if the quote were, "a white MALE, CHRISTIAN, REPUBLICAN American", well, THEN I could believe he said that. ..... ....... . . . . . all the news that fits our agenda, we print. .... .... (04/17/13)

Zeke .... That was my comment ..... (slapping fingers) .... (04/17/13)


THE SINGLE SICKEST ARTICLE ON THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING (SO FAR)

Ken Berwitz

What is the single sickest article on the Boston Marathon bombing so far?  

See if you think this one, from slate.com, makes the cut:

Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 07:24 PM EDT

Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

By David Sirota

Brilliant.  Just brilliant.

Let's "root" for the bomber to be a White terrorist - so slate can attack White Americans instead of Islamists. 

After all, it is common knowledge that we have no reason to be more wary of Islamist fundamentalists than White people we meet on the street.  Therefore, let's all hope and pray for a White person to be the bomber.  What a wonderful, uplifting feeling of equality we can all have about that, right?  

Can David Sirota really be this big an anal cavity?  Evidently, the answer is yes.

Slate.com must be proud as punch to have him on board.

(Anon) .... ..... ..... "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American" - - - - I can't believe David Sirota said that. .... .... Now, if the quote were, "a white MALE, CHRISTIAN, REPUBLICAN American", well, THEN I could believe he said that. ..... ....... . . . . . all the news that fits our agenda, we print. .... .... (04/17/13)

Zeke .... That was my comment ..... (slapping fingers) .... (04/17/13)


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!!