Tuesday, 22 March 2011


Ken Berwitz

We've all heard the expression "a poor workman blames his tools".  Well Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill seems to have expanded that expression to "a rich senator blames her plane"  I kid you not.

Read this excerpt from Trish Turner's article at Fox News and see for yourself:

Any way you slice it, $287, 273 is a lot of money, especially in this economy. For one-term Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., up for re-election in 2012, that's the amount of personal property taxes she failed to pay since 2007 on a plane she and her husband, a millionaire businessman, partially owned.


"I have discovered that the...personal property taxes on the plane have not been paid," McCaskill told a small number of reporters on a conference call Monday. "There should have been a reporting to the county of the existence of this airplane...There are people I could blame for this, but I know better. As (a former) auditor, I know I should have checked for myself. I take full responsibility for the mistake." Audio of the call was sent to Fox by a McCaskill aide and can be found here.


The senator said she had done her own "thorough review" of all 89 flights she had taken following a political controversy that erupted recently over the same plane that was first reported by Politico.


The senator had used the plane for political purposes paying for the travel with taxpayer money from her Senate office, a "mistake," the senator said, for which she reimbursed the government nearly $89,000. "All of the money has been repaid for the public funds," McCaskill said Monday.


The National Republican Senatorial Committee quickly pounced releasing a video after the senator's admission showing McCaskill in 2006 telling voters, "If my walk doesn't match my talk, then shame on me and don't ever vote for me again."


McCaskill recently co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would send pink slips to federal employees who are found to have unpaid taxes, a measure Republicans also highlighted Monday, calling the Democrat a hypocrite. But a McCaskill aide said that was not a fair attack. "Those are people who knowingly have not paid their taxes and have refused to own up to it and to make that right," an aide told Fox. "She didn't knowingly do this. 


An audibly exasperated McCaskill told reporters, "I have convinced my husband to sell the damned plane. He has hired a broker, and I never intend to step foot on that plane ever again." 


A former auditor, who co-sponsored a senate bill which would have federal employees who don't pay their taxes fired, but Senator McCaskill didn't notice she was running up a tax bill of $287,000 - plus another $89,000 to pay for the use of her plane with taxpayer money.

And Ms. McCaskill's response?  She could blame others but she won't (what a nice lady!).  And she's paying it all back (now that she has been caught red-handed), so it doesn't count. 

Besides, it is not really her fault.  The real culprit is......the plane, that's who. 

"I have convinced my husband to sell the damned plane...".  See, now that damned plane will never be able to do it to her again.

Claire McCaskill is up for re-election in 2012.  I certainly hope the voters of Missouri take this, er, unfortunate incident with a damned plane into account.

free` This brings back a memory from the 2008 election for POTUS. I wonder if the media will be going after Senator Claire McCaskill the way they did Governor Sarah Palin? Remember when one of the first things she did as Governor was to sell the private jet the previous Governor bought with state dollars? Hmmm, I guess we will just have to wait and see... (03/22/11)


Ken Berwitz

I am not making this up.  I swear.

According to Reuters, this is what yugo chavez said to mark world water day (I spell chavez's first name "yugo" because of the similarities in performance between him and the car):

I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet

Well, there you have it, folks.  Capitalism and imperialism may be the reason Mars is without life.  This comes to us from a "man" who is actually running an entire country.

Actually, now that I think of it, since Danny Glover and Sean Penn (among other Hollywood types) are big fans of chavez, maybe they believe capitalism and imperialism may have ended life on Mars too.

I propose that Glover and Penn use some of the millions they have made via capitalism (i.e. by demanding as much money as they can get for each film) to have a spaceship built, then fly there to see for sure.

And please, please, take yugo with you.  The car and the dictator.


Ken Berwitz

In a war, there are sometimes horrific incidents.  And the following excerpt from London's Daily Mail describes one of them:

'Repugnant': U.S. army apologises for graphic photos of soldiers posing with dead Afghan civilians


By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 9:12 AM on 22nd March 2011


-U.S. army forced to issue an apology over 'trophy' photos of soldiers grinning over bloodied Afghan corpses


-Commanders in Afghanistan bracing themselves for public fury and possible riots


-German newspaper Der Spiegel, which obtained the photographs, said there are thousands more showing other victims


American soldiers have appeared in leaked photographs posing with the bloodied and partially naked bodies of Afghan civilians they allegedly killed in cold blood.


Last night, the U.S. army was forced to apologise for the repugnant pictures.

What a disgusting story.  And what a bonanza for our enemies both in and out of Afghanistan.

But, despite how awful this is, it would be wrong to blame President Obama for what these soldiers did.  The President may be Commander In Chief.  But, realistically, he has absolutely no control over what happens at the field level. 

The blame - and obviously there is a ton of it - lies elsewhere.

free` Ken wrote: "... it would be wrong to blame President Obama for what these soldiers did." --------------- Too bad the left didn't realize that when Bush was POTUS. (03/22/11)


Ken Berwitz

Remember when President Bush attacked Iraq, along with a "coalition of the willing"?   Remember how that coalition was attacked by our wonderful "neutral" media, and derided as being a ridiculous claim?

Keep that in mind as you read the coalition for Mr. Bush's action in 2003 compared to the coalition for Mr. Obama's current action in Libya.  The source is the U.S. State Department, and the compilation was made by Fox News (What?  You expected MSNBC to do this?):

Coalition Countries - Iraq 2003                Coalition - Libya - 2011           


Afghanistan                                                       France                            

Albania                                                              United Kingdom

Australia                                                            Italy

Azerbaijan                                                         Canada

Bulgaria                                                             Belgium

Colombia                                                           Denmark

Czech Republic                                                  Norway                               

Denmark                                                           Qatar

El Salvador                                                        Spain

Eritrea                                                               Greece

Estonia                                                              Germany

Ethiopia                                                            Poland

Georgia                                                             Jordan

Hungary                                                           Morocco

Italy                                                                  United Arab Emirate


South Korea












United Kingdom



[Source: US State Department]

Notice a difference in the number of coalition countries?  Me too.

Now let's see how quickly Mr. Obama's "coalition" is sneered at by the same media that did its hit job on Bush. 


Ken Berwitz

Amazing, isn't it, how many times we can see that ObamaCare comes with "death panels", and our wonderful "neutral" media ignores them.

Well, here is the latest demonstration that they exist, from Matthew Boyle's blog  at dailycaller.com.  Let's see if the media can ignore this too: 

An often-overlooked portion of President Barack Obamas prized health care law, the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), will face heat in the coming months from Congress and from the courts. Congressman Phil Roe, Tennessee Republican, told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the real death panel in the health care law, as compared to end-of-life counseling provisions in Obamacare that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed death panels.

 This one is the real baby right here and most people missed this, Roe told TheDC. What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and theres sort of mandatory counseling and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed and its the real death panel.

The board would cap the total amount of money Medicare recipients could get for care. Roe,  a practicing doctor before he entered politics, said that means health care decisions will end up being based solely on cost, instead of what the best possible option is for Medicare patients.

Basically, theres a certain amount of money thats allocated for Medicare spending each year, Roe said in a phone interview. Once you hit that amount thats been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically-appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.

Does that look like a "death panel" situation to you?  If not, what would you call it?

Did Sarah Palin and others have a point?  You bet they did. 

And were our media so far in the tank for Barack Obama and his de facto nationalization of health care that they ignored it then - as they probably will ignore it now too?  You bet they were.

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

free` I remember Palin specifically pointing to these commissions as the death panels. (03/22/11)


Ken Berwitz

How insane (that's not hyperbole, it is the correct word) is President Obama's oil drilling policy? 

Read this excerpt from yesterday's Investors Business Daily editorial and see for yourself:

Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!

Posted 03/21/2011 07:08 PM ET

Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.

His "What, me worry?" presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico and a de facto moratorium covering the rest Obama tells the Brazilians:

"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership."

Is this man crazy? 

Who is advising him on oil?  Moe, Larry or Curly?

We are being told that the United States should not drill for oil, because it will be detrimental to the environment.  But it is ok, even desirable, for Brazil to do so, as if the environment is better off if they do.  And then we can buy oil from Brazil, thus becoming even more dependent on foreign oil than we already are.

I dare anyone to explain the sanity of this policy.  I double-dare anyone to do so.

But who do we have to blame besides ourselves?  We elected a Chicago machine politician, with no qualifications for the Presidency, but a seemingly unquenchable propensity for deferring to other countries instead of acting on the USA's behalf.  We're lucky he didn't apologize to Brazil for the offshore drilling we have done. 

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?

BOW W I WILL VOTE FOR MOE IN 2012 (03/22/11)

Zeke ..... ...... ..... Obama's foreign policy adviser must be Ricky “Wild Thing” Vaughn. ..... ..... (03/22/11)

free` The only way I see this as a US policy, is if our plan is to use everyone elses oil before we use our own. Unfortunately that isn't a policy you can admit publicly. With the moves to secure foreign oil, China has and is pursuing it big time. (03/22/11)

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!!