Meanwhile, under the mistletoe , Uncle Joe does the traditional
Biden Holiday Grab-Ass with a member of the media.....
Monday, December 16, 2013
Reagan was Right on Mandela and South Africa
Babalu'
Desmond Tutu denounced Reagans' policy on South Africa as: "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian...an abomination, an unmitigated disaster. You are either in favor of evil or you are in favor of good. You are either on the side of the oppressed or on the side of the oppressor. You can't be neutral."
Good point, Mr Archbishop. Because on the welfare of Castro's regime you, sir, are hardly neutral, enthusiastically lending your name to the Stalinist regime's most important propaganda campaign, urging the release of convicted KGB-trained spies and terrorists.
The media's recent orgy of vituperation and snark against president Reagan's policy on South Africa finally got a much-needed corrective from Reagan's communication's director of the time Pat Buchanan. To wit:
According to President Ronald Reagan in 1986: "Apartheid is an affront to human rights and human dignity. Normal and friendly relations cannot exist between the United States and South Africa until it becomes a dead policy."...but and a BIG BUT:
"Reagan, whose first duty was the defense of his nation in the Cold War with the Soviet empire, saw not only the moral issue but the strategic imperative.
In 1986, there were 40,000 Cuban troops in Angola, where South Africa was a fighting ally and backer of anti-Communist Jonas Savimbi.
In Zimbabwe, Robert "Comrade Bob" Mugabe, having butchered thousands of Ndebele of rival Joshua Nkomo, was communizing his country. Southwest Africa and Mozambique hung in the balance.
Reagan was determined to block Moscow's drive to the Cape of Good Hope. And in that struggle State President P. W. Botha was an ally.
In view of Political Correctness, however, Mandela's ANC apparently did more to promote worldwide freedom than the U.S. military!Read More
Friday, December 13, 2013
I Swear, These People Still Don't Get IT!
Senators Introduce Bill to Crack Down on 'Lavish' Portraits
Fox News - "A bipartisan Senate duo says they want to crack down on what they call the government’s “lavish” spending on oil paintings of congressmen, the costs of which can top $50,000 each.
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said in a Thursday press release they are introducing a bill that would only allow $20,000 of taxpayer funds to be spent on each portrait, and would only cover paintings of lawmakers in the line of succession to the presidency."
 |
| Hillary Clinton Sits for Secretary Of State Portrait in 2010 |
“At a time when vital services and programs are facing cuts, we need to be looking at every way we can stop excessive spending practices in Washington,” Shaheen said.
Coburn says their bill is a way to rein in excess spending in Washington, and ensure taxpayers are not paying for unnecessary projects.
“Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for lavish official portraits, especially when government officials spend more on paintings of themselves than some Americans make in a year,” Coburn said.
ABC News reported earlier this year that the Obama administration spent nearly $400,000 on paintings of officials in just a two-year- period, and the Washington Post reported in 2008 each portrait can sometimes cost over $40,000. The bill would allow other funds to be spent on the portraits after the taxpayer funds were exhausted."
_________________________________
Excuse Me! $20,000 of taxpayer money on a portrait of a congressman? These are elected public servants, not royalty!
And who the hell is painting these things for $50,000. A 300 dollar 40x60 digital photo print should suffice in the case of congress. And come to think of it, there can be additional savings when it can also later be used as an official mugshot when they are impeached or indicted after leaving office....
Most of our elected officials of both parties need a good ol' fashion 'Coming to Jesus Moment' before next November.
Lawmakers Receive Millions from Intelligence Companies.
Every member who sits on the Senate and House committees that oversee government intelligence operations has received campaign contributions from the top twenty largest intelligence companies in the United States, according to a new report.
The report from Maplight, a nonpartisan research organization that reveals money in politics, highlights the donations from political action committees (PACs) and individuals from the intelligence services companies to these members. The report shows donations amount to over $3.7 million from 2005-2013.
"MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) and individuals from the top 20 intelligence services contractors working with the Department of Defense, ranked by total value of contracts received, to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Data source: Federal Election Commission from January 1, 2005 - October 4, 2013. Department of Defense intelligence services contracts source: USASpending (contract totals as of September 26, 2013)
* In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005.
* Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from Maryland -- home of NSA headquarters -- led the committees in money received from top intelligence contractors. Representative C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md., is the largest recipient, having received $363,600 since January 1, 2005. Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., is the second largest recipient, having received $210,150.
* Republican members of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $1.86 million since January 1, 2005, while Democrat members have received $1.82 million over the same time period.
* Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have received $2.2 million since January 1, 2005 from top intelligence services contractors, while members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $1.5 million.
* Lockheed Martin has given $798,910 to members the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence since January 1, 2005, more than any of the other top 20 intelligence service contractors. Northrop Grumman has given $753,101, the second highest amount, and Honeywell has given $714,913, the third highest amount."Chart of the TOP 20 INTELLIGENCE SERVICES CONTRACTORS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES at the LINK
Thursday, December 12, 2013
"I'm Sorry About the Noogies - I Was Just Messing Around."
Kim Jong Un Has Uncle
Executed
North Korean overlord Kim Jong Un will not have any bitch-ass traitors around and don't be pulling the family card cause that don't fly with the Un-man.
North Korea announced the execution of Kim Jong Un's uncle, calling the leader's former mentor a traitor who tried to overthrow the state.
North Korea announced the execution of Kim Jong Un's uncle, calling the leader's former mentor a traitor who tried to overthrow the state.
Jang Song Tthaek, the uncle, was arrested along with his aides last month as part of a massive Stalin-like purge of everyone who was giving Kim Jong Un a pain in his ass at that particular time. For added fun, Kim Jong sent his own pistol-packing brother along to arrest Jang Song. And that wasn't all. Kim Jong's aunt went along for the ride too. Yup, the wife of the guy who got arrested.
Sign Language Interpreter Inadvertently Embarrasses Obama
 |
| The Unknown Interpreter |
South African sign language covers all of the country's 11 official languages, according to the director of the Deaf Federation of South Africa. It wasn't immediately clear if the unidentified man was using a different method to communicate the many speaker"s words.
Dr. Clone Swenson and a team of African sign language experts reviewed the tape of President Obama's speech and have come to a startling conclusion.
Swenson told MFNS "while we don't understand his method, the man did indeed translate a number of phases correctly in African sign language". We now believe the man was not interpreting President Obama's words, but his unconscious thoughts as he spoke.
"We believe he was a Psychic Interpreter, which would explain the correct interpretative signing of the phrases " I wear my wife's underwear" and "no fun here - wicked witch is watching" in the second paragraph of Obama's speech". The team also found the interpreter correctly signed the phrase " 9 iron - sand-trap on the right" in the sentence that followed.
"These are just a few examples we found", said Swenson," most of the interpretations couldn't be repeated in polite company you see".
Some on the team are no so convinced, but could not give any explanation for the peppering of the translation from beginning to end with the correct signing of phases like "Raul is cool" and the obscure Kenyan words for "Hot Blonde" and "Boobies".
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Unscripted Moments Aboard Air Force One…
George Bush: Holy Alamo, Barack! What part of protect and defend the Constitution don’t you get?
Barack Obama: I see his lips moving but I don’t hear a thing this white boy is saying to me..uhhh..wonder if there’ll be a fundraiser for me when I get back.
Laura Bush: Why is President Obama’s babysitter on Air Force One?
Lady at the end of the table: You need to brighten up, Michelle! You look like someone dumped a box of tacks down your panty hose.
Valerie Jarrett: It’s good to be king….my preciousssss.
Talk Straight
* This is a telling photo in itself as to why our country is in such a mess. Seated at the table are the three most influential people in Barack Obama's Life.
It's Time to Beat the Left With Their Own Wet Noddle
For years, conservatives have warned of voter fraud and pushed for stricter voter identification laws. Democrats hate these efforts since cheaters, convicted felons and the deceased tend to support liberal candidates. Instead of admitting their Dig Up The Vote strategy, the Democratic Party offers a nuanced argument against voter ID advocates: “YOU'RE RACIST!!!” It’s time to turn the tables.
As you can see in the photo, the lionized founder of modern South Africa was a big fan of voter identification. Strict ID requirements are the law of the land, helping to minimize voter fraud from Cape Town to Pretoria. Mandela understood that this simple law ensures that every voter of every race can make their voice heard on election day:
"Mandela’s legacy of turning South Africa from a violently discriminatory country to a nation in which open and fair elections take place has earned him a place in world history. The South Africa he left behind has a constitution described by The Economist as “one of the most progressive in the world.” Signed into law by Mandela two years after his historic 1994 election, the document has been praised because it “enshrines a wide range of social and economic rights as well as the more usual civil and political freedoms.”
The Left can honor their hero Mandela by calling for U.S. voter ID requirements be brought up to South African standards. Voter registration in South Africa involves registering to vote on one of a handful of designated days or by making an appointment in advance at a Municipal Elections Office. Online voter registration and voting are not allows. “You have to apply for registration and vote in person with valid ID,” reads the government’s elections website.That constitution allows for and supports a rigorous election integrity process far more stringent than anything GOP lawmakers have proposed ......"
Two of the common forms of identification and most easily forged, passports and drivers licenses, do not suffice for election ID purposes.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Obama Resigns: Vows To Fight Repression
Drawing on Inspiration from Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama condemns himself to life In prison and vows to fight repression. It’s one way to dodge the scandals. And if he works it like Mandela, he’ll spend a few decades in jail and come out filthy rich. Not a bad scam.
Monday, December 9, 2013
The Joe Biden Show Stops by South African Embassy
Biden and wife Jill took a short motorcade ride across the street from their residence to the embassy on a cold, drizzly Monday morning. Stopping out front to look at the newly installed statue of Mandela, Biden called him "the most remarkable man I met in my whole career."
Biden recalled traveling all the way to South Africa in 1977 to meet Mandela , but he was unable to because he was in the midst of a 27-year prison sentence.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Is Your Favorite Charity Paying For A CEO’s Mansion?
 |
| Susan G. Komen Foundation’s CEO Nancy Brinker - salary $684,000 |
The $500,000 question of the day is …
How much do charities actually give toward their “cause”?
The CEO of the American Red Cross makes $500,000 a year and after collecting $564 million in the wake of 9/11, the American Red Cross had only distributed $154 million in the months after the event.
After three years of collecting $360 million for the 11 Asian countries devastated by the tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004, the Canadian Red Cross still had not spent $200 million of the donations they collected and there are similar allegations of the Red Cross withholding donations after many more disasters including the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Several other popular charities have reported CEO salaries ranging from $600,000 to $1.2 million including the March of Dimes, United Way, Unicef, and the American Cancer Society.
Cancer charities are frequently cited as paying exorbitant CEO salaries. For example, the recently released tax records of the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s CEO revealed her yearly salary to be $684,000. Records also revealed that the Komen Foundation spent a mere 15 percent of the funds it received on breast cancer research in 2011.
In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) spent $149 million on cancer research after raising over $455 million in Relay for Life events. They spent over $499 million on salary, employee benefits, payroll taxes and another $152 million on supplies, telephone bills, postage, shipping, meetings and travel expenses.
Even more distressing, ACS reportedly has close financial ties to the makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. They also receive financial support from the pesticide, petrochemical, biotech, cosmetics, and junk food industries – products which are primary contributors to cancer.
ACS’s board of trustees has even included an executive from the American Cyanamid Company, which made chemical fertilizers and heribicides before producing anti-cancer drugs. On the receiving end of cancer research money, researchers have been frequently caught fabricating positive findings with the end goal of producing more drugs.
To find out which charities are sharing the highest percentage of donations received, many donors turn to a charity rating service. Like the charities they rate, not all charity rating sites are created equally.
How much do charities actually give toward their “cause”?
The CEO of the American Red Cross makes $500,000 a year and after collecting $564 million in the wake of 9/11, the American Red Cross had only distributed $154 million in the months after the event.
After three years of collecting $360 million for the 11 Asian countries devastated by the tsunami of Dec. 26, 2004, the Canadian Red Cross still had not spent $200 million of the donations they collected and there are similar allegations of the Red Cross withholding donations after many more disasters including the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Several other popular charities have reported CEO salaries ranging from $600,000 to $1.2 million including the March of Dimes, United Way, Unicef, and the American Cancer Society.
Cancer charities are frequently cited as paying exorbitant CEO salaries. For example, the recently released tax records of the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s CEO revealed her yearly salary to be $684,000. Records also revealed that the Komen Foundation spent a mere 15 percent of the funds it received on breast cancer research in 2011.
In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) spent $149 million on cancer research after raising over $455 million in Relay for Life events. They spent over $499 million on salary, employee benefits, payroll taxes and another $152 million on supplies, telephone bills, postage, shipping, meetings and travel expenses.
Even more distressing, ACS reportedly has close financial ties to the makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. They also receive financial support from the pesticide, petrochemical, biotech, cosmetics, and junk food industries – products which are primary contributors to cancer.
ACS’s board of trustees has even included an executive from the American Cyanamid Company, which made chemical fertilizers and heribicides before producing anti-cancer drugs. On the receiving end of cancer research money, researchers have been frequently caught fabricating positive findings with the end goal of producing more drugs.
To find out which charities are sharing the highest percentage of donations received, many donors turn to a charity rating service. Like the charities they rate, not all charity rating sites are created equally.
Charity Navigator, a popular charity rater, lists Red Cross as giving 90% of donations to programs. According to Charity Watch, while charities often claim that “90% of donations are spent on programs,” the programs can include many activities that “most donors would not consider to be the bona-fide programs they are intending to support.” Charity Watch’s articles bluntly assess the actions of charities and ferret out waste, but Charity Watch also gives the American Red Cross an A- rating. Another charity rater, Give Well , doesn’t print harsh reviews, but does highlight the charities it finds highly effective.
All three services have a list of their most effective charities, the tops of which are mostly occupied by groups doing work in the poorest countries, where dollars go the farthest. For those looking to help the Philippines, Action Against Hunger, American Refugee Committee, International Rescue Committee, Project Concern, and Save the Children are highly rated alternatives to the Red Cross with reports from aid workers on the ground.
All three services have a list of their most effective charities, the tops of which are mostly occupied by groups doing work in the poorest countries, where dollars go the farthest. For those looking to help the Philippines, Action Against Hunger, American Refugee Committee, International Rescue Committee, Project Concern, and Save the Children are highly rated alternatives to the Red Cross with reports from aid workers on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)