Tuesday, 09 February 2016
SUPER BOWL HALF-TIME
A quick word on the Super Bowl halftime show:
-How great was Lady Gaga's rendition of the national anthem?
-And how repulsive was Beyonce's racially-charged tribute to black lives matter?
Anyone who wonders how divisive this country has become, need only have watched the half time show for an update.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:48 AM
POLICE HATRED TO ITS "LOGICAL" CONCLUSION
What do you think about the lynchings which often took place in the south? The ones where racist scum lynched a Black man who was accused of doing something he may or may not have done, or lynched the first Black male they saw, regardless of whether he could have had anything to do with the accusation, to "teach those niggers a lesson"?
Does that sicken you to your stomach? I hope so. Because, if it doesn't, you need serious help.
With that in mind, please read the following article (too short to excerpt)from from CBS News (but not well covered by most mainstream media):
It's a story heard a lot these days: A cop mistook something
a suspect was carrying for a gun and shot him dead.
The difference with the Antroine Scott shooting in San
Antonio last week is that a local tabloid newspaper wants to publicly expose
every local cop over it.
CBS affiliate KENS-TV reports the owners of the San Antonio
Observer held a press conference and spoke on behalf of Scott's family while
revealing their plans. The editor-in-chief, Stephanie Zarriello, said shootings
of citizens by officers go unpunished because the officers remain anonymous.
"Like Ku Klux Klansmen with hoods, (officers) do
everything they can in order to protect their identities for fear of being
brought to justice," said Zarriello. "Just as the names and addresses
of sex offenders are publicized in order to protect the public from their
wicked behavior, we feel that our community has the right to the exact same
level of protection."
San Antonio's police chief said Friday that Scott was
holding a cellphone, not a gun as officers feared, when he was killed.
The 36-year-old was fatally shot at a north San Antonio
apartment complex by officers trying to serve two felony weapons and drug
warrants for his arrest Thursday evening.
At a news conference Friday, Police Chief William McManus
said Officer John Lee approached the suspect as he stepped from a car and told
Scott to raise his hands. McManus says Scott spun quickly with something in his
hand. Lee, fearing for his life, shot him in the upper torso. Scott died where
Lee, who's a 10-year veteran of the San Antonio Police
Department, has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of
a department investigation.
Let's see: Police are trying to serve a warrant for, among other things, felony weapons charges (i.e. there is good reason to believe the man they are serving those warrants are is armed). The man they are trying to serve has an object in his hand and spins quickly toward the officer. He shoots, the man is dead, and the item turns out not to be a weapon.
What would you have done? What if you did not know whether the the indeterminate object an accused weapons felon reached for was a gun?
Ok, let's take a worst case scenario here. Let's suppose that the cop is lying. Let's suppose he easily could have seen it was a cell phone, and decided, for whatever reasons (which may or may not have been racial) to just shoot the accused perp dead. How does that translate into ALL cops being compared to the ku klux klan? How does that translate into the names and addresses of ALL cops being put up for the public to see...so that every police officer, regardless of his or her quality as a human being, along with anyone who lives in his or her home, could become a target?
How, conceptually, does that differ from the ugly "any Black male will do" example of racism I put up at the beginning of this blog?
I don't know what the laws in Texas are for this kind of thing, but I hope every one that is applicable will be used against this sorry excuse for a "journalist", stephanie zarriello.
I wonder how she will feel if someone puts up her home address, and/or other personal information that people who dislike her can use it for whatever their purposes are.
I wonder how she will feel if someone puts up the same information for every employee of her paper, regardless of how they feel about her attitudes toward police, the way she intends to put up every police officer's information.
I hope for their sake they never have to suffer the possible consequences.
One other thing: the article starts with "It's a story heard a lot these days: a cop mistook something a suspect was carrying for a gun and shot him dead".
The hell it is.
There are almost a million police officers in this country. Count up all the instances and see whether it is "a story heard a lot these days". Even when trying to report a straight story they do this.
Journalism with a small "j". Again. As usual.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:22 AM
THE NEW 49ERS
What you are about to read is true. I will not mention where it came from, to protect the person who told it to us, so you'll have to take this on faith.
My wife and I, with another couple, were at a restaurant last night. We were surprised at how long it took for its staff to service our table...and by how many tables our waiter was handling...not just to serve food, but to change tablecloths and settings; the kind of thing a waiter in this type of restaurant usually does not do.
One of us (not me) mentioned that he was really working hard tonight. In answer, he apologized profusely and told us that the reason was because the restaurant had culled its staff down to 49 people in total, and the lower-end people were mostly gone, so he had to do the things they would have done in addition to waiting on tables.
He told us that the reason for this was, in one word (one name, actually): Obama. If the restaurant had 50 or more employees everyone would have to be paid health insurance.
He did not profess to be an accountant, and did not try to detail how much more money the restaurant would need to spend in overhead, how much higher the food bills would be to cover it, and how much business would be lost because of those higher bills (maybe enough to close altogether). But we didn't need him to.
After he left the table, I wondered out loud how many other places of business had become "49ers": i.e. how many others were doing exactly the same thing......at the cost of jobs, and, more specifically, at the cost of lower-end jobs.
I declined to also wonder out loud how many of those jobs were being filled by off-the-books illegals, not because the business owners wanted to break the law, but because it was the only way to stay competitive, thus stay in business. But I assure you I thought about it to myself.
I have often written that ObamaCare, as constructed, is an unworkable monstrosity. This is one of the many reasons why.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:43 AM
BILL CLINTON: WHAT DID HE MEAN?
We've all seen those cartoons, and photographs, where you're supposed to supply your own caption. Well, how about supplying a meaning to this comment, which Bill Clinton made, yesterday, while campaigning in Milford, New Hampshire.
"Sometimes when I am on a stage like this, I wish that
we weren't married, then I could say what I really think," Bill Clinton
said before introducing his wife at a rally. "I don't mean that in a
negative way. I am happy.
"The hotter this election gets, the more I wish I were
just a former president and, just for a few months, not the spouse of the next
one because, you know, I have to be careful what I say".
Huh? What's that supposed to mean?
If Bill Clinton doesn't mean that in a negative way, how exactly does he mean it? Is he sorry he can't say good things? About who?
I'll leave it to you to come up with a logical explanation...and lot's of luck with that. But I'm having trouble doing so. My only conclusion is that Bill Clinton may once have been a great politician (the greatest I ever saw), but what he was then and what he is now are two very different things.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:28 AM
Monday, 08 February 2016
BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATS, AND ISRAEL
Ken Berwitz |
Ever notice how many leftist Jews, when faced with the huge dichotemy between the far left's disdain for Israel and support for the one and only Jewish state on planet earth, run, do not walk, to the far left position?
Well, Bernie Sanders is no exception...as this excerpt from Adam Kredo's article at freebeacon.com will clearly show you:
Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders has tapped
several critics of Israel to advise him on foreign policy, including one who
has compared Israelis to "Nazis" and accused them of waging "a Holocaust."
Sanders, who is Jewish and had family members slaughtered
during the Holocaust, recently disclosed that his top foreign policy advisers
include J Street, a dovish Middle East advocacy group that backs some of
Congress' most vocal critics of Israel, former assistant Secretary of Defense
Larry Korb, and James Zogby, an Israel detractor who heads the Arab American
"Bernie seems to care very little about foreign policy, and
so his views are shaped inordinately by advisers," said Noah Pollak, executive
director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, an advocacy organization. "And
now we know who those advisers are. Two of them-Zogby and J Street-are leading
anti-Israel apologists for terrorism. By his association with these extremist groups,
Bernie fails the commander-in-chief test."
"Sanders commitment to get foreign policy advice from these
three folks is indicative that his time on a kibbutz in Israel did little else
than to instill in him a love for farming," said Mark McNulty, the Republican
Jewish Coalition's spokesman. "J Street and Zogby are more committed to tearing
down our relationship with Israel than providing sound policy advice. The
choice for Democrat Jews is stark and the more they learn the more a GOP
candidate committed to restoring our place in the world is an attractive
The one thing I disagree with here is Noah Pollak's claim that Bernie Sanders "fails the commander-in-chief test". Not for Democrats he doesn't.
Here are the most recent Gallup data (from one year ago) showing support for Israel relative to support for Palestinian Arabs, broken by Republicans, Independents and Democrats:
Take a good look at that chart. Note its movement over the years.
Now wonder, along with me, why so many of my Democrat Jewish friends who support Israel cannot absorb the simple, demonstrable fact that their party has left them.
Regular readers of this blog know what that I call people like this. I call them "The Lost Tribe", because they find a way to rationalize every fact, every action that communicates how anti-Israel the Democrat Party has become.
And those who would ignore what you just read and vote for Bernie Sanders - as they did for Barack Obama, especially for his re-election - prove again how deep into denial they are.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 16:59 PM
FROM THOSE WONDERFUL FOLKS WHO PLEDGED THEY WOULD NEVER GO NEGATIVE....
Ken Berwitz|From this morning's "Morning Joe" show on MSNBC (with special thanks to Mark Finkelstein at newsbusters.org, whose blog I pulled it from):
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: While his wife was in Flint, Michigan, former president Bill Clinton picked up the hatchet in New Hampshire, upping his attacks on her lone remaining primary opponent.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: That's sort of a, sort of a harsh way to put it.
JOE: Picked up the hatchet?
MIKA: -- Mike Barnicle, oh you weren't at that one? Clad in red and black plaid, President Clinton tried to lay out the contrast between the former Secretary of State and the senator on everything from Wall Street, to paying to college, to health care and he called attention to the culture of so-called Bernie bros, telling the stories of women supporting Hillary Clinton online who have been trolled by Sanders backers.
BILL CLINTON: She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary and explain, just explain, why they supported her have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane -- not to mention sexist -- to repeat. All four of them have been subject to these unbelievable personal attacks. From people, how dare you be a part of the establishment? So now we've been told that Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign fund is part of the establishment. It's a hermetically sealed deal. If you're not for us, the Boston Globe, the Concord Monitor, the Portsmouth newspaper, they're all part of the establishment. Except the Nashua paper, they endorse her, too, but Bernie took what they said good about him and put it in under all these endorsements, except they didn't endorse. Today they used a veteran's name saying he endorsed. He didn't endorse. But if you pointed out, just shows you how tied you are to the establishment. When you're making a revolution, you can't be too careful about the facts. You're just for me or against me.
I want you to laugh, because when you're mad you can't think. My mother told me when I was a boy and I was so mad at something somebody did, she said "Bill, any time somebody tries to get you to stop thinking, they are not your true friend." I just want you to think.
BERNIE SANDERS: Look, we don't want that crap [the Bernie bros trolling.] We will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look, anybody who is supporting me and doing sexist things is -- we don't want them.
JOE: You know, Chuck, I -- watching Bill Clinton there, first of all, it's painful. Secondly, it reminded me a lot of South Carolina in 2008.
CHUCK TODD: A little bit.
JOE: And Nevada in 2008. Remember when he was saying that people were chasing him around and saying that they were cheating in the caucuses there? It just, I don't get what's going on here.
TODD: I get what he's trying to do.
JOE: So what's he trying to do?
TODD: I think he's trying to get some -- I think they're trying to get some attention on what they believe, that Bernie Sanders is running a more negative campaign than he gets credit for. The Clinton campaign is very frustrated. They feel as if they say the smallest thing against him and the world comes crashing down on them. And they say, look what these guys are doing.
TODD: I didn't feel like that worked there. That's -- and was he trying to get the crowd to laugh with him?
TODD: That was the problem, that's where I, that's where --
TODD: That's where you cringed a little bit because I think he was trying to lighten up. I think even he knew, and he was trying to lighten the mood, and the crowd didn't respond.
Bernie assured us he would not go negative. Hillary assured us she would not go negative.
How's that working out?
And can you possibly be surprised by it? Or be surprised that mainstream media are spending dramatically more time assuring us that Republicans are beating up on each other than informing us of the battle royal which has developed between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton?
By this time, and after the "quality" of coverage we have seen so far, I would hope not.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:56 AM
ISRAEL - AN ELECTION YEAR REMINDER
Given that most blogs are about presidential politics these
days, I thought I would take this opportunity to remind readers of how things
are going in the Middle East - specifically, how things are going between
Israel and its supposed peace partners, Palestinian Arabs.
Excerpted from Ari Lieberman's article at frontpagemag.com:
When Barack Obama or his shills at the State Department
aren't busy apologizing to the Muslim world for America's imagined misdeeds or
thanking the Iranians for kidnapping our sailors, they're usually excoriating
Israel for "creating obstacles to peace" while the other side - the so-called
Palestinians - generally escape criticism. Palestinian Authority incitement and
outright anti-Semitism are all but ignored by the Obama administration as is
the fact that 6% of the PA's budget is earmarked toward paying the salaries of
convicted terrorists or their families.
Since a substantial portion of that budget is subsidized by the U.S.
taxpayer, it places the administration of being in the odd position of being an
accessary to terror.
The incidents and examples of Palestinian Authority
incitement are too voluminous to note in this piece but there are a few recurring
themes. Jews (and sometimes Christians) are routinely referred to as apes, pigs
or monkeys. Ancient blood libels accusing Jews of kidnapping Arab children for
the purpose of using their blood in preparing Passover Matzah are regurgitated
with regularity and lastly, those who engage in terrorism and murder are
extolled as heroes or Shahids. They or their families are often rewarded with
cash payments or lucrative job opportunities. Some have even had public places
named after them.
Two watchdog groups, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) and the
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have done an outstanding job
documenting and compiling the data relating to Palestinian incitement and
anti-Semitism and their viewing should be mandatory for State Department staff.
I doubt that will ever happen under an administration besotted by the concept
of tearing Israel's ancestral and historic heartland away from its people.
Israel is an oasis of western civilization, of modernity,
of progress in technology, medicine, science, the arts and agriculture, which sits adjacent to a self-created, self-enforced sewer of repression, hatred and desolation.
The purveyors of that repression, hatred and desolation are
who Israel is supposed to make peace with - an impossible task. And they are who many of the world's countries - the Obama-led United States front and center among them - blame Israel for not making peace with - an insane demonstration of a great many issues, all negative, one of which is the endurance of anti-Semitism as a driving force in this world.
US politics will, of course, continue to be the main area of discussion in this election year. But it is important to remember what
else is going on out there, and why it is happening. I hope this has been a useful contribution.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:11 AM
CHRIS CHRISTIE - SELLING JERSEY ATTITUDE
Is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie presidential material? Can he compete against a possible Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden) candidacy?
What does he have to sell? His record as Governor, while not terrible, is no great shakes either. Jersey has high taxes and is not exactly leading the way on job creation. While it is true that Mr. Christie's predecessor, Jon Corzine (why isn't he in jail?) left him a mess, that was 6 years ago. At some point the incumbent has to take ownership of his situation.
It would appear that, in Christie's mind, if his record as Governor isn't going to do the trick, then the next best thing is to show some - ok, a lot of - Jersey attitude. That is what he did against Marco Rubio in Saturday's debate, and that is what he is touting now - as demonstrated by what he said to a New Hampshire crowd yesterday:
"Through a lot of these earlier debates, the media was
saying to me, Gov. Christie, when are you going to challenge somebody? When are
we going to see the Gov. Christie of old? When are you going to engage with
Donald Trump? When are you going to engage with Marco Rubio? When are you going
to engage with Ted Cruz ?
"And I told them, I'm going to engage in a time and place of
my choosing, not before, not when the media wants to. And so I decided to
engage last night, and how do you think it went?"
Will this kind of bluster - which makes Governor Christie come across as sort of a poor man's Donald Trump - propel him forward in tomorrow's New Hampshire primary? Given that he has the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader, the state's most influential newspaper, the answer better be yes. Because without a strong showing here, his campaign is borderline moribund.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:58 AM
THE QUOTE OF THE DAY
Today's quote comes to us from Howard Dean, the former Governor of Vermont and - like Hillary Clinton - frontrunning presidential candidate who ran into a bit of trouble along the way.
Here is what he said in promoting Ms. Clinton's candidacy over fellow Vermonter Bernie Sanders. See if you can make heads or tails out of it:
"Why does Hillary Clinton have to put up with a double
standard? I don't hear anybody asking Bernie Sanders for his
transcripts for some speech he made with a labor union. Frankly, for Bernie to
say he doesn't have a super PAC, labor unions are super PACs. Now, they're
super PACs that Democrats like, so we don't go after labor unions, but this is
a double standard."
This, I think - I think - is a statement that is supposed to help Hillary Clinton, by beating up on Bernie Sanders....but, in the process, telling us that Sanders has super PACS - hated by Democrats - in his pocket, they consist of labor unions - absolutely imperative for any Democrat to win national office - it, and Democrats in general, and that Democrats are a bunch of overt hypocrites, who like super PACs (i.e. labor unions) which support them.
I award Howard Dean Quote Of The Day honors for providing us with what very well may be the most garbled, head-scratching comment of the campaign so far.
But don't worry, Howard. It's a good bet you won't be on the hook for long. Both sides of the aisle are perfectly capable of putting out material even more garbled and head-scratch worthy. In fact, as a political blogger, I'm counting on them to do just that.
I don't expect to be disappointed.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:22 AM
JAMES CARVILLE, RESURRECTED
My last post talked about the problem Hillary Clinton has with people from another era coming out of the woodwork to support her.
As if to prove me right, here's another example of just what I'm talking about: James Carville, resurrected just for Hillary, reprising his "aw, that ain't nuthin'" routine on her behalf.
From Carville's interview with New York radio host John Catsimatidis, during yesterday's show:
"This is going to be nothing. The idea that there's some kind of a criminality involved in here is, I think, patently ludicrous."
There you go. Right out of the Clinton playbook. Declare a scandal to be nothing by ignoring the facts and just sneering out a comment like the above, while assuming (usually correctly) that most mainstream media will show their Clinton-love and go along with it.
Will trotting out another relic from days gone by like James Carville work? Will today's voters look at Carville and think "wow, what a dynamic guy that is, what a great asset for Ms. Clinton, how can I not believe in her now"?
The truth? James Carville, like Lanny Davis, and Madeleine Albright, and Gloria Steinem, are VHS recordings in the digital age. They may wow the folks in 55+ gated communities, but are little more than amusing (sometimes not so amusing) flotsam and jetsam of history to most others.
No wonder this campaign is going down the tubes.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:06 AM
hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.
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. Such as:
-How much more completely must President Obama's - and Hillary Clinton's - middle east "policies" fail before media call them out?
-Will Hillary Clinton's scripted debate win turn her campaign around?
-When will media report that the ahmed mohamed "clock" story was a complete hoax?
-When will media report that Zimbabwe admitted there was no "Cecil the lion" scandal?
-When will media talk about how many new jobs created in the Obama years are part-time rather than full-time?
Right down to:
-Does Donald Trump actually pay money to the person who does his hair?
-Could the movie "Truth" possibly be more untrue?
-When did they stop giving out speeding tickets on the Garden State Parkway?
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!!
TO THE LEFT
Crooks and Liars
The Huffington Post
IN THE MIDDLE
Real Clear Politics
TO THE RIGHT
Front Page Magazine