Wednesday, 10 July 2013

BDS BS

Ken Berwitz

So how does the Boycott/Divest/Sanction (BDS) crowd react to music and entertainment personalities performing in Israel?

Read this excerpt from David Lev's article at israelnationalnews.com - then use the link to read his entire article - and you'll have your answer:

When rock legend Paul McCartney came to Israel in 2008, he was, at least to some extent, taking his life in his hands. Not because of Israel's sometimes precarious security situation, but because he was threatened by BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction) anti-Israel groups. "I got death threats, but I'm coming anyway," the singer was quoted as saying by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs researcher Adam Shay.

"I got explicit death threats, but I have no intention of surrendering. I refuse to cancel my performances in Israel," Shay quoted McCartney as saying.

The former Beatle is not alone.

Dozens of other artists who schedule dates in Israel are lobbied, bullied, threatened, and even attacked at concerts by anti-Israel groups who are bent on isolating Israel culturally, as well as economically. Many artists, said Shay, claimed that their web sites have been attacked by hackers right before their Israeli concerts.

How lovely to find such "principled" folks.  But I have a simple question for them - one I am 100% sure we will never get an answer to from these Israel (and, I have little doubt, Jew) haters: 

-Have they ever threatened anyone who decided to go to Gaza or Judea/Samaria (the west bank) - be they entertainers, academics, diplomats or anyone else - until Palestinian authorities renounce their specific, written goal of killing all Jews, Israeli and otherwise and their specific, written goal of obliterating Israel - not just "disputed territories" but the entire country, every square inch of it?

No?  They haven't?  Why do you suppose?

Thank you Paul McCartney, and every other performer who has had the courage to go against these frauds, these haters, these hypocrites. You are more principled than all of them combined, with plenty to spare. 


THE TEXAS "ABORTION BAN" LEGISLATION: WHAT IT SAYS

Ken Berwitz

Now that Texas legislators have voted in favor of the so-called "Abortion Ban" bill.

The margin was 98-49, which might surprise some people who, after reading the love-fest media gave Wendy Davis, the Democrat who filibustered this bill and held it up for a week, were conned into believing this was any kind of close call.

Maybe it sailed through so easily because legislators were made aware that, at 20 weeks, the child's body is fully formed, it has its own beating heart, brain activity, and the mother can feel it kicking in her womb.   - and studies indicate it can feel pain.  Those are pretty compelling reasons to think twice before saying "go ahead, abort at will". 

Then there is the rest of the legislation.  Too bad virtually none of the media coverage went beyond this bill's ban on abortions after 20 weeks, and told us what else was in it. 

Given this striking lack of information, I think I'll make up the slack:  here are its other major elements, drawn from Steve Ertelt's article at the anti-abortion site lifenews.com:

The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion clinics accountable by making them meet basic health and safety standards that have closed facilities in other states that are unable to comply. The bill also requires all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety regulations as an ambulatory surgical center, requires a doctor providing abortions to secure admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and lastly, requires a doctor to personally administer the abortion-inducing drugs to the patient.

So what do you think about the rest of the bill? 

Personally, my initial reaction was to wonder how come these requirements were not there already.  Abortions, whatever you might think of them pro or con, are medical procedures.  Why, then, should they be performed without, for example, a doctor who has admitting privileges at a hospital?  Do "pro-choice" advocates want there to be more kermit gosnell abortion slaughterhouses?  More douglas karpens (Texas' own version of gosnell)?  Is that ok with them?

And where are media in all this?  Do you feel they have covered the kermit gosnell horror show adequately?  douglas karpen?  Ask around, and see how many people even know who gosnell and karpen are, let alone what they have done;  you'll have your answer.

But Wendy Davis?  These same media declare her a great hero of "women's health". 

Will someone mention to Wendy...and her countless pals in the media....that about half the babies she is so proud to support the killing of are female.  How's their health?


WHAT KIND OF JUDGE.....

Ken Berwitz

.....doesn't just ask a defendant if he wants to testify, but - over the exasperated objections of his defense team - presses him to the point that she is damn near goading him into doing so?

Debra Nelson is a joke.


DANIEL GREENFIELD EXPLAINS THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL

Ken Berwitz

I just read an excellent article about the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman's trial, by Daniel Greenfield at frontpagemag.com.

Here is what I consider its most salient part.  See if you agree:

Turning the Trayvon Martin case into a statement about race, rather than a confrontation between two men, dehumanized both Zimmerman and Martin, transforming them from people into characters in a morality play about racism.

The racialization of the case led to actual racial attacks, as documented in David Horowitz and John Perazzo's Black Skin Privilege.

"In the two months following Trayvon Martin's death, black assailants carried out at least 14 fourteen known attacks against white victims with the idea of "avenging" the fallen youth. In East Toledo, six juveniles beat a 78-year-old white man, shouting: "This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]!" In Gainesville, five blacks shouting "Trayvon!" beat a 27-year-old white man, leaving his face permanently disfigured."

Unlike George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin, these attacks were clearly racially motivated, but the media didn't swarm down on them, Obama didn't make any emotional speeches about them and the DOJ's best and brightest community organizers didn't begin training protesters to agitate the crowds and stir up talk of race riots. The Zimmerman case was supposed to teach about the evils of white privilege, while these attacks could teach only about black privilege.

Fascinating, isn't it, that racial violence by Blacks on Whites is almost always buried and forgotten in next to no time, if it is even reported at all.  But not a case like that of Trayvon Martin. 

Want an example beyond what Mr. Greenfield has provided?  Ok, here is a huge one:  the impossibly brutal atrocities, and ultimately, murders, of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian

Infuriatingly, I would bet that most readers do not have the slightest idea who these two people are.  But click here, and you will read a truly stomach-turning explanation.

Want to compare the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident to what happened to Mr. Newsom and Ms. Christian?  They aren't even in the same state, let alone the same ballpark.  Yet mainstream media gave the Newsom and Christian tortures and murders no more than nominal, perfunctory coverage for no more than a couple of days. By contrast, for a year and a half, these same media have given us unending coverage of Trayvon Martin.

Let me be clear about my own position.  Violence against anyone is ugly, regardless of which race we are talking about.  My feeling does not vary by whether the victim is White or Black, and whether the perpetrator is White or Black.  Period.

But a media which heavily covers White on Black violence, while studiously looking the other way when the violence is Black on White...is a racist media.

And, based on their own actions, that is exactly what we have.


BDS BS

Ken Berwitz

So how does the Boycott/Divest/Sanction (BDS) crowd react to music and entertainment personalities performing in Israel?

Read this excerpt from David Lev's article at israelnationalnews.com - then use the link to read his entire article - and you'll have your answer:

When rock legend Paul McCartney came to Israel in 2008, he was, at least to some extent, taking his life in his hands. Not because of Israel's sometimes precarious security situation, but because he was threatened by BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction) anti-Israel groups. "I got death threats, but I'm coming anyway," the singer was quoted as saying by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs researcher Adam Shay.

"I got explicit death threats, but I have no intention of surrendering. I refuse to cancel my performances in Israel," Shay quoted McCartney as saying.

The former Beatle is not alone.

Dozens of other artists who schedule dates in Israel are lobbied, bullied, threatened, and even attacked at concerts by anti-Israel groups who are bent on isolating Israel culturally, as well as economically. Many artists, said Shay, claimed that their web sites have been attacked by hackers right before their Israeli concerts.

How lovely to find such "principled" folks.  But I have a simple question for them - one I am 100% sure we will never get an answer to from these Israel (and, I have little doubt, Jew) haters: 

-Have they ever threatened anyone who decided to go to Gaza or Judea/Samaria (the west bank) - be they entertainers, academics, diplomats or anyone else - until Palestinian authorities renounce their specific, written goal of killing all Jews, Israeli and otherwise and their specific, written goal of obliterating Israel - not just "disputed territories" but the entire country, every square inch of it?

No?  They haven't?  Why do you suppose?

Thank you Paul McCartney, and every other performer who has had the courage to go against these frauds, these haters, these hypocrites. You are more principled than all of them combined, with plenty to spare. 


WHAT KIND OF JUDGE.....

Ken Berwitz

.....doesn't just ask a defendant if he wants to testify, but - over the exasperated objections of his defense team - presses him to the point that she is damn near goading him into doing so?

Debra Nelson is a joke.


THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: OBJECTION COUNT

Ken Berwitz

I've asked this question before, and I'm asking it again now.  Is anyone keeping count of how many times Judge Debra Nelson has ruled in favor of the prosecution and how many times she has ruled for the defense?  I could be wrong, but it seems to me the prosecution is getting a far better shake.

If I'm right, could it be that the prosecution is making a great many more reasonable objections than the defense?  Or maybe it is because Judge Nelson, anticipating an acquittal and fearful of how "the street" will react, is making sure that no one can say she in any way helped that verdict along.

This is pure speculation, of course.  But it certainly is of interest to me.  Maybe to you as well.

Zeke ......... So, Judge Nelson bans Trayvon Martin's text messages (talks about fighting, making 'lean' -- codeine / skittles / Arizona watermelon drug cocktail), ...... ..... and defense's animation of the incident - - - - - - but ---- lets the prosecution drag into court a cloth dummy which they use to speculate where positioned and how the two men struggled. ...... ..... "Could it have been ..... is it possible ...... blah, blah " ........ ...... (07/10/13)


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!!