Tuesday, 21 May 2013

DAN PFEIFFER'S "REPUBLICANS DOCTORED THE EMAIL" LIE

Ken Berwitz

Dan Pfeiffer spent much of his Sunday morning telling viewers of the various political talk shows that the Obama administration didn't really keep changing those Benghazi talking points on behalf of the State Department, the Republicans "doctored" an email to make it seem that way so they could smear the President.

Here, as compiled by Glenn Kessler, the (lifelong liberal Democrat) "fact checker" for the Washington Post, are his exact words:

"That's a very serious offense that happened where Republicans on the Hill, we voluntarily provided these e-mails to, took one of them, doctored it and gave it to ABC News in an attempt to smear the president."

- White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," May 19, 2013

"I think one of the problems that there's so much controversy here is because one of the e-mails was doctored by a Republican source and given to the media to falsely smear the president." 

- Pfeiffer, on Fox News Sunday, May 19     

"They received these e-mails months ago, didn't say a word about it, didn't complain ... And then last week a Republican source provided to Jon Karl of ABC News a doctored version of a White House e-mail that started this entire fear. After 25,000 pieces of paper are provided to Congress they have to doctor e-mail to make political hay, you know they're getting desperate here."

- Pfeiffer, on NBC's "Meet the Press," May 19

There is a teeny weeny little problem, though.  Pfeiffer is full of excrement.

Since I've already copied from Mr. Kessler, I will be fair and let him tell you just how fraudulent this claim is.  So just click here, and read it for yourself.

As you will see, Republicans did not do any such thing, and Pfeiffer, in keeping with the ongoing ethos of this sorry administration, was lying to the viewers of those shows.

Poor Glenn Kessler.  In order to retain his own credibility he has, for the past week, been forced to call out the administration he almost certainly voted for.  Over and over again.  But what else can he do, when they tell lie after lie?

Do the Obama people ever tell the truth about anything?


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Douglas Shulman, former head of the IRS -- the "Bush appointee" who contributed $500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2004, the year Bush was running for re-election. (a little something the leftward folks telling us he was a Bush appointee somehow fail to mention).

Here is Shulman in today's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee:

"I agree this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have brought it up the chain. And they didn't. I don't know why."

That's right.  You got it.  The head of the IRS when groups most likely to oppose Barack Obama's agenda were targeted by that organization is telling us he didn't know a thing about the targeting until just last week.

I don't know how Douglas Shulman's eyes looked before that comment.  But I guarantee they were brown after he said it.  Because he is so full of crap that they had to be.

For sheer dishonesty I award Douglas Shulman today's Quote Of The Day honors for sheer dishonesty -- in which regard he is in a tie with just about everyone else in the Obama administration when it comes to the Lie-RS scandal...

...and the Benghazi massacre scandal, and the AP bugging scandal, and the Fox News/James Rosen bugging scandal, and the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and the Green scandal, and....etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Do these people ever tell the truth about anything?


DOUG SHULMAN: BUSH DEMOCRAT

Ken Berwitz

How many times have you heard Obama's people remind you that Douglas Shulman, who headed the IRS during its inquisition against groups most likely to opposed Barack Obama, was "a Bush appointee". 

This, presumably, is supposed to convince you either that there was no wrongdoing by the Obama administration because the other side's guy was in charge, or that, if there were wrongdoing, the blame was at Bush's doorstep (continuing the Obama administration tradition of never being responsible for anything).

With this in mind, please note that Douglas Shulman is a contributor - $500 worth - to the Democratic National Committee. Whoops.

But, you might say, maybe he's just some Republican guy who decided to cover his backside when Obama came in, and made that contribution to save his job:  a very reasonable possibility to consider.

The answer, however, is no.  That $500 contribution was made in 2004, when President Bush was in office and Barack Obama was still nothing more than an Illinois State Senator.

Doubt me?  Click here and see for yourself.

This tells us two things: 

1) that President Bush had no problem appointing Democrats to high positions and

2) the Obama administration is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  Again.  And again, and again and again.

What else is new?

free` Douglas Shulman???? I thought the head of the IRS that started this was Lois Lerner, who now heads the IRS obamacare unit? (05/21/13)

free' Thanks for the follow up Ken. (05/21/13)

Ken Berwitz She was Director of the Exempt Organizations Division. (05/21/13)


POLITICIZING A TORNADO TRAGEDY

Ken Berwitz

Senator Sheldon Whiteside (D-RI), yesterday, on the floor of of the senate, attacking Republicans (as if they were the only ones) who do not buy into man-created global warming:

"So, you may have a question for me:  why do  you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? Ill tell you why. We're stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn't just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we're in this together."

To summarize:  In the happy horsemanure world of Sheldon Whiteside, all global warming deniers are Republicans, Republicans are lemmings, they are disgraceful, the people of Oklahoma, Alabam and Texas are hypocrites if they ask for disaster relief, and they're all a bunch of polluters anyway. 

With that tidal wave of stereotyped crap, Sheldon Whiteside establishes himself as the equivalent of a KKKer saying all Black people are ignorant, felons and eat nothing but fried chicken and watermelon. 

The people who would spout this garbage are stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant morons. 

What does that make Sheldon Whiteside?

Oh, one other thing.  With a hat tip to blogger Steven Goddard, here is what Newsweek had to say about tornadoes in 1975:

ScreenHunter_376 May. 20 18.53

ScreenHunter_373 May. 20 18.50

ScreenHunter_384 May. 20 21.58
ScreenHunter_375 May. 20 18.51

Interesting.  38 years ago, tornadoes were blamed on global cooling.  Today the Whitesides of the world blame them on global warming. 

Y'know, maybe this has nothing to do with global warming or cooling.  Maybe tornadoes just happen. 

But if Whiteside etc. are still not convinced, I would love them to explain why, until this impossibly horrific tragedy in Oklahoma, there have been so few tornadoes over the last couple of years.

Let me finish by repeating a question I asked earlier:  if stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant and moronic is,as stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant and moronic does, what does that make Sheldon Whitehead?


THE LIE-RS SCANDAL: WILL LOIS LERNER PLEAD THE FIFTH?

Ken Berwitz

Is Lois Lerner, Director of the Tax Exempt Division during part of the time groups likely to oppose the Obama agenda were singled out and subjected to inquisition tactics no US entity should endure - going to plead the fifth amendment before a house committee?

From Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani's article in the Los Angeles Times:

A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency's improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won't answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening - or why she didnt disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

"She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course," said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Are you kidding me?  She "has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation".....which leaves her no choice but to invoke her protection against self-incrimination?  

This doesn't even rise to the level of pathetic.

The only question in my mind is whether Lois Lerner is protecting only herself, or the people above her.  And, while I can't prove it, I am dead-on 100% sure I already know the answer -- as I am dead-on 100% sure you do too.  The only issue to me is whether she is acting more out of loyalty or fear.

Every day the Lie-RS scandal gets worse.  And I have exactly zero doubt that there is more - much more.  The worst is yet to come.

Zeke .... ..... Lots of other people in the IRS involved with this. ..... ..... Even the clerks can testify WHO gave them the paperwork, who delayed the processing. ..... ..... (05/22/13)


THE NEW YORK TIMES: PROPAGANDIZING FOR OBAMA (FOR A CHANGE)

Ken Berwitz

Propaganda takes many forms.  Some of it is overt, and some of it is subtle.

Here is an example of the latter form, from today's Letter To The Editor section of the New York Times.

The Times is featuring a number of letters about the Obama administration's IRS scandal.  And what heading does the paper use (click on the heading to read the letters)?

The Tale of the I.R.S. in Cincinnati

What a coincidence.  The Times' heading just happens to be the exact party line of Obama & Co. - that it was nothing more than a "Cincinnati" problem.  

Apparently, the fact that this has been thoroughly debunked is irrelevant and immaterial.  Either that, or The Times "journalists" will, at all costs, preserve, protect and defend its lord and savior, Barack Obama - even if the cost is that it makes them look like a bunch of ridiculous, ideological suckups with no professional credibility.

I leave it to you to decide which of those two is more likely.

FYI, of the four letters published in this section, my favorite is from a tax lawyer named Melvin Jacobowitz, who informs us that the IRS owes no one an apology for its actions against apparently conservative groups. 

His reasoning?  That the IRS has an obligation to target groups with names that sound political.  This, of course, applies to groups with leftward as well as rightward names.  And "I have heard of no claim that conservative applicants were unfairly denied exempt status after they submitted further information regarding their proposed operations. There was no need for an apology."

Way to go Mel.  Just two things:

1) It is clear - and I have no doubt you know - that virtually every group targeted was conservative.   While it is nice of you to tell us the same rules should apply to both sides, that is not at all what happened. 

2) Although none of these groups received a formal denial of tax exempt status, every one of them was subjected to an intense barrage of questionning, including questions no government agency - certainly not the IRS - has any right to ask (unless you consider demanding to know what people say in their prayers is government business, that is), and none has gotten any disposition of its tax-exempt application at all.  Not yes, not no.  Nothing.  For years. 

So while, in the narrowest possible context, it is true that these exemptions have not been denied, every one of them has been issued a de facto denial by the IRS not ruling on them at all.  Or, put another way, it is "no" until the IRS says "yes", and the IRS isn't saying "yes".  That equals "no".

Nice try, Mel.  Maybe the Times has a job opening for a tax laywer.  You're certainly its kind of people.


FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THE JOB SITUATION HAS IMPROVED

Ken Berwitz

The following excerpt from Andrew Puzder and Michael Talent's piece at nationalreview.com contains nothing new for regular readers of this blog.  I have pointed these facts out for years.

But since Mr. Puzder and Mr. Talent have written them so clearly and concisely, I thought I would take the opportunity to again show how weak the claims of an improved job market are:

As most people know, the unemployment rate is simply the percentage of workers in the labor force who don't have a job. But few people know how the BLS defines these terms, particularly "labor force."

If a worker has not looked for a job in the last 30 days, that person is not considered part of the labor force, even if he or she still wants a job. Perversely, if the economy gets so bad that large numbers of people stop looking for work, these dropouts actually decrease the unemployment rate. Clearly, the unemployment rate gives an incomplete picture unless one also considers the percentage of Americans the BLS counts as the "labor force" - the labor-force-participation rate.

For example, when the unemployment rate peaked in October 2009 at 10.0 percent, the participation rate was 65 percent. It has since dropped to 63.3 percent. If the participation rate had not declined since 2009, we'd have an unemployment rate today of 9.9 percent, nearly identical to the official unemployment peak. In other words, nearly the entire improvement in the unemployment rate since October of 2009 is due to a drop in the percentage of people the BLS considers labor-force participants.

Any questions?


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Douglas Shulman, former head of the IRS -- the "Bush appointee" who contributed $500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2004, the year Bush was running for re-election. (a little something the leftward folks telling us he was a Bush appointee somehow fail to mention).

Here is Shulman in today's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee:

"I agree this is an issue that when someone spotted it, they should have brought it up the chain. And they didn't. I don't know why."

That's right.  You got it.  The head of the IRS when groups most likely to oppose Barack Obama's agenda were targeted by that organization is telling us he didn't know a thing about the targeting until just last week.

I don't know how Douglas Shulman's eyes looked before that comment.  But I guarantee they were brown after he said it.  Because he is so full of crap that they had to be.

For sheer dishonesty I award Douglas Shulman today's Quote Of The Day honors for sheer dishonesty -- in which regard he is in a tie with just about everyone else in the Obama administration when it comes to the Lie-RS scandal...

...and the Benghazi massacre scandal, and the AP bugging scandal, and the Fox News/James Rosen bugging scandal, and the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and the Green scandal, and....etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Do these people ever tell the truth about anything?


PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CREDENTIALS

Ken Berwitz

From my sister - and (at least to me) very funny:

President Obama walks into the Bank of America to cash a check.

As he approaches the cashier he says, "Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check for me?" 

Cashier: "It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID?" 

Obama: "Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to.  I am President Barack Obama, the President of the United States of AMERICA !!!!" 

Cashier:  "Yes sir, you certainly look like President Obama.  But with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers and requirements of the Dodd/Frank legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing ID."

Obama:  "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."

Cashier:  "I am sorry, sir, but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

Obama:  "I am urging you, please, to cash this check."

Cashier:  "Look, sir, here is an example of what we can do. One day, Tiger Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.

"Another time, Andre Agassi came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot whereas the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that shot we cashed his check.

"So, what can you do to prove that you are Barack Obama, President of the United States ?"

Obama:  "My mind is a total blank. I can't think of a single thing. I have absolutely no idea what to do and I don't have a clue."

Cashier:  "Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?"


POLITICIZING A TORNADO TRAGEDY

Ken Berwitz

Senator Sheldon Whiteside (D-RI), yesterday, on the floor of of the senate, attacking Republicans (as if they were the only ones) who do not buy into man-created global warming:

"So, you may have a question for me:  why do  you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? Ill tell you why. We're stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn't just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we're in this together."

To summarize:  In the happy horsemanure world of Sheldon Whiteside, all global warming deniers are Republicans, Republicans are lemmings, they are disgraceful, the people of Oklahoma, Alabam and Texas are hypocrites if they ask for disaster relief, and they're all a bunch of polluters anyway. 

With that tidal wave of stereotyped crap, Sheldon Whiteside establishes himself as the equivalent of a KKKer saying all Black people are ignorant, felons and eat nothing but fried chicken and watermelon. 

The people who would spout this garbage are stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant morons. 

What does that make Sheldon Whiteside?

Oh, one other thing.  With a hat tip to blogger Steven Goddard, here is what Newsweek had to say about tornadoes in 1975:

ScreenHunter_376 May. 20 18.53

ScreenHunter_373 May. 20 18.50

ScreenHunter_384 May. 20 21.58
ScreenHunter_375 May. 20 18.51

Interesting.  38 years ago, tornadoes were blamed on global cooling.  Today the Whitesides of the world blame them on global warming. 

Y'know, maybe this has nothing to do with global warming or cooling.  Maybe tornadoes just happen. 

But if Whiteside etc. are still not convinced, I would love them to explain why, until this impossibly horrific tragedy in Oklahoma, there have been so few tornadoes over the last couple of years.

Let me finish by repeating a question I asked earlier:  if stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant and moronic is,as stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant and moronic does, what does that make Sheldon Whitehead?


DAN PFEIFFER'S "REPUBLICANS DOCTORED THE EMAIL" LIE

Ken Berwitz

Dan Pfeiffer spent much of his Sunday morning telling viewers of the various political talk shows that the Obama administration didn't really keep changing those Benghazi talking points on behalf of the State Department, the Republicans "doctored" an email to make it seem that way so they could smear the President.

Here, as compiled by Glenn Kessler, the (lifelong liberal Democrat) "fact checker" for the Washington Post, are his exact words:

"That's a very serious offense that happened where Republicans on the Hill, we voluntarily provided these e-mails to, took one of them, doctored it and gave it to ABC News in an attempt to smear the president."

- White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," May 19, 2013

"I think one of the problems that there's so much controversy here is because one of the e-mails was doctored by a Republican source and given to the media to falsely smear the president." 

- Pfeiffer, on Fox News Sunday, May 19     

"They received these e-mails months ago, didn't say a word about it, didn't complain ... And then last week a Republican source provided to Jon Karl of ABC News a doctored version of a White House e-mail that started this entire fear. After 25,000 pieces of paper are provided to Congress they have to doctor e-mail to make political hay, you know they're getting desperate here."

- Pfeiffer, on NBC's "Meet the Press," May 19

There is a teeny weeny little problem, though.  Pfeiffer is full of excrement.

Since I've already copied from Mr. Kessler, I will be fair and let him tell you just how fraudulent this claim is.  So just click here, and read it for yourself.

As you will see, Republicans did not do any such thing, and Pfeiffer, in keeping with the ongoing ethos of this sorry administration, was lying to the viewers of those shows.

Poor Glenn Kessler.  In order to retain his own credibility he has, for the past week, been forced to call out the administration he almost certainly voted for.  Over and over again.  But what else can he do, when they tell lie after lie?

Do the Obama people ever tell the truth about anything?


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!!