Wednesday, 24 April 2013

ABOUT THAT 90% BACKGROUND CHECK CLAIM...

Ken Berwitz

President Obama has spent the last week or so telling us that 90% of the American people support the background check legislation which was voted down by the senate.

Without commenting on how I feel about this legislation (regular readers already know), I thought I would show you the research finding Mr. Obama and his Democrat cohorts base this claim on....and other findings in the same study which he somehow neglects to mention.

The basis for Mr. Obama's claim is found in a Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted April 11 - 14, where 1,003 respondents were asked "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?"  In total, 86% said they would support such a law.

Please note that this is an entirely generic question; it does not ask about the specific legislation on Capital Hill.  It does not in any way address, for instance, whether the legislation goes beyond simply requiring background checks, or what kind of background checks would be utilized, or whether the information would be compiled into a national registry of gun ownership which the government might, at some point in the future, use to confiscate some or all privately owned guns. 

Put another way, using this 86% response to a generic gun-ownership question as the basis for claiming 90% of the country wants the Democrats' legislation passed, is roughly the same as asking people if they want peace on earth, getting the inevitably huge percentage in favor, and using it as the basis for demanding that congress enact legislation disbanding our armed forces.

But am I splitting hairs?  Am I just finding a way to ignore how deeply a vast majority of the public is committed to restrictions on gun ownership? 

Well, here are a few other questions - from the same study, therefore asked of the same people.  Let's see if they give us any insight:

-Q:  Do you think (new gun control laws always interfere with the right to own guns), or do you think (it's possible to make new gun control laws without interfering with gun rights)?  38% say new laws always interfere and 55% say it is possible  - not by any means definite - but were not asked their opinion of the specific legislation voted down by the senate.  That ain't 90%.

-Q: Which do you think should be a higher priority right now - (enacting new laws to try to reduce gun violence), or (protecting the right to own guns)?  52% say new laws, and fully 40% say protecting the right to own guns.  That ain't 90%.

-Q: Do you think having a gun in the house makes it (a safer place to be) or (a more dangerous place to be)?  51% feel the house is safer.  Just 29% feel the house is more dangerous.  That ain't 90% either.

So what do you conclude from this? 

Speaking for myself, I conclude that, as a general precept, it is felt that background checks should be conducted before guns are sold. 

But I also conclude that many of the same people who agree with that general precept, express considerable fear that such checks could be used to prevent people from purchasing guns, a large pecentage feels protecting the rights of people to own guns is a higher priority than enacting new laws, and most feel having a gun in the house makes that house safer.

Does this in any way coincide with President Obama's claim that 90% of us favor passage of the Democrat background check legislation? 

Nope. 

In other words, Barack Obama is grossly distorting, or outright lying about, the findings of this study - your choice.

And, as per usual, his Accomplice Media, for the most part, have been happy to go along with this gross distortion/lie.

Why would you believe anything this man ever says?


A QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THE AUNT, AND THE MOTHER

Ken Berwitz

First it was the aunt.  And now, fresh back from Russia, it is the mother - telling anyone with a microphone and/or TV camera that the two murdering maggots she gave birth to and raised, are just a couple of nice boys, completely innocent of the Boston marathon bombing. 

The indisputable video evidence, along with the surviving maggot's admission that he and his brother got the recipe for their bombs from an al-qaeda magazine, don't count.  It is all a frame-up by the government because they're Muslims.  We should all rally to their side and defend them against this obviously false charges.

And, of course, not a word of sympathy for the victims.  The real ones.

If it were legal to toss both of these lying sacks of shit out of the country without ever hearing another word from their lying mouthes, I would be 100% fine with it.  And please do let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

No one damages Islam more than Islamist fundamentalists - of which there is no shortage, to say the very least.

And no one helps that damage along more than fundamentalist Islam's lying aiders and abetters.  Like these two, for example.


IN CASE YOU THINK IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.....

Ken Berwitz

I've written many times - today included - that we should never forget the actions of some Muslims do not define all Muslims. 

Religion is what people make of it, and there are many different varieties of religion within Islam.  Although it is true that, in aggregate terms, today's Islam is far and away the greatest purveyor of violence and intolerance among world religions, that does not tell you a thing about the next Muslim you meet.  People are individuals, not groups, and each person should be judged as a separate human being.

Illustratively, here are excerpts from an article in today's Toronto Sun, written by Tarek Fatah - a practicing Muslim who has no illusions at all about fundamentalist Islam.  Keep reading, and see for yourself:

Twelve years after 9/11 and the beat goes on. If the news of jihadi terrorist bombings in Boston and Bangalore was not enough to wake us from our collective slumber, the arrests of Chiheb Esseghaier of Montreal and Raed Jaser from Toronto this week certainly should. Though I doubt it.

According to RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) Assistant Commissioner James Malizia, the two Muslim men were allegedly getting "direction and guidance" from al-Qaida elements in Iran. He added: "Had this plot been carried out, it would have resulted in innocent people being killed or seriously injured."

The fact is these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief - the doctrine of armed jihad against the "kuffar" (non-Muslims).

The armed jihad launched against the infidels, is clearly promoted by the 20th-century writings of such Islamists as Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the late Syed Maudoodi of Jamaat-e-Islami of Indo-Pakistan.

Young Muslims across Canada and the U.S. are given booklets titled Towards Understanding Islam, written by Maudoodi. In the booklet, Maudoodi exhorts ordinary Muslims to launch jihad, as in armed struggle, against non-Muslims.

"Jihad is part of this overall defence of Islam," he writes.

In case the reader is left with any doubt about the meaning of the word "jihad," Maudoodi clarifies:

"In the language of the Divine Law, this word (jihad) is used specifically for the war that is waged solely in the name of God against those who perpetrate oppression as enemies of Islam. This supreme sacrifice is the responsibility of all Muslims."

Unless the leaders of Canadian and American mosques as well as the Islamic organizations denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us.

For those who search for the root cause of Islamist terrorism, it's the doctrine of jihad, stupid. 

(NOTE:  Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser aree the two Canadians who were arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a New York - Toronto commuter train)

Personally, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Fatah, and disagree with some of his views.  But certainly not with the views described above.

The point is that, although a ton of terrorism has been perpetrated in the name of Allah, being a Muslim and attending a Mosque does not equate to being a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. 

The single straightest path to hatred and intolerance is seeing people as components of groups, instead of as the individuals we all are.  Let's never lose sight of this fact.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from zubeidat tsarnaev, the warm, loving, nurturing mother of murdering maggots tamerlan and dzhokhar tsarnaev:

"If they are going to kill him. I don't care. My oldest son is killed, so I don't care. I don't care if my youngest son is going to be killed today. I want the world to hear this. And, I don't care if I am going to get killed too. And I will say Allahu Akbar!"

Yes, this statement of love and familial warmth is from the same zubeidat tsarnaev who also whined that her sons were being framed because they are Muslims. 

If I were a Muslim - and let's not ever forget there are many, many Muslims who do not share the fundamentalist-lunatic views expressed above - I would not be sure of whether to cringe in embarrassment or explode in rage that such a statement was tied to my religion.

It would be nice to hear from a few...............

But, while we're waiting, I feel zubeidat tsarnaev deserves Quote Of The Day honors - if, for no other reason, to recognize the world-class level of dishonesty and hypocrisy necessary to make that statement.

Congratulations, zubeidat.  Now stay the eff out of my country.

free` Ken, I am glad to see you caught that story, while reading your post titled 'a quick comment about the aunt...' I was going to post her quote in the comments with a link to the CNN video. I am glad I decided to look at the rest of your blog posts before posting the comment. As usual you are right on top of it. Good Job!!! (04/24/13)


JOAN WALSH: CAN SHE POSSIBLY BE THIS RIDICULOUS?

Ken Berwitz

Well, if what you are about to read comes across as ridiculous - and I promise it does - I guess the answer is yes.

Here is how Walsh, who (dis)graces the slate.com web site, explains the reason that former President George Bush's approval ratings have risen over the past four year and are now identical to those of her lord and savior, Barack Obama:

"Part of what I think the poll numbers tell us though is that President Obama improved the economy. The stimulus worked. It didn't do everything it needed to do, but it took people out of that misery that they were in, a lot of people. He has kept us safe. This bombing is an unfortunate blip, but in general he's done all the things you said. And people, the country doesn't have that sense of siege that it had in 2008, early 2009.

And so I think, you know, perhaps President Bush should thank President Obama tomorrow when he sees him because its let people sort of have the luxury of saying, "Oh, he wasn't such a bad guy." And we don't like to hate our presidents. Outside of a fringe, maybe on both sides, Americans don't want to hate their presidents. They want to admire their presidents, and they tend to go up in esteem after they're gone. So, you know, its not that surprising.

Huh?  Wha?

Let's start with the first paragraph:

-Obama dropped below 50% because he improved the economy?

-The stimulus, we were told, would stop unemployment at 8% but then went over 10%, and only now,four years later, is down to about where it was when he started.  This is working?

-Who did it take out of misery?  Certainly not the millions and millions of people who were out of work, or who just dropped out of the workforce altogether because they couldn't find any (workplace participation has not been this low since the Carter years).  Asking again:  This is working?

-Obama has kept us safe?  A terror attack that killed three and injured 180 is an "unfortunate blip"?  I guess the terror attack at Fort Hood was just a blip too.  And the Benghazi massacre, etc. etc. etc.  Is this supposed to be real or is Walsh trying out for "So You Want To Be An Incompetent Comedian?"

-The country doesn't have a sense of siege that it had in 2008/2009?  I recall a bad economy, but I don't recall a sense of siege, do you?

Ok, so much for the prelims.  Now we get to the good part:

-Bush has Obama to thank for his rising poll numbers, because the great successes Obama has had have given them the luxury of saying he's not such a bad guy?  That would need remedial help to achieve coherence, let alone logic.  Isn't Obama the guy who spent the past four years doing nothing but blaming Bush for every one of his failures?  That is what caused Bush's numbers to go up??????

-If we don't like to hate our Presidents, why would Bush's numbers have been bad in the first place?

-If Presidents go up in esteem after they're gone, why would Bush have anyone to thank for his esteem going up - least of all the chronic Bush-basher Barack Obama?

Here's a thought, Ms. Walsh:  maybe George Bush's numbers are going up (and Obama's are going down) because people finally realize that the incompetence and failure of Barack Obama's presidency did not occur because of his predecessor, it occurred because Barack Obama is an incompetent, failed president.  That would certainly lower his approval ratings...while raising Mr. Bush's, since that realization causes a second realization:  that Obama spent four years suckering them with his lame blame game.

The most amazing part?  They actually pay Joan Walsh for these, er, insights.  If her comments about Bush are any indication this, to say the least, is not money well spent.


TO THE SURPRISE OF NO ONE (EXCEPT THE USEFUL IDIOTS)....

Ken Berwitz

Here are the first four paragraphs of Orrin Dorell's article in USA Today:

The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.

"We don't know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there," said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.

If this surprises you, please signify by saying "I had no idea murdering religious fanatics might be influenced by the place they learned their religion".  Or, in the shorter version, just say "I am a useful idiot".

Thank you.


ABOUT THAT 90% BACKGROUND CHECK CLAIM...

Ken Berwitz

President Obama has spent the last week or so telling us that 90% of the American people support the background check legislation which was voted down by the senate.

Without commenting on how I feel about this legislation (regular readers already know), I thought I would show you the research finding Mr. Obama and his Democrat cohorts base this claim on....and other findings in the same study which he somehow neglects to mention.

The basis for Mr. Obama's claim is found in a Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted April 11 - 14, where 1,003 respondents were asked "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?"  In total, 86% said they would support such a law.

Please note that this is an entirely generic question; it does not ask about the specific legislation on Capital Hill.  It does not in any way address, for instance, whether the legislation goes beyond simply requiring background checks, or what kind of background checks would be utilized, or whether the information would be compiled into a national registry of gun ownership which the government might, at some point in the future, use to confiscate some or all privately owned guns. 

Put another way, using this 86% response to a generic gun-ownership question as the basis for claiming 90% of the country wants the Democrats' legislation passed, is roughly the same as asking people if they want peace on earth, getting the inevitably huge percentage in favor, and using it as the basis for demanding that congress enact legislation disbanding our armed forces.

But am I splitting hairs?  Am I just finding a way to ignore how deeply a vast majority of the public is committed to restrictions on gun ownership? 

Well, here are a few other questions - from the same study, therefore asked of the same people.  Let's see if they give us any insight:

-Q:  Do you think (new gun control laws always interfere with the right to own guns), or do you think (it's possible to make new gun control laws without interfering with gun rights)?  38% say new laws always interfere and 55% say it is possible  - not by any means definite - but were not asked their opinion of the specific legislation voted down by the senate.  That ain't 90%.

-Q: Which do you think should be a higher priority right now - (enacting new laws to try to reduce gun violence), or (protecting the right to own guns)?  52% say new laws, and fully 40% say protecting the right to own guns.  That ain't 90%.

-Q: Do you think having a gun in the house makes it (a safer place to be) or (a more dangerous place to be)?  51% feel the house is safer.  Just 29% feel the house is more dangerous.  That ain't 90% either.

So what do you conclude from this? 

Speaking for myself, I conclude that, as a general precept, it is felt that background checks should be conducted before guns are sold. 

But I also conclude that many of the same people who agree with that general precept, express considerable fear that such checks could be used to prevent people from purchasing guns, a large pecentage feels protecting the rights of people to own guns is a higher priority than enacting new laws, and most feel having a gun in the house makes that house safer.

Does this in any way coincide with President Obama's claim that 90% of us favor passage of the Democrat background check legislation? 

Nope. 

In other words, Barack Obama is grossly distorting, or outright lying about, the findings of this study - your choice.

And, as per usual, his Accomplice Media, for the most part, have been happy to go along with this gross distortion/lie.

Why would you believe anything this man ever says?


TO THE SURPRISE OF NO ONE (EXCEPT THE USEFUL IDIOTS)....

Ken Berwitz

Here are the first four paragraphs of Orrin Dorell's article in USA Today:

The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.

"We don't know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there," said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.

If this surprises you, please signify by saying "I had no idea murdering religious fanatics might be influenced by the place they learned their religion".  Or, in the shorter version, just say "I am a useful idiot".

Thank you.


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!!