Friday, 29 January 2010

GRANDPA AND THE IRS

Ken Berwitz
 
This comes to us from our pal West Coast Russ.  It is stupid and pretty low class.  However it is also funny as hell, so I am posting it.  Read it or don't - your choice:
 

The IRS decides to audit Grandpa, and summons him to the IRS office.

The IRS auditor was not surprised when Grandpa showed up with his attorney.

The auditor said, 'Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, Which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I'm not sure the IRS finds that believable.'

I'm a great gambler, and I can prove it,' says Grandpa. 'How about a demonstration?'

The auditor thinks for a moment and said, 'Okay. Go ahead.'

Grandpa says, 'I'll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye.'

The auditor thinks a moment and says, 'It's a bet.'

Grandpa removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor's jaw drops.

Grandpa says, 'Now, I'll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye.'

Now the auditor can tell Grandpa isn't blind, so he takes the bet.

Grandpa removes his dentures and bites his good eye.

The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Grandpa's attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.

'Want to go double or nothing?' Grandpa asks 'I'll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.'

The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there's no way this old guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.

Grandpa stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can't make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor's desk.

The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win.

But Grandpa's own attorney moans and puts his head in his hands.

'Are you okay?' the auditor asks.

'Not really,' says the attorney. 'This morning, when Grandpa told me he'd been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and piss all over your desk and that you'd be happy about it!'

I keep telling you! Don't Mess with Old People!!

 


TREATING TERRORISTS AS IF THEY WERE TERRORISTS

Ken Berwitz

 

Why is the eric holder Justice Department giving umar farouk abdulmutallab Miranda rights, a taxpayer-funded lawyer, the right to remain silent and a civil trial which will serve as an international forum for him to spew the radical Islamic hatred he has been filled with?

 

Here is a "man" (talk about using the word loosely) who was fresh from his terrorist training i.e. he knew where the training camp was and what kind of training was taking place there.  He also knew who was doing the training, who else was being trained and, quite possibly, what their missions were (and still are) going to be.

 

Now all that is lost.  WHY?

 

Well, for the same reason that holder is trying khalid sheikh mohammed and his pals in civil court.  None.

 

Thats right.  No reason at all.  

 

When our national disgrace of an Attorney General is asked, he gives us his assurance that abdulmutallab will get a fair trial in civil court. 

 

Well, thats nice.  Now:  why are abdulmutallab and the others not being treated like the enemy combatants they are?  Why is abdulmutallab in particular not being heavily, intensely interrogated by experts who might get the information that could prevent a major disaster that he knows about?  Why is this Somali national who tried to kill 300 mostly-US passengers on that plane being given the same rights as a US citizen?  Why is he not brought before a military tribunal like other enemy combatants throughout our history?

 

No answer from holder on those questions.  This arrogant, terrorist-sympathizing sack of manure apparently does not think we deserve one.  And his boss, President Obama, doesnt demand it either which makes him a willing accomplice.

 

Yesterday, Congressperson Peter King (R-NY), and Congressperson Michael McMahon (D-NY) introduced legislation that, if enacted (and you can bet your bottom dollar it will be if it comes to a vote) will force holder to act as if hes on our side, not theirs.

 

From the Associated Press:

 

Congressman introduces terrorist trial bill

By Associated Press

January 28, 2010, 12:11PM

 

NEW YORK -- Rep. Peter King says he has introduced a bill that would prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist trial from being held in New York City.

King said today that his bill would prohibit the use of Justice Department funds to try Guantanamo detainees in federal civilian courts.

The bill's original co-sponsor was Rep. Michael McMahon (D-Staten Island/Brooklyn).

Last month, the Obama administration announced that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others would be tried in federal court in lower Manhattan.

The New York congressman called it "one of the worst decisions ever made by any president."

He said terrorist suspects should be tried by military commissions.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg first supported the Manhattan trial decision. But yesterday, he said he would be happy if the trial was moved elsewhere.

 

The one piece of good news here is that there is no way in hell that this bill will be bottled up in committee, or voted down by Democrats in the house, or bottled up or voted down in the Senate.  Aside from the fact that it is an election year, I assume there are too many Democrats who are as sickened by holders action as King and McMahon are.

 

And, I strongly expect, that such legislation would cause abdulmutallab (who has not been held in Guantanamo to be moved from civil trial to military tribunal as well though it is doubtful we can get the kind of information from him now that we could have when he was a scared, inexperienced terrorist wannabe, just arrested after his bomb didnt work properly.  

 

Is there any doubt that this unexplainable, performance by holders justice department increases the possibility that bin laden will hit us again?  And if it happens, watch Obama and holder both try to blame Bush.

 

By the way, didnt Barack Obama spend the 2008 campaign attacking Bush for not going after and capturing bin laden?  Didnt he make is sound as though bin ladens capture would be one of his first orders of business?  

 

Well, it is over a year since he became commander-in-chief.  So tell me:  what happened to that campaign promise?

 

Look, I dont expect Mr. Obama to admit he was full of crap and that saying bin laden will be captured is 100% different than doing it.  But where are our wonderful neutral media?  Why arent they saying it?

 

Sadly, they are in the same place they usually are.  Mr. Obama pick up your thumb so we can see them.


Ken Berwitz   I apologize

Ken Berwitz
 
I apologize for only being able to blog one time during the past two days.  There are problems with the server that, I am told, are especially elusive and are being worked on even as I type this.
 
There is, however, a technique for blogging via email, and I am using it right now.  If it goes through, that is how I will blog until the problem is solved.  If not, I'll see if I can find some other way.  Arrggghhhh
 
 


PAUL KIRK: EX-SENATOR AND ILLEGAL 60TH VOTE

Ken Berwitz

 

Just a quick question:

 

Why is Paul Kirk, the interim senator from Massachusetts, still voting in the US senate?

 

A new senator has been elected.  And according to Massachusetts law, that ends Kirks term as interim senator even if the new senator, Scott Brown, has not yet been certified by the state.

 

Doubt me?  Then read this excerpt from an article in The Weekly Standard:  The bold print is mine:

 

based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.  Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate.  Qualification does not require state certification, the lawyers said.

An appointed senators right to vote is not dependent on whether his successor has been certified, the lawyers said.  In Massachusetts, the election of a senator must be certified by the governor, the governors council, and the secretary of state all of them Democrats.

Republican lawyers have examined Massachusetts particularly to find the rules governing a recount.  They also studied the law passed after Kennedys death on a Senate successor.

Since it would take months before an election of a successor could be held -- possibly causing Democrats to lose earlier health care votes -- Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator before an election is held.

The Republican lawyers also said Senate precedent is clear on when a new senators term begins and the term of an appointed senator ends.  In a number of cases, the pay of a senator who replaces an appointee was determined to begin on the day after the senators election.

When Republican John Tower of Texas was elected to the Senate in 1961, he wasnt certified until April 17.  But his pay as a senator began on April 2, the day after his election.  Strom Thurmond was elected senator from South Carolina in 1956, succeeding an appointed senator.  A resolution introduced by then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson established his Senate term to have begun the day after his election, weeks before his certification.


Since Scott Browns election, Paul Kirk has voted on a number of bills and has been the 60th vote on raising the national debt.

 

Do you think that, just maybe, someone in our wonderful neutral media should be questioning his legality to do this?  And therefore questioning the legality of the vote itself?

 

Me too. 

 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


KEITH OLBERMANN: RACIST AND HYPOCRITE?

Ken Berwitz

 

Is keith olbermann a racist and a hypocrite?

 

Before you answer, lets note what he said on yesterday's "Countdown" show, via excerpts from an article by Jeff Poor at www.newsbusters.org:

Grasping at Straws: Olbermann Claims Obama 'Arrogant' Label a Racist Euphemism

 

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 11:14 ET

A lot of leading thinkers on the right have warned about this, but now with President Barack Obama no longer enjoying high approval ratings and many of his defenders with their back against the wall, the race card is being deployed as one of the last lines of defense.

And one of the most bizarre and egregious examples of this desperation to defend the President at all costs came from MSNBC "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann. On his Jan 28 program, he singled out Erick Erickson of RedState.com, John Stossel, host of the Fox Business Channel's "Stossel", Jay Nordlinger of National Review, former Bush speechwriter and Washington Post contributor Marc Thiessen, John Hood, also of National Review and Fox News host Glenn Beck as racist for criticizing the president's demeanor during the Jan. 27 State of the Union address.

"But our winners, these guys, assessing not the speech, but the president himself," Olbermann said. "Erick Erickson, cocky.' John Stossel said he hoped the president would admit he was, quote, arrogant.' Jay Nordlinger, looks arrogant whether he is arrogant or not.' Marc Thiessen, defensive, arrogant.' John Hood, flippant and arrogant.' Glenn Beck, like a punk.'"

But here's where Olbermann played the role of race hustler. From just those comments, the MSNBC host divined what is in the hearts and minds of these individuals..

"Here's a little secret, gathered, sadly, from witnessing it my whole life, even from some in my own family," Olbermann said. "When racist white guys get together and they don't want to be caught using any of the popular epithets in use every day in this country about black people - and there's a chance one of them, or worse still a white guy who doesn't get it, might wander in and hear the conversation, when there's a risk even in saying "uppity" or "forgetting his place," the racist white guys revert to euphemisms and code words."

Therefore, based on Olbermann's supposed life experiences, criticizing the President for exhibiting a particular character trait earned these six individuals the distinct honor of being labeled Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" for Jan. 28, 2010.

"And among the code words that they think they're getting away with are cocky, flippant, punk, and especially arrogant," Olbermann concluded. "Mark Thiessen of The Washington Post, Eric Erickson of Red State, John Hood and Jay Nordlinger of the National Review and Glenn Beck and John Stossel of Fixed [Fox] News, today's Worst Persons in the World.'"

 

So what do we have here?

 

keith olbermann is telling us that the term arrogant (among others) is a racist code word.  He is telling us that when Barack Obama is called arrogant, the person doing the calling is a racist.  Ditto for cocky, flippant, punk and who knows how many others.

 

It sort of makes you wonder what negatives olbermann accepts to describe President Obama.  Any at all?  Maybe he'd like to put out a study guide so Mr. Obama's detractors can know their racial limitations.

 

Personally speaking, I consider Barack Obama arrogant.  Extremely so.  Thus, in the happy horse-manure world of keith olbermann, I must be a racist.  

 

I also consider keith olbermann arrogant.  Extremely so.  But in the same happy horse-manure world, since the guy I am talking about is White that does not make me racist.  olbermann has made it very clear that "arrogant" is only offensive for one race.

 

Therefore. according to keith olbermann, my use of the term arrogant either is or is not racist, based exclusively on the skin color of who I am talking about.  If I use it to describe a Black, I am a racist.  If I use it to describe a White, I am not. 

 

And he is calling other people racist??????????  Holy excrement.

 

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.


THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

 

Here is an update on the global warming/climate change scam.  It comes to us from Londons Daily Mail:

 

Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won't be prosecuted

By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 11:21 PM on 28th January 2010

 

Scientists at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.

 

The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.

 

But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.

 

The revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes for climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are too secretive and too arrogant.

 

It will pile pressure on the director of the university's climate change unit, Professor Phil Jones, who has stood aside while an investigation is carried out, and make it harder for him to return.

 

The ruling followed a complaint from retired engineer David Holland-66, whose Freedom of Information-requests were ignored.

Last night Mr Holland welcomed the watchdog's decision but said it was disappointing the researchers would not be prosecuted.

 

'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.'

 

The Climategate row broke in November when hundreds of stolen emails from the world-renowned Climate Research Unit in Norwich were posted online.

 

 The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

One request came in 2008 from Mr Holland, a grandfather from Northampton and an engineering graduate. He was seeking evidence that scientists had cherry-picked research when preparing the previous year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

 

After the request was received, a message from one academic to another on May 28, 2008, said: 'Oh MAN! Will this c**p never end?' In other emails the researchers complained that the unit was being bombarded with FOI requests from sceptics. And in another, researchers appeared to be encouraging each other to delete emails.

 

After the emails were published, Mr Holland complained to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO spokesman yesterday confirmed that the UEA breached the Freedom of Information Act.

 

He added: 'The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation.'

 

Climate change sceptics welcomed the ruling and called for the Climategate inquiry to be made public. Lord Lawson, head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said it should also investigate whether the CRU denied opportunities to scientists trying to publish dissenting views.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years. Critics have also accused it of exaggerating the risk of tropical storms and hurricanes.

 

Earlier this week, Britain's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, called on climate scientists to be more honest about the uncertainties of global warming.

 

Despite what you've just read, the Obama administration has committed to spending untold billions (trillions?) on global warming.  

 

And the administration is willing to turn our economy upside down to adhere to what these "scientists" are foisting upon us as if it were honestly-done, settled reality instead of manipulated and suppressed data which elevate their importance and get them virtually unlimited grant money.  

 

Why?


IRAN'S ANSWER TO THE PROTESTERS

Ken Berwitz

 

In case you were wondering how the protesters in Iran were making out the ones who risked their lives when they demanded democracy, and a real election instead of the fraudulent, farcical one that re-elected ahmadinejad

 

From CNN:

 

Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- Tehran's Revolutionary Court sentenced 11 people to death after convicting them of participating in post-election riots, state media reported Thursday.

 

Two of the sentences have been carried out; the rest are under appeal, the Iranian Students News Agency said, quoting a court official.

 

These are the first executions known to be related to the post-election violence that erupted across Iran in June and has continued since, Amnesty International said in a statement condemning the hangings.

 

But a lawyer for one of the men executed on Thursday disputed a key part of the official report.

 

"Both of these men were arrested two months before the elections and they were in prison until their sentences were carried out. So how can someone who's in prison take part in protests?" asked Nasrin Sotoudeh, a Tehran-based human rights lawyer who represented Arash Rahmanipour, one of two men hanged Thursday.

 

His father had been scheduled to visit Rahmanipour on the day of the execution, and learned only from a TV report that his son was dead, Sotoudeh said, describing the family as "extremely upset and shocked."

 

"Arash called his home two nights ago (Tuesday night) -- two nights before the sentence was carried out, and at that point Arash had no idea that his sentence was about to be carried out," she said.

 

She said the hanging violated Iranian law.

 

"The entire process, the investigation, the trial, the handing down of the sentence and the carrying out of the sentence, were done illegally and in secret," she told CNN by phone. "Arash's family and I did not have his case file. A sentence must first be announced to the defendant and his lawyer and only then can it be carried out, but this sentence was never announced to Arash or myself."

 

She said he had been forced to confess.

 

"He told me his pregnant sister had been arrested, too," she said. "In two sessions where he was interrogated, they placed his sister in front of him and told him if he wanted to see her free he had to admit to things he didn't do."

 

Rahmanipour's sister was later released from prison but lost the baby due to stress, Sotoudeh said.

 

Rahmanipour, 20, was charged with being a mohareb, or enemy of God, and being a member of Anjoman-e Padeshahi-e Iran (API), a banned anti-regime monarchist group, his lawyer said.

 

Amnesty International condemned the execution of Rahmanipour and the other man executed Thursday, Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani.

 

"These men were first unfairly convicted and now they have been unjustly killed. It is not even clear they had links to this group, as their 'confessions' appear to have been made under duress," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa deputy director.

 

The court said the defendants were convicted of "waging war against God, trying to overthrow the Islamic government" and membership in armed and anti-revolutionary groups.

 

Anti-government demonstrations began after the disputed June 12 presidential vote, which re-elected hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over main opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi.

 

Late December marked the deadliest clashes in Iran since initial protests broke out in the summer.

 

At least seven people were killed and hundreds were arrested, witnesses said, as they took to the streets on Ashura, which occurred on December 27.

 

The Iranian government has denied that its security forces killed anyone and has blamed reformists for the violence.

 

If President Obama had strongly supported the protesters, would this have happened?

 

If President Obama had mildly supported the protesters, would this have happened?

 

If President Obama had said one effing word in support of them at all, would this have happened?

 

To his shame, we will never know.

steve how in the world are the republicans blocking anything? they have a majority in the house and up until browns election they had 60 votes in the senate. the only party blocking the presidents agenda was his own, yet he blames the republicans. steve (01/30/10)


ABOUT THAT 5.7 GDP GAIN

Ken Berwitz

At first blush it would seem that the US economy came roaring back in fourth quarter 2009.  

How I wish it were true.

Read this excerpt from an article by John W. Schoen of MSNBC (amazed?  I dont blame you) which gives us a far more accurate perspective:

GDP data overstates economy's health

A closer look at 5.7 percent gain for 2009's fourth quarter

By John W. Schoen

Senior producer

msnbc.com

updated 4:31 p.m. ET, Fri., Jan. 29, 2010

 

The U.S. economy turned in a surprisingly good performance in the fourth quarter, surging ahead by 5.7 percent on an annual basis, according to a government report released Friday.

Or did it?

President Obama was quick to highlight the economys progress and the swift and aggressive actions that made it possible." At a manufacturing company in Baltimore, Md., Obama noted that last years massive economic stimulus program had also "stopped the flood of job losses."

He also repeated his administrations commitment to spur job growth to re-hire the 8 million workers sidelined by the worst recession in 60 years.

Most economists wouldnt argue with those statements. With more $1 trillion in additional government spending, bank bailout investment and loan guarantees, on top of another $1 trillion-plus in pump-priming from the Federal Reserve, it would be surprising if that money didnt register a strong showing as it moves through the economy and financial markets.

Fridays GDP numbers follow a positive showing in last year's third quarter, when GDP advanced 2.2 percent, along with other economic indicators showing signs of life in housing, industrial production and consumer spending, which is beginning to come back from the depths of the recession as confidence slowly recovers.

Corporate profits are also perking up. Of the 40 percent of companies in the Standard and Poors 500 that have reported earnings so far, roughly two-third have come in better than expected. Some small businesses are also reporting a pick up demand and have begun tentatively hiring back workers.

 

But when you look a little more closely at the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent that its hardly time to start breaking out the champagne. A big part of the latest GDP gain comes from a statistical adjustment for changes in inventory levels that dont reflect real growth. Over the past year, businesses cut deeply into those inventories not wanting to get stuck with unsold goods. Now that theyve cut them to the bone, the rate of inventory-cutting has slowed. The way the GDP is calculated, that slowdown adds to growth even though it doesnt reflect increased production or sales. If you back out that inventory adjustment, GDP grew only 2.2 percent.

Fridays report was the preliminary reading on GDP, which will be revised twice before its final. Last time around, the number for the third quarter of 2009 started out at 3.5 percent before pared back to 2.2 percent for the final report. That could well happen this time around.  Mike Englund at Action Economics thinks todays number overestimated the drop in imports because the preliminary numbers may have overestimated the drop oil consumption. He says that accounted for a full percentage point of the 5.7 percent gain in the fourth quarter.

Even if the preliminary number holds through two rounds of revisions, few economists see that kind of growth as sustainable. A panel of economists surveyed by msnbc.com said they see U.S. GDP moving ahead at 2.7 percent this year.

Most of the credit for the boost in GDP has to go to the stimulus along with the Feds historic moves to flood the system with cash and buy up mortgage bonds that no one else wants to touch. Whats far from clear is whether the rest of the economys gears will begin turning on their own once the stimulus spending fades and the Fed turns off the money pump and begins soaking all that excess money.

That changes things just a tad, wouldnt you say?

 

But I guarantee President Obama and his people will be crowing over it, and I wouldnt at all be surprised if he gets a bump in the polls too.

 

The problem for Mr. Obama and his party, however, is that the midterm elections arent being run on the first Tuesday in February; they are run on the first Tuesday in November.  And if Mr. Schoen is correct, these numbers, if they even hold up, are going to be ancient history by then.

 

I only wish it were real.  God knows, we could use a booming economy.  And if Barack Obamas policies give it to us, more power to him.  What do I care?  I would be perfectly happy if Mr. Obama were the reason.  I root for the USA, whether it is Barack Obama, George Bush or Harold Stassen (just kidding) running it.

 

Sadly, though, it just doesnt look that way.


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!!