The World's Collective Lunacy in Action

U.N. Adopts Iran’s ‘World Against Violent Extremism’ Act

Free Beacon

The United Nations overwhelmingly voted on Wednesday to adopt an Iranian and Syrian authored resolution that calls on nations across the globe to denounce violence and extremism.

The U.N.’s General Assembly voted by consensus to approve the “World Against Violent Extremism” (WAVE) Act, which critics lambasted as hypocritical, given Iran’s designation as one of the global leaders in executions and state-sponsored terrorism.

Iran is one of the world’s worst human rights abusers a regime that hangs gays, stones women, imprisons journalists, and executes political opponents.”

“At first one might think it odd that Iran and Syria have just led the U.N. General Assembly in adopting a resolution on ‘a world against violence and violent extremism’—but at the U.N. it all makes sense,” said Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

“It’s an organization which has no definition of terrorism because according to the folks who control the place, the ‘Terrorists R Us,’” Bayefsky said. “So there’s no problem condemning extremists, because the extremists are us too. The saddest part? American taxpayers—aka extremists—are paying for this production line.”

Iran’s WAVE Act urges member nations to take “appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace and to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,” according to text of the resolution.

It also encourages “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind such as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.” 

More 

First lady Spotted Prepping for Hawaii Trip

The First Lady Looking Glamorous and Relaxed after a Refreshing Back Shave

Lady Michelle and First Daughters Sasha and Malia are preparing to blast off on our million dollar plus funded Hawaii Christmas vacation. No word if Bo the first dog gets his own flight. 

The family will return to Washington on Jan. 5.

Vanity Fair: Damn You Hipsters for Making G.W. Bush an Icon

He paints, he loves cats, he’s awesome at the Internet, he writes consoling letters to football kickers who lose important match-ups for their teams and he takes selfies with Bono at major world leaders’ memorial services. And the hipsters are falling as hard for GWB as they did for PBR and Beats by Dre. 

According to the web-site Naked DC, the sophisticated glossy tome of old Hollywood, Vanity Fair,  who’s most recent achievement was a near-defamatory observation of Gwyneth Paltrow’s lack of reality in selecting cooking utensils, is old enough to remember when young whipper-snappers were all “Bush sucks!” and showing up at high school anti-Bush rallies with all manner of creative slogan apparel and diagnosing his apparently impaired cognitive ability in Huffington Post puff pieces. 

But now that he’s stumbled into something of an image revival, they would like you to please get your George W. Bush limited edition self-portrait lithograph off their front lawn.  

"If you are a liberal older than, say, 24—old enough to either hate Thought Catalog or not know what Thought Catalog is, is a better barometer—you know this. That George W. Bush is uncool, lame, establishment, square, and odious, etc., is a political fact as self-evident and unnecessary to argue as “Mitt Romney takes double-A batteries” or “Bill Clinton has an oiliness about him.” 

"But if you are younger than 24, you might not have attended anti-Bush rallies in high school and in college. You might not have pinned “SHRUB” buttons to your tote bag, and might not even remember Bush as a war-lovin’, vowel-droppin’, faux-folksy, ostentatiously religious Connecticut cowboy. This is because Bush has, quietly and wholly, ingeniously refashioned himself into an Internet-friendly, cat-loving, ironic-hat-wearing painter-cum-Instagram savant. Lately, George W. Bush is a hipster icon, and the Internet, unofficial Fourth Estate of the youth of America, is totally buying it....."

Thankfully, the author closed out her piece with an always-appropriate comparison of George W. Bush to Nazi sympathizers and accused murders, so at least she didn’t sacrifice every shred of intellectual capital she was tenuously grasping.

The response to the Vanity Fair piece is as muted as you would expect. At least one commenter suggested that perhaps George W. Bush himself was orchestrating a conspiracy in the site’s comment section, resulting in less “likes” that truly existed. And then there’s this (I usually don't link to these degenerates) which is an unabashed precursor to a small stroke.

So Damn you, hipsters, for liking George W. Bush, who is a generally likable guy when not actually Presidenting anything. How dare you. The Elizabeth de la Vega book says he’s a war criminal after all, and in case you haven’t noticed, he’s been secretly masterminding the decline of the Affordable Care Act from a Transylvanian castle using only his powers of thought magnified through Dick Cheney’s used heart valve collection. 

A White House Christmas......

Meanwhile, under the mistletoe , Uncle Joe does the traditional 

Biden Holiday Grab-Ass with a member of the media.....

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 

A Good Monday Morning

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.