Wednesday, 28 January 2015
CHARLES BLOW'S SON
Charles Blow is a New York Times op-ed columnist. He has a son who attends Yale University.
On Monday, Mr. Blow's column was an impassioned account of his son being stopped, while walking from the library to his dorm, by an officer - with gun drawn - who told him to to identify himself, asked a number of other questions, and eventually let him continue on his way.
It turned out that a burglary had taken place and Mr. Blow's son matched the description given to police.
Charles Blow was scared out of his mind. What if his son, who, having never been in such a before was, understandably, scared out of his mind, had made the wrong move - maybe reached for his ID before being asked, or spontaneously jerked his body out of fear? He might have been shot dead on the spot.
I would have felt the same way if that were my son.
Mr. Blow was also furious because he felt the gun should not have been drawn at that time, only if the suspect/his son made some kind of threatening move.
I would have felt the same way about that too.
Mr. Blow did not mention the fact that his son is Black - though the fact that he is a Black man who writes almost exclusively from a Black perspective makes the racial angle implicit to any regular reader of his columns.
Perhaps that is why he did not mention that the police officer who accosted his son, gun drawn, was also Black.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Charles Blow's emotional account of what his son went through. As the parents of two children who went to out-of-town universities, My wife and I worried constantly about what might happen to them while they were far away from home. And, if I were the father of a Black child, I would have an extra worry - a huge one - to deal with that Mr. Blow knows and I can only imagine.
That said, I would love to hear the officer's side. Wouldn't you?
Was there a reason he was concerned/fearful enough to quickly - maybe prematurely - draw his gun; one which, for some reason, was not included in Charles Blow's column? For example, had there been recent incidents of violence involving young men matching Mr. Blow's son's description, which caused him to do so?
I hope we find out. But since I am guessing everyone, on all sides, would like this incident to disappear into the memory hole as quickly as possible, I doubt that we will.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:05 AM
Here's a little bit of news most mainstream media won't be providing you with...because it reflects badly - very badly - on ObamaCare.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), ten million people will be pushed off of employer-based insurance coverage by 2021. Originally, it had projected just one million.
Ten million? Up from one million? For a system about which the President originally told us - dozens of times - that "if you like your coverage you can keep your coverage"? If that isn't news, what is?
Well, it isn't. Not for most media venues.
Why? Because, like the burying of the Bowe Bergdahl investigation, and the fact that radical Islamic terrorism is not "virtually decimated" but alive, well, and stronger then ever, it is embarrassing to Barack Obama. And we can't have that, can we?
A question for anyone who can provide a credible answer: why did the CBO get this so wrong? Was it because they're all impossibly incompetent? Was it because the data they were provided by Obama & Co. were so fraudulent that it caused this kind of disparity? A combination of the two?
And if the CBO can be so wrong about this element of ObamaCare, why would we believe anything else they have projected about any other element of it?
My final question: what would it take for mainstream media to stop acting like Barack Obama's Accomplice Media, and report this information with the same flair it reported supposed "successes" for ObamaCare (remember how it covered the now-debunked 8.1 million signups ObamaCare was supposed to have achieved by last March?)
Or, put more simply, when are they going to be actual journalists again, rather than a cheering section for Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats?
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:38 AM
BLIZZARDS AND BLAME
There are people - a good number of them, evidently - attacking Governors Cuomo of New York, Christie of New Jersey, Malloy of Connecticut and Mayor bill de blasio of New York City for overreacting to the blizzard that, for the most part, turned into little more than a good-sized snowfall (as opposed to Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine, where it was everything the forecasters predicted).
That is ridiculous.
The closing of schools, highways, etc. was not done on a whim or anyone's neuroses. These leaders worked with the information they were given, by forecasters whose training and technology told them an epic blizzard was on the way.
Instead of breathing a sigh of relief that things changed (as they often do with storms that come up the northeast corridor), it was much easier to take a cheap shot at the people who were trying to protect us.
What would these same geniuses have said if only minimal precautions were taken, and the blizzard fully materialized? Would they be first on line to lay blame for the resulting stranded cars, accidents and fatalities on Cuomo, Christie, Malloy and de blasio?
I thank them all for doing the right thing.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:49 AM
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
DENNIS PRAGER MAKES AN HONEST MAN OF BARACK OBAMA
Dennis Prager, writing for National Review, has done something I would have thought nearly impossible: he has made an honest man of Barack Obama.
Mr. Prager did it by taking last week's State Of The Union Speech, putting up selected comments by Mr. Obama, and then putting up what Obama would have said if he were disposed to being honest.
Here is a little swatch of Prager's handiwork (you can read the rest by clicking here). Enjoy the laugh, or gnash your teeth. Maybe both:
Obama (PO): "Six years ago, nearly 180,000 American troops served
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 15,000 remain. And we
salute the courage and sacrifice of every man and woman in this 9/11
generation who has served to keep us safe."
President Obama (HPO): "While I salute the courage of all the
Americans who served there, my withdrawal has rendered their
sacrifices meaningless. I made it possible for the Islamic State to
rise and to control Mosul and other areas of Iraq, and enabled Iran,
the most dangerous country in the world, to fill the void we left."
"The shadow of crisis has passed, and the state of the union is
"The shadow of my crisis has passed. I was reelected, my approval
ratings are stable, and the 2014 elections that held me back from
doing whatever I want to do are done with. As regards America and the
world, however, the shadow of crisis is probably darker than at any
time since World War II. And what I really meant when I said the
state of the union is strong is that the state of the government is
strong. The government controls more of Americans' lives than ever
"Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly
"I know that in every country in the world only a few do
spectacularly well. And as long as some human beings have more
ability, work harder, and/or have more luck than others, that will
always be the case. So why did I ask this pointless question? Because
it foments class anger."
"Will we allow ourselves to be sorted into factions and turned
against one another?"
"In my six years as president it is we Democrats who have sorted
Americans into factions - blacks against whites, women against men,
and the poor and middle class against those who are richer - more
than at any time in American history. How else can a Democrat win an
election? If blacks don't resent whites, women don't think
they're being suppressed by male sexism, and the 99 percent don't
resent the 1 percent, Democrats will never win an election."
The bottom line? Dennis Prager is a very smart man. And Barack Obama is a very dishonest one.
End of blog.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 12:48 PM
OBAMA'S ISRAEL LIE
Why will Barack Obama refuse to meet with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to the USA in March to address a joint session of congress?
Because, according to the party line spouted by Obama & Co. for the past week, Israeli elections are later that month, and President Obama has a "long-standing policy" of not interfering with other country's elections.
The fact that the Middle East is exploding, and Mr. Obama continues to facilitate Iran's development of a nuclear bomb...which, it has made clear, Israel would be primary among the targets it would use that bomb for? Irrelevant'n'immaterial. We don't get involved in other countries' elections.
The problem with this, readers, is that they are lying. Flat-out lying.
Excerpted from Thomas Rose's piece at breitbart.com:
days after the Obama White House accused House Speaker John Boehner
of "breaking protocol" by inviting Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of
Congress, a team of up to five Obama campaign operatives has
reportedly arrived in Israel to lead a campaign to defeat the Israeli
Prime Minister in upcoming national elections scheduled for March 17.
anti-Netanyahu, left wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports a
group called "One Voice," reportedly funded by American donors,
is paying for the Obama campaign team. That group is reportedly being
lead by Obama's 2012 field director Jeremy Bird.
Jerusalem Post columnist and putative Knesset candidate Caroline
Glick reported on her Facebook page, "Obama won't
meet Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington when he addresses the
Joint Houses of Congress in March because of Netanyahu's visit's
proximity to the Israeli elections. And Obama, of course believes in
protocol and propriety which is why he won't get involved." And
yet, Glick adds, "He's just sending his 2012 field campaign
manager to Israel to run a campaign to defeat Netanyahu."
Let me say it again. They are lying. Flat-out lying.
Do President Obama and the people around him ever tell the truth about anything? And could President Obama possibly care less about the safety and security of Israel - one of our staunchest allies in the world?
Two more years of this nightmare. I count the seconds.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 09:20 AM
THE MARCH FOR LIFE BLACKOUT - EPILOG
As we talked about last week, mainstream media again imposed a virtual news blackout on the March For Life, which is held in Washington D.C. every year on January 22, the anniversary of Roe V Wade.
And, as I point out every year when it happens, regardless of your position on abortion, it is an absolute disgrace that the same media which will fall all over itself to report a few hundred activists - sometimes just a few dozen - who spout positions most of them appear to be in sympathy with, will bury an event of this magnitude, apparently because it is in opposition to their position on the issue.
Brent Bozell, at Media Research Centers, has compiled a number of reactions to this latest example of self-imposed news censorship. Here are just a few (but you can read them all by clicking here):
200,000 people showed up in Washington to protest in favor of almost
any other cause, it would be considered national news by nearly every
newspaper or network. The decision to ignore America's biggest march
yet again shows that U.S. mainstream media, including the Big Three
networks, has no interest in reporting on anything that might harm
its agenda -- and nothing undercuts that agenda more than hundreds of
thousands of mostly young people coming to D.C. to support life."
Editor-in-Chief Co-Founder, LifeSiteNews.com
media blackout of this gigantic march shows how proud these
journalists are to wear their politics on their sleeve. They do a
disservice to the public, which accounts for why they are held in
such low regard."
President, The Catholic League
Americans could be forgiven if they had no idea that 200,000 people
took to the streets of the nation's capital every year to mark the
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. After all, how would they know? Protests,
like Occupy Wall Street, get major news coverage only when they
advance the agenda of the mainstream media."
more than a quarter of a million people come to one city on one day
for one cause - how can any real journalist not consider it to be
worth covering? Yet that's exactly what happened when the
42nd annual March for Life was held in Washington on January 22.
I'll bet that every other cause or protest-related rally
drawing over 100,000 people to the nation's capital in the last
year was covered and covered excessively, while the March for Life
was treated as if it never even happened."
President, Let Freedom Ring
not surprising when the big media ignore large gatherings in
Washington - year after year - of hundreds of thousands of
pro-life activists, but it is unprofessional and betrays their
absolute bias. As a journalist, senior newspaper executive and media
entrepreneur for more than 35 years, I'm genuinely ashamed at what
my industry has become. Not only do they avoid debate and discussion
of the sanctity of life, they seek to distort the issue by hiding
gatherings with the vigor one would expect only in a totalitarian,
closed society with a government-controlled media."
Editor and Chief Executive Officer, WND.com, WND Books, WND
When it comes to ethics, integrity and professionalism, mainstream media seem to have no problem disgracing themselves, do they?
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:38 AM
THE DEMOCRAT LOVE AFFAIR WITH AL SHARPTON (CONT.)
You've got to be kidding. The President makes him a regular guest at the White House, New York Mayor bill de blasio treats him like they're going to be picking out furniture together, and now the Mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut?
The fact that this career racist, Black supremacist, anti-Semite, deadbeat, tax cheat is anywhere near a seat of power is sickening under any circumstances. But the fact that he remains one of the most powerful men in the Democrat Party - to de blasio and right up to President Obama - is not just sickening. It is a sickness - and it appears to be a chronic one that affects more and more Democrats.
The latest? Not content with kissing up to sharpton as he turned two instances in which White police officers were involved in the deaths of Black males into racial firestorms (even though, other than the perp being Black, neither incident appears to have any racial component - in the case of Eric Garner, the ranking officer on the scene was, herself, Black), we now have the Mayor of Bridgeport, Bill Finch, showing him love for, if you can believe it, climate change.
That's right, climate change.
Here is Ian Hanchett's article at breitbart.com (too short to excerpt):
CT Mayor Bill Finch (D) thanked MSNBC anchor Al Sharpton for
"fighting the good fight on climate change" during a report on
Winter Storm Juno on Monday's "PoliticsNation."
urging residents to stay off the roads and reporting that emergency
workers were ensuring that the elderly and homeless population were
taking care of, Finch told Sharpton "thank you for your show,
Reverend, you've been fighting the good fight on climate
change, and we can see the crazy climate here, and we'd like to
have a little bit more of you down in Washington."
There you go. "The Reverend", who got that title when he was declared a Pentecostal Minister at the age of 9, and then a Baptist minister when he was about 40 - neither with any formal training that I can find a record of - has now been declared an oracle of climate change.
The only "climate change" this joke of a man has ever engaged in is making sure the racial climate stays at fever pitch, so he can find ways to benefit from it.
Can you even begin to imagine what our wonderful "neutral" media would say about a Republican version of al sharpton if he had even a fraction of the access to Republican Presidents, Mayors, etc. that sharpton has?
al sharpton is a disgrace. And media which have no problem looking the other way on his behalf are every bit as disgraceful.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:29 AM
THE "BLIZZARD OF 2015": MORE BLUSTER THAN BLIZZARD
Well, we did get a major snowstorm. But compared to the doomsday scenarios being played out on media, we got off very, very lucky.
I can't tell for sure yet (I'm not particularly disposed to walking out wearing nothing but a terrycloth robe, and wading through snow with a ruler), but it looks like less than a foot to me. That ain't exactly occasional flurries, but it is one helluva lot less than the 18" - 24" or more they were predicting when we got into bed.
I suppose it could start up again. After all, yesterday's forecast was that the heaviest snow would be between 5AM and 1PM today. But the same forecasters, using the same "listen to me folks, I'm the expert" tone of voice, are now telling me that it has all moved on.
Well, that's weather for you. Look at it this way: just assume the forecasts will be about as accurate as CBO estimates of what ObamaCare will cost, and you'll never be disappointed.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 06:56 AM
Monday, 26 January 2015
WHY NETANYAHU SHOULD IGNORE OBAMA'S THREATS
Marc Thiessen, former Republican speechwriter and currently a Washington Post columnist (among other things), has written an excellent, compelling piece on why Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, should ignore the threat and insults emanating from the Obama administration - undoubtedly with Barack Obama's personal imprimatur - and follow through on John Boehner's offer to speak before a joint session of congress.
I urge you to read every word of Mr. Thiessen's commentary. But let me whet your appetite with the first few paragraphs - paying special attention to the last one, which I've put in bold print:
they talk this way about Iranian President Hassan Rouhani?
learning that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had accepted
invitation to address a joint session of Congress about the need
for new sanctions to stop Iran's nuclear program, the Obama
administration went ... well, nuclear.
"senior American official" threatened Netanyahu, telling the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz
that "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year
and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."
Meanwhile a "source close to [Secretary of State John] Kerry"
told The Post that the "secretary's patience is not infinite"
and that "playing politics with that relationship could blunt
Secretary Kerry's enthusiasm for being Israel's primary
please. No wonder Netanyahu is going around these people to Congress
for support. Is Kerry defending Israel as a favor to Netanyahu, or
because it is in the United States' vital interests to stand with
our closest ally in the Middle East? Just the threat of withdrawing
that support validates Netanyahu's suspicion that the Obama
administration does not have Israel's back in its negotiations with
Mr. Thiessen goes on to list out a number of the personal insults thrown Netanyahu's way from members of the administration - who would never have done so without an understanding, tacit or overt, that it was perfectly ok with President Obama.
That makes Mr. Netanyahu look like an adult and Mr. Obama look like a petulant child. Which, sad to say, pretty much sums up the way things really are.
With an ego as big as the sky and an Accomplice Media ready, willing and able to cover for him at every turn, Barack Obama has essentially given Israel the back of his hand for 6 years....while playing footsie with some of Israel's - and our - most dangerous enemies, most notably Iran.
Netanyahu knows it. Israel knows it (read the polls of how Israelis feel about Obama). Marc Thiessen knows it. And I know it.
I hope you do too.
Almost two more years of this nightmare to go. Is there any way to move up time?
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 20:37 PM
HMMMM, LET ME CHECK ON THAT......
I just got this from our pal Baby Sitter Jeena. I have no idea whether it is true. But it gave me a much-needed laugh.
Maybe it will do the same for you:
UPDATE: To any disappointed females of my acquaintance: Please keep in mind that Jews do not circumcise their thumbs.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 14:06 PM
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 does President Obama deal with a completely Republican congress?
-How will Harry Reid like watching Mitch McConnell take the bills he sat on for years and send them to the senate floor?
-Will the fact that almost everyone Hillary Clinton campaigned for lost hurt her prospects for the 2016 nomination?
-Have we gotten ahead of the ebola crisis? Can we?
-When will media talk about how many new jobs created in the Obama years are part-time rather than full-time?
Right down to:
-Is Lena Dunham finished?
-Will Alex Rodriguez ever play major league baseball for the Yankees (or anyone else) again?
-Why does the lightpost at 59th St. and Amsterdam Avenue have two one-way traffic signs, one directly over the other, pointing in opposite directions?BR>
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
Sweetness & Light