Tuesday, 23 April 2013

ISRAEL'S GOAL

Ken Berwitz

My sister just sent me a link to Caroline Glick's latest commentary in the Jerusalem Post.

Here is the first part:

As Independence Day celebrations were winding down Tuesday night, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made a guest appearance on Channel 2's left-wing satire show Eretz Nehederet. One of the final questions that the show's host Eyal Kitzis asked the premier was how he would like to be remembered after he leaves office.

Netanyahu thought a moment and said, "I'd like to be remembered as the leader who preserved Israel's security."

On the face of it, Netanyahu's stated aspiration might seem dull. In a year he'll be the longest-serving prime minister in the state's history, and all he wants is to preserve our national security? Why is he aiming so low? And yet, the studio audience reacted to Netanyahu's modest goal with a thunderclap of applause.

After pausing to gather his thoughts, a clearly befuddled Kitzis mumbled something along the lines of, "Well, if you manage to make peace as well, we wouldn't object." The audience was silent.

The disparity between the audience's exultation and Kitzis's shocked disappointment at Netanyahu's answer exposed - yet again - the yawning gap between the mainstream Israeli view of the world, and that shared by members of our elite class.

The Israeli public gave our elites the opportunity to try out their peace fantasies in the 1990s. We gave their peace a chance and got repaid with massive terror and international isolation.

We are not interested in repeating the experience.

I think you'll find Ms. Glick's entire piece well worth reading.  I urge you to use the link I've provided, and decide for yourself.

Zeke .... ..... Caroline Glick is . V E R Y . insightful and candid . . . . . Everything that Olbermann, Mathews, Maddow, Bahar, etc, are N O T. .... .... (04/23/13)


ISRAEL'S GOAL

Ken Berwitz

My sister just sent me a link to Caroline Glick's latest commentary in the Jerusalem Post.

Here is the first part:

As Independence Day celebrations were winding down Tuesday night, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made a guest appearance on Channel 2's left-wing satire show Eretz Nehederet. One of the final questions that the show's host Eyal Kitzis asked the premier was how he would like to be remembered after he leaves office.

Netanyahu thought a moment and said, "I'd like to be remembered as the leader who preserved Israel's security."

On the face of it, Netanyahu's stated aspiration might seem dull. In a year he'll be the longest-serving prime minister in the state's history, and all he wants is to preserve our national security? Why is he aiming so low? And yet, the studio audience reacted to Netanyahu's modest goal with a thunderclap of applause.

After pausing to gather his thoughts, a clearly befuddled Kitzis mumbled something along the lines of, "Well, if you manage to make peace as well, we wouldn't object." The audience was silent.

The disparity between the audience's exultation and Kitzis's shocked disappointment at Netanyahu's answer exposed - yet again - the yawning gap between the mainstream Israeli view of the world, and that shared by members of our elite class.

The Israeli public gave our elites the opportunity to try out their peace fantasies in the 1990s. We gave their peace a chance and got repaid with massive terror and international isolation.

We are not interested in repeating the experience.

I think you'll find Ms. Glick's entire piece well worth reading.  I urge you to use the link I've provided, and decide for yourself.

Zeke .... ..... Caroline Glick is . V E R Y . insightful and candid . . . . . Everything that Olbermann, Mathews, Maddow, Bahar, etc, are N O T. .... .... (04/23/13)


IMMIGRATION AMNESTY: POLITICO.COM'S "DOH" MOMENT

Ken Berwitz

This, folks, comes under the heading, "DOH"

From my blog of February 5th (and it is far from the first one I have written on this subject):

I cannot prove it, but it seems very clear that their grand plan is to secure some form of amnesty for these millions and millions of illegal aliens, turn them into voters (I wonder how many already vote illegally, don't you?) and reap the benefit of a huge new electoral bloc which, they assume, will cast their ballots for democrats.

That would be great for the Democrat Party, no question about it.

When I wrote those words, I didn't think it was a major revelation.  I assumed it was pretty obvious to most folks.

Well, maybe it was not.  Maybe it is just now dawning on some of the supposedly politically-savvy folks out there.

Illustratively, here - two and a half months later - is an excerpt from Emily Shutheis's article at politico.com:

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation's political landscape for a generation or more - pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

If these people had been on the voting rolls in 2012 and voted along the same lines as other Hispanic voters did last fall, President Barack Obama's relatively narrow victory last fall would have been considerably wider, a POLITICO analysis showed.

Key swing states that Obama fought tooth and nail to win - like Florida, Colorado and Nevada - would have been comfortably in his column. And the president would have come very close to winning Arizona.

I congratulate Ms. Shultheis and the analysts at politico.com for their accurate assessment.  That, in and of itself, is good.

But should it really have taken all this time to figure out that the reason President Obama and his fellow Democrats give a damn about immigration reform is because it will get them more votes - a lot more votes? 

Doh!

Well, better late than never.....


USEFUL IDIOT WATCH: KATIE ROIPHE

Ken Berwitz

I think this probably is the start of a new series - one which highlights people whose combination of political correctness, naivete and reflexive inclination to blame the USA for anything and everything, results in them becoming useful idiots for fundamentalist lunatics who want western civilization replaced by a worldwide caliphate.

Today's useful idiot is Katie Roiphe, of slate.com.  She has written a blog which tries to explain away the actions of the tsarnaev brothers - two murdering maggots  - by "understanding" them through the book, and soon-to-be-released movie, "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" (tamerlan and dzhokhar tsarnaev were very reluctant, I'm sure).

If you've got the stomach for it, click here to read Roiphe's entire piece. 

Here is Ms. Roiphe's last paragraph - which should be enough to tell you what she is all about:

The novel is important not for any single message it has to offer, but for a clarity that could be useful in an emotionally fraught conversation, a careful reckoning of the particular variety of welcome we offer to children from abroad. The issue of immigration, or of our relation to foreigners living here, is too subtle, too nuanced, too delicate for newspapers, which is why we need to look to novelists. To understand the Boston bombers, we need also to understand and be honest about ourselves, the ways in which we both take in and don't take in people from other countries, the trickier side of the American dream.

My reaction to this?  Let me draw it from the immortal words (word, actually) of Mel Cooley - Alan Brady's brother-in-law/producer on The Dick Van Dyke show, played to the hilt by Richard Deacon).

Yuch.


ISLAM IN THE USA: FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Ken Berwitz

I am putting up the following three paragraphs from Nonie Darwish's article at frontpagemag.com as food for thought. 

I do not agree with the overall tone of these paragraphs, which I find very disturbing.  But it makes important points that I feel we should all be thinking about, so I am posting both the paragraphs and this link to Ms. Darwish's entire piece for you to read, and consider.

Some of the nicest people I know are Muslims, but that must never blind us from understanding the risk we are taking when we allow the building of hundreds of mosques financed by Saudi Arabia, as well as millions of Muslims to migrate into America at a time of a fierce, if sophisticated, desire by Islamist groups to spread Islam throughout the world, and to radicalize impressionable youths by stoking anger against the Western nations, people and values.

The existence of nice, educated Muslims should also never blind us from seeing the deep problems within the ideology of Islam and its jihadist goals. Muslims themselves admit that Islam is more than a religion - that it is, in fact, a state, legal system and a military institution-with the goal, as one's holy duty, of bringing Islam to the rest of the world, a desire often enshrined deep in the hearts of Muslims.

Even though our visible problem is with the Muslim jihadists, the so-called "moderate" Muslims have often been silent enablers and defenders, perhaps from inertia, misinformation or fear of reprisals against them, including death threats to them and members of their family should they speak out.

Make of this what you will.

(FYI:  Ms. Darwish is an Egyptian-born human rights activist.  Ms.  She was raised as a Muslim in Cairo and Gaza.  Her father, a Lieutenant General in the Egyptian army, was killed by Israeli forces in 1956, when she was 7 years old, causing her to grow up hating Israel and Jews. 

What caused her to change?  Here's the answer, in her own words:

"I always blamed Israel for my father's death, because that's what I was taught. I never looked at why Israel killed my father. They killed my father because the fedayeen were killing Israelis. They killed my father because when I was growing up, we had to recite poetry pledging jihad against Israel. We would have tears in our eyes, pledging that we wanted to die. I speak to people who think there was no terrorism against Israel before the '67 war. How can they deny it? My father died in it."

Today, Nonie Darwish is a US citizen and practicing Christian.)

free` Ken, I was just explaining to a friend the difference between American Islam and Real Islam. In AI - Jihad means a struggle within ones self. In RI - Jihad means a holy war against the infidels. I think more people need to know the differences. Of course he then retorted about the Christians and there crusade. Which I then had to explain was a fight for the very existence of other religions, mostly Christians, because of how many countries that were Christian had been taken over by Islam. History has been turned on its head in this country. (04/23/13)

Ken Berwitz free - you might tell your friend that it is generally recognized that the last Christian crusade ended with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia....in 1648. In other words, he is comparing the current state of Islam with a phase of Christianity that was abandoned to history almost four centuries ago . He is therefore making your point, not his. The only difference is that, if radical Islam has its way, the world will not revert to the mid 17th century, it will go back a lot further than that. (04/23/13)


TRYING DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: WHAT IS, AND WHAT IS NOT BEING PROPOSED

Ken Berwitz

How would you feel about a federal law which said that if there were clear and compelling evidence a citizen engaged in an act of terrorism against the United States, he/she could be treated as an enemy combatant?

Personally, I not only would avidly support such a law, but I would be demanding to know why it is not already either in the works or on the books.  I would demand to know who is against such a law and why. 

With that in mind, here is President Obama's Press Secretary, Jay Carney, yesterday afternoon:

"We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilians system of justice.  Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions...There is not an alternative for a U.S. citizen to be tried by a military commission".

Not one word about whether this law makes any sense in today's world, or about any initiative by President Obama or his fellow Democrats to change it.  Evidently, Obama & Co. are just fine with terrorists being given the same set of rights as petty thieves.

And if Republicans say/do nothing about changing the law so that dzhokhar tarnaev (and others like him) can be held as an enemy combatant - i.e. exactly what he is - they are every bit as wrong as the Obama administration is.

Oh, one other thing:  Here is the pathetic administration toad, Attorney General eric holder, talking about tsarnaev: 

"Although our investigation is ongoing, today's charges bring a successful end to a tragic week for the city of Boston, and for our country"

This is a successful end to the week? 

-Every victim reamains just as dead and just as injured. 

-A terrorist bombing "suspect" (the video evidence, along with his own bragging about the bombing is overwhelming;  there is absolutely no doubt that he did it) is resting comfortably in the hospital. 

-He is being lawyered up at taxpayer expense. 

-He has the right not to talk to anyone about what he did. 

-And all we have to "prove" that the actions of tsarnaev and his murdering maggot brother were not working with a sleeper cell - which, if it exists, presumably is still in business ready to send other murderers out among us, is his personal assurance...which is worth absolutely nothing. 

The Attorney General of the United States considers what you just read to be "successful"?

 There already are strong reasons for eric holder to be tossed out of office and to live the rest of his life in abject shame.  Rank this incredibly stupid, insensitive comment near the top of the list.


IMMIGRATION AMNESTY: POLITICO.COM'S "DOH" MOMENT

Ken Berwitz

This, folks, comes under the heading, "DOH"

From my blog of February 5th (and it is far from the first one I have written on this subject):

I cannot prove it, but it seems very clear that their grand plan is to secure some form of amnesty for these millions and millions of illegal aliens, turn them into voters (I wonder how many already vote illegally, don't you?) and reap the benefit of a huge new electoral bloc which, they assume, will cast their ballots for democrats.

That would be great for the Democrat Party, no question about it.

When I wrote those words, I didn't think it was a major revelation.  I assumed it was pretty obvious to most folks.

Well, maybe it was not.  Maybe it is just now dawning on some of the supposedly politically-savvy folks out there.

Illustratively, here - two and a half months later - is an excerpt from Emily Shutheis's article at politico.com:

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation's political landscape for a generation or more - pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

If these people had been on the voting rolls in 2012 and voted along the same lines as other Hispanic voters did last fall, President Barack Obama's relatively narrow victory last fall would have been considerably wider, a POLITICO analysis showed.

Key swing states that Obama fought tooth and nail to win - like Florida, Colorado and Nevada - would have been comfortably in his column. And the president would have come very close to winning Arizona.

I congratulate Ms. Shultheis and the analysts at politico.com for their accurate assessment.  That, in and of itself, is good.

But should it really have taken all this time to figure out that the reason President Obama and his fellow Democrats give a damn about immigration reform is because it will get them more votes - a lot more votes? 

Doh!

Well, better late than never.....


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

The previous blog was about slate.com's Katie Roiphe, and her "useful idiot" blog, which. to some degree, tried to rationalize the murderous maggots who bombed the Boston marathon.

Today's quote of the day comes to us from someone commenting on Ms. Roiphes blog under the name "Steve Sailer".  His targets are Ms. Roiphe's inference that we should be understanding because the tsarnaev brothers' were alienated by their experience with the Americans they grew up with, and the minority of other commenters who agree with her (yes, what she wrote was so ridiculous that even a majority of slate readers weren't buying).

In the words of Mr. Sailer:

"If only the Bomb Brothers hadn't grown up in such an intolerant, ignorant, right-wing, nativist place as Cambridge, MA -- a place where fully 13.9% of voters didn't vote for Obama -- then we Americans might not have brought this well-deserved incident upon our bigoted selves.

I don't know who this Steve Sailer guy is, but - as an aficionado of well-placed sarcasm -  I like him already.  At the very least, his Quote Of The Day honors are very, very well deserved.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

The previous blog was about slate.com's Katie Roiphe, and her "useful idiot" blog, which. to some degree, tried to rationalize the murderous maggots who bombed the Boston marathon.

Today's quote of the day comes to us from someone commenting on Ms. Roiphes blog under the name "Steve Sailer".  His targets are Ms. Roiphe's inference that we should be understanding because the tsarnaev brothers' were alienated by their experience with the Americans they grew up with, and the minority of other commenters who agree with her (yes, what she wrote was so ridiculous that even a majority of slate readers weren't buying).

In the words of Mr. Sailer:

"If only the Bomb Brothers hadn't grown up in such an intolerant, ignorant, right-wing, nativist place as Cambridge, MA -- a place where fully 13.9% of voters didn't vote for Obama -- then we Americans might not have brought this well-deserved incident upon our bigoted selves.

I don't know who this Steve Sailer guy is, but - as an aficionado of well-placed sarcasm -  I like him already.  At the very least, his Quote Of The Day honors are very, very well deserved.


ISLAM IN THE USA: FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Ken Berwitz

I am putting up the following three paragraphs from Nonie Darwish's article at frontpagemag.com as food for thought. 

I do not agree with the overall tone of these paragraphs, which I find very disturbing.  But it makes important points that I feel we should all be thinking about, so I am posting both the paragraphs and this link to Ms. Darwish's entire piece for you to read, and consider.

Some of the nicest people I know are Muslims, but that must never blind us from understanding the risk we are taking when we allow the building of hundreds of mosques financed by Saudi Arabia, as well as millions of Muslims to migrate into America at a time of a fierce, if sophisticated, desire by Islamist groups to spread Islam throughout the world, and to radicalize impressionable youths by stoking anger against the Western nations, people and values.

The existence of nice, educated Muslims should also never blind us from seeing the deep problems within the ideology of Islam and its jihadist goals. Muslims themselves admit that Islam is more than a religion - that it is, in fact, a state, legal system and a military institution-with the goal, as one's holy duty, of bringing Islam to the rest of the world, a desire often enshrined deep in the hearts of Muslims.

Even though our visible problem is with the Muslim jihadists, the so-called "moderate" Muslims have often been silent enablers and defenders, perhaps from inertia, misinformation or fear of reprisals against them, including death threats to them and members of their family should they speak out.

Make of this what you will.

(FYI:  Ms. Darwish is an Egyptian-born human rights activist.  Ms.  She was raised as a Muslim in Cairo and Gaza.  Her father, a Lieutenant General in the Egyptian army, was killed by Israeli forces in 1956, when she was 7 years old, causing her to grow up hating Israel and Jews. 

What caused her to change?  Here's the answer, in her own words:

"I always blamed Israel for my father's death, because that's what I was taught. I never looked at why Israel killed my father. They killed my father because the fedayeen were killing Israelis. They killed my father because when I was growing up, we had to recite poetry pledging jihad against Israel. We would have tears in our eyes, pledging that we wanted to die. I speak to people who think there was no terrorism against Israel before the '67 war. How can they deny it? My father died in it."

Today, Nonie Darwish is a US citizen and practicing Christian.)

free` Ken, I was just explaining to a friend the difference between American Islam and Real Islam. In AI - Jihad means a struggle within ones self. In RI - Jihad means a holy war against the infidels. I think more people need to know the differences. Of course he then retorted about the Christians and there crusade. Which I then had to explain was a fight for the very existence of other religions, mostly Christians, because of how many countries that were Christian had been taken over by Islam. History has been turned on its head in this country. (04/23/13)

Ken Berwitz free - you might tell your friend that it is generally recognized that the last Christian crusade ended with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia....in 1648. In other words, he is comparing the current state of Islam with a phase of Christianity that was abandoned to history almost four centuries ago . He is therefore making your point, not his. The only difference is that, if radical Islam has its way, the world will not revert to the mid 17th century, it will go back a lot further than that. (04/23/13)


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!!