Friday, September 2, 2011
On a personal note
Welcome to the world, CMR. May you have a long, happy life filled with joy. Hugs to your proud parents!
Federal Government Folly
Okay, just what was President Obama trying to do this week?
First, last month, he tells us he has this super-top-secret jobs plan that he will only reveal after Labor Day. Why? Why wait? Why not reveal it before he went off to Maaaatha's Vineyaaaad for his $50,000 a week rental vacation home? Why not give everyone time to review and digest it? Was it because the super top-secret plan didn't exist yet?
Now we get to this week. Congress is on vacation, and I would assume Speaker Boehner was as well. The White House sends the Speaker's office a letter proposing a speech before a joint session of Congress on September 7, the same date and time a Republican Presidential debate had been previously scheduled, and within less than an hour or two of when Congress was supposed to be back in town (apparently, they are all supposed to back in DC by 6 pm on September 7 in order to begin work on September 8). To top it off, when Speaker Boehner did not respond to the White House within under two hours, the White House ASSumed he consented and publicized the speech. Who in their right mind does that, especially when it broke with long-established protocol?
Now what is the White House attempting to do? Is it attempting to make the Republicans look like the party of no, as the Democratic mantra goes? If so, they failed in my book. To make the excuse that they didn't want to conflict with the NFL opening game as justification for conflicting with a previously scheduled Republican debate just proves this administration either 1) has no clue what it is doing; 2) fails to prioritize correctly - I don't care how many men may disagree with me, but no, football does not take precedence over listening to the present POTUS speak or a debate of potential future POTUSes (sp?); or 3) it was playing politics, trying to spoil the debate or put the Republican candidates on the defensive, making them respond immediately to his super top-secret jobs plan.
In any case, the White House came out with egg on its face and looking utterly incompetent to me. Chicago politics don't work in the rest of the country, Mr. President. Haven't you learned that by now?
My greatest wish is for Hillary Clinton to primary President Obama. that way, if the Republicans nominate someone for whom I could not vote, I'd pick Hillary in a heartbeat over the Neville Chamberlain reincarnation currently holding the office.
In the meantime, Mr. President, how about sending FEMA around with refrigerated trucks to deliver ice and food instead of setting up a single location in Connecticut for towns and cities to have to come to pick up? After all, most towns and cities do not have refrigerated trucks on their property list - you want those bags of ice to be bags of water by the time it gets to the people? Ridiculous!
First, last month, he tells us he has this super-top-secret jobs plan that he will only reveal after Labor Day. Why? Why wait? Why not reveal it before he went off to Maaaatha's Vineyaaaad for his $50,000 a week rental vacation home? Why not give everyone time to review and digest it? Was it because the super top-secret plan didn't exist yet?
Now we get to this week. Congress is on vacation, and I would assume Speaker Boehner was as well. The White House sends the Speaker's office a letter proposing a speech before a joint session of Congress on September 7, the same date and time a Republican Presidential debate had been previously scheduled, and within less than an hour or two of when Congress was supposed to be back in town (apparently, they are all supposed to back in DC by 6 pm on September 7 in order to begin work on September 8). To top it off, when Speaker Boehner did not respond to the White House within under two hours, the White House ASSumed he consented and publicized the speech. Who in their right mind does that, especially when it broke with long-established protocol?
Now what is the White House attempting to do? Is it attempting to make the Republicans look like the party of no, as the Democratic mantra goes? If so, they failed in my book. To make the excuse that they didn't want to conflict with the NFL opening game as justification for conflicting with a previously scheduled Republican debate just proves this administration either 1) has no clue what it is doing; 2) fails to prioritize correctly - I don't care how many men may disagree with me, but no, football does not take precedence over listening to the present POTUS speak or a debate of potential future POTUSes (sp?); or 3) it was playing politics, trying to spoil the debate or put the Republican candidates on the defensive, making them respond immediately to his super top-secret jobs plan.
In any case, the White House came out with egg on its face and looking utterly incompetent to me. Chicago politics don't work in the rest of the country, Mr. President. Haven't you learned that by now?
My greatest wish is for Hillary Clinton to primary President Obama. that way, if the Republicans nominate someone for whom I could not vote, I'd pick Hillary in a heartbeat over the Neville Chamberlain reincarnation currently holding the office.
In the meantime, Mr. President, how about sending FEMA around with refrigerated trucks to deliver ice and food instead of setting up a single location in Connecticut for towns and cities to have to come to pick up? After all, most towns and cities do not have refrigerated trucks on their property list - you want those bags of ice to be bags of water by the time it gets to the people? Ridiculous!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Government Folly (again)
Well, here I am, sitting here with emails from Governor Malloy's office, and my Mayor's office. Governor Malloy's employee emails me (in response to complaint about how I was treated on Tuesday when I called his office) and tells me today (Thursday) that there is "food, water and ice" being "distributed by FEMA and the CT National Guard" and that my town should have these supplies and to call my town. Supposedly, this distribution was going on since Monday. It must be the stealth distribution, because not one single radio station I listened to (in the dark) mentioned anything about this. Had they, I might have been able to get some ice and not have to throw out the contents of my fridge and freezer today (garbage day), after 4 days without power.
I sent the Governor's employee's email on to the Mayor for informational purposes. He tells me, that what the Governor's office fails to state is that the "distribution" is going on only in Rentchler Field in East Hartford, well over 50 miles away. Towns and cities have to request supplies and then, I suppose, get permission to obtain them from East Hartford. But, in what? Why aren't FEMA and National Guard trucks traveling to the cities and towns, or at least setting up distribution centers in the counties, to distribute these items? FEMA and the National Guard have the trucks, and, supposedly, the delivery know-how (logistics - they should call on UPS for help if they can't figure it out). And why was there no notice on radio stations? I listened to many over the past few days and never heard a peep about this mysterious "food, water and ice".
It just reminds me of the photos and videos after Katrina of FEMA letting trucks full of ice melt and drain because FEMA failed to deliver the items to the people who needed them when they needed them (and WHERE they needed them).
Taxpayer dollars at waste again.
I sent the Governor's employee's email on to the Mayor for informational purposes. He tells me, that what the Governor's office fails to state is that the "distribution" is going on only in Rentchler Field in East Hartford, well over 50 miles away. Towns and cities have to request supplies and then, I suppose, get permission to obtain them from East Hartford. But, in what? Why aren't FEMA and National Guard trucks traveling to the cities and towns, or at least setting up distribution centers in the counties, to distribute these items? FEMA and the National Guard have the trucks, and, supposedly, the delivery know-how (logistics - they should call on UPS for help if they can't figure it out). And why was there no notice on radio stations? I listened to many over the past few days and never heard a peep about this mysterious "food, water and ice".
It just reminds me of the photos and videos after Katrina of FEMA letting trucks full of ice melt and drain because FEMA failed to deliver the items to the people who needed them when they needed them (and WHERE they needed them).
Taxpayer dollars at waste again.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Why it is necessary to read bills before voting on them and signing them
Idiots. Our elected officials have proven themselves just that. Here they are touting Obamacare as health care for everyone and how it will save us all money. Well, when you don't read 2000+ page bills that are filled with who knows what, this is what you get: According to the AP, early retirees who make up to $64,000 a year can get Medicaid under Obamacare! Yup, I kid you not. You just can't make up this stupidity.
"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_health_overhaul_glitch
Thanks for once again foolishly spending our money, Congress and the President. Perhaps, to paraphrase Professor Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you all should spend more time "reading bills, rather than passing them" willy nilly and without a single coherent thought amongst you.
You all get a big, giant "F". I can't wait to see what other idiocies are in this law.
"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_health_overhaul_glitch
Thanks for once again foolishly spending our money, Congress and the President. Perhaps, to paraphrase Professor Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you all should spend more time "reading bills, rather than passing them" willy nilly and without a single coherent thought amongst you.
You all get a big, giant "F". I can't wait to see what other idiocies are in this law.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Time for a re-post
In light of President Obama's campaign speech (yes you read that right - it was a campaign speech in my eyes) regarding "immigration reform" (known to those of us who refuse to have the wool pulled over our eyes as "amnesty"), and Jessica Colotl's re-emergence onto the national news scene - http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/colotl-allowed-to-remain-934097.html with news that the federal government granted her yet ANOTHER year deferment on her deportation so she could finish her courses and graduate from college (um, why did she need a year feds, when she graduated this past week?). I love the news story too - she is quoted as saying she should be considered an American as she believes in American values. HA! Really? Because most Americans are law-abiding citizens, while this one, when she turned 18 and was an adult, willfully and with fore-thought, chose not to seek a student visa, chose not to renew her Mexican passport, chose to drive a car without a license, which, if the cars she drove were insured, probably would have invalidated any insurance coverage for those cars while she was driving them. And then she committed a traffic violation. All illegal acts. And then, how did she register for college without a SSN? What did she put on her application for residency and citizenship? After all, in earlier reports, supposedly she was paying in-state tuition until the traffic violation revealed her illegal status. She doesn't even comprehend American values never mind believe in them.
The irony is, she says she wants to be an attorney. Really? Someone who has violated so many laws wants to be an officer of the court? As an attorney, I would be offended if she were sworn into practice in any state of the United States. In any case - from last year:
Our government is at it again. Instead of enforcing our laws, it continues to enable bad behavior and the flouting of the laws of the United States. Cases in point:
1) Eric Balderas, 19, a Mexican national, here in the United States illegally, and a student on a full scholarship from Harvard, no longer faces deportation, as ICE has granted him "granted deferred action" on his deportation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/19/AR2010061902972.html
Why should this student be granted special dispensation to continue to violate the laws of the United States? I remember, when I was enrolled in public schools, my parents had to present my original birth certificate, showing that I was born in this country. When I applied to Dartmouth College Early Decision (I wisely chose not to apply to or to attend Harvard University), I was again required to provide proof of U. S. citizenship, and a valid Social Security Number on my applications, especially for financial aid. So, how does an illegal immigrant gain access to a full scholarship at Harvard without a valid Social Security Number, and proof of citizenship or being in the country legally? And why is he not facing deportation?
2) Then we have the story of Jessica Colotl, a 21 year old Mexican resident who attends Kennesaw State University in Georgia, paying, of all things, in-state tuition rates, who was arrested in March for driving without a license. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 She apparently was also later arrested for providing a false address, given that the car registration she provided was not the address at which she lived. After she was released from jail, she held a press conference, saying "she never thought she would be 'caught up in this messed up system,' as she put it." http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 In other words, she NEVER THOUGHT SHE WOULD BE CAUGHT. This from a student who says she "dreams of becoming lawyer" http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/college-student-ignites-immigration-debate/#content some day - just what we need, an attorney who believes in doing whatever she wants so long as she doesn't "get caught". Good luck with that, given the federal and state laws violated. The state of Georgia, as do many states, has inquiries into the character and fitness of applicants to practice law there. See the following: "Section 6. Investigation of Applicants
(a) Prior to certifying an applicant as having the integrity and character requisite to be a member of the Bar of Georgia, the Board shall make such investigation as it deems necessary into his or her character, reputation and background. Each applicant shall provide written authority to the Board to conduct such investigation, and each applicant shall authorize all persons with information about him or her to furnish the Board with such information and documents as it may request. The authority granted by an applicant shall expire upon the applicant's admission to the practice of law in Georgia, denial of his or her application, or
upon the applicant's written withdrawal of his or her application.
(b) The Board shall contact the Chief Judge of the superior courts of each judicial circuit in Georgia where an applicant has resided, attended school, or been employed during the five years next preceding the filing of his or her application and request information or recommendations concerning the applicant as the
judge desires to furnish. Further, the Board may provide for the appointment of local committees on character and fitness to investigate the background of any applicant who has worked, resided or attended school in the judicial circuit. The reports of local committees shall include the facts found during their investigations but shall not include any recommendations.
(c) A fingerprint check may be made of all applicants.
http://www.gabaradmissions.org/pdf/admissionrules.pdf
In her case ICE granted her a one year deferment so she could complete her education before being deported. Again, why? It is clear she is in this country illegally.
Both these students have cost American students or foreign students here on legal student visas, places in these universities. Why is the federal government rewarding bad behavior?
In my opinion, neither of these students have the character we want in American citizens. So, their parents brought them here illegally when they were children. So what? Both of these students turned 18 and became legal adults and were then responsible for their own behavior. They both chose to ignore U.S. law and remain here illegally. Why did they not, upon their 18nth birthdays, march themselves into a Mexican consulate, explain their situation, have their passports updated and seek help from the Mexican consulate in obtaining student visas and international drivers' licenses? Did they think the Mexican government would not have bent over backwards to help them? Ha! What Social Security Numbers did they use when they applied to their respective universities? Did they indicate on their university applications that they were foreign students and did not have proper student visas?
According to Kennesaw State University's FAQS page, the University has a policy. http://kennesaw.askadmissions.net/kennesaw/aeresults.aspx?quser= "KSU has a student code of conduct regarding academic honesty, plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentations, confidentiality and related scholastic standards of behavior. Violation of these codes may result in disciplinary action taken by the Office of Judicial Programs. Violations related to campus safety issues regarding theft, vandalism, sexual harassment/assault, drugs, weapons and disruption of campus life may be heard by the campus judiciary board or referred to the KSU police." Did Jessica make misrepresentations on her applications both for admission and financial aid/in-state tuition, and if so, why, under the KSU honor code is she still enrolled at the school?
Not surprisingly, according to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has never had an honor code. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/5/3/bok-backs-honor-code-but-will/
It's time to deport these two (as well as the rest of their families who are in the country illegally) - send them back to the end of the line and have them come to the country legally to finish their studies. And, upon completion, when their student visas expire, they must return to their native country. Their parents may have made the initial poor decision of bringing them here illegally, but, as legal adults, these students chose to compound the issue and made their own decisions to remain here illegally, to not seek legal status, probably made misrepresentations on their applications for admissions and financial aid, and deserve neither the education they are receiving nor the privilege of remaining in this country.
For an excellent discussion of the ethics of such cases, I highly recommend this link: http://ethicsalarms.com/2010/05/17/12-questions-about-the-jessica-colotl-case/
The irony is, she says she wants to be an attorney. Really? Someone who has violated so many laws wants to be an officer of the court? As an attorney, I would be offended if she were sworn into practice in any state of the United States. In any case - from last year:
Enabling Bad Behavior
1) Eric Balderas, 19, a Mexican national, here in the United States illegally, and a student on a full scholarship from Harvard, no longer faces deportation, as ICE has granted him "granted deferred action" on his deportation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/19/AR2010061902972.html
Why should this student be granted special dispensation to continue to violate the laws of the United States? I remember, when I was enrolled in public schools, my parents had to present my original birth certificate, showing that I was born in this country. When I applied to Dartmouth College Early Decision (I wisely chose not to apply to or to attend Harvard University), I was again required to provide proof of U. S. citizenship, and a valid Social Security Number on my applications, especially for financial aid. So, how does an illegal immigrant gain access to a full scholarship at Harvard without a valid Social Security Number, and proof of citizenship or being in the country legally? And why is he not facing deportation?
2) Then we have the story of Jessica Colotl, a 21 year old Mexican resident who attends Kennesaw State University in Georgia, paying, of all things, in-state tuition rates, who was arrested in March for driving without a license. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 She apparently was also later arrested for providing a false address, given that the car registration she provided was not the address at which she lived. After she was released from jail, she held a press conference, saying "she never thought she would be 'caught up in this messed up system,' as she put it." http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/illegal-ksu-student-jessica-colotl-051410 In other words, she NEVER THOUGHT SHE WOULD BE CAUGHT. This from a student who says she "dreams of becoming lawyer" http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/college-student-ignites-immigration-debate/#content some day - just what we need, an attorney who believes in doing whatever she wants so long as she doesn't "get caught". Good luck with that, given the federal and state laws violated. The state of Georgia, as do many states, has inquiries into the character and fitness of applicants to practice law there. See the following: "Section 6. Investigation of Applicants
(a) Prior to certifying an applicant as having the integrity and character requisite to be a member of the Bar of Georgia, the Board shall make such investigation as it deems necessary into his or her character, reputation and background. Each applicant shall provide written authority to the Board to conduct such investigation, and each applicant shall authorize all persons with information about him or her to furnish the Board with such information and documents as it may request. The authority granted by an applicant shall expire upon the applicant's admission to the practice of law in Georgia, denial of his or her application, or
upon the applicant's written withdrawal of his or her application.
(b) The Board shall contact the Chief Judge of the superior courts of each judicial circuit in Georgia where an applicant has resided, attended school, or been employed during the five years next preceding the filing of his or her application and request information or recommendations concerning the applicant as the
judge desires to furnish. Further, the Board may provide for the appointment of local committees on character and fitness to investigate the background of any applicant who has worked, resided or attended school in the judicial circuit. The reports of local committees shall include the facts found during their investigations but shall not include any recommendations.
(c) A fingerprint check may be made of all applicants.
http://www.gabaradmissions.org/pdf/admissionrules.pdf
In her case ICE granted her a one year deferment so she could complete her education before being deported. Again, why? It is clear she is in this country illegally.
Both these students have cost American students or foreign students here on legal student visas, places in these universities. Why is the federal government rewarding bad behavior?
In my opinion, neither of these students have the character we want in American citizens. So, their parents brought them here illegally when they were children. So what? Both of these students turned 18 and became legal adults and were then responsible for their own behavior. They both chose to ignore U.S. law and remain here illegally. Why did they not, upon their 18nth birthdays, march themselves into a Mexican consulate, explain their situation, have their passports updated and seek help from the Mexican consulate in obtaining student visas and international drivers' licenses? Did they think the Mexican government would not have bent over backwards to help them? Ha! What Social Security Numbers did they use when they applied to their respective universities? Did they indicate on their university applications that they were foreign students and did not have proper student visas?
According to Kennesaw State University's FAQS page, the University has a policy. http://kennesaw.askadmissions.net/kennesaw/aeresults.aspx?quser= "KSU has a student code of conduct regarding academic honesty, plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentations, confidentiality and related scholastic standards of behavior. Violation of these codes may result in disciplinary action taken by the Office of Judicial Programs. Violations related to campus safety issues regarding theft, vandalism, sexual harassment/assault, drugs, weapons and disruption of campus life may be heard by the campus judiciary board or referred to the KSU police." Did Jessica make misrepresentations on her applications both for admission and financial aid/in-state tuition, and if so, why, under the KSU honor code is she still enrolled at the school?
Not surprisingly, according to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has never had an honor code. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/5/3/bok-backs-honor-code-but-will/
It's time to deport these two (as well as the rest of their families who are in the country illegally) - send them back to the end of the line and have them come to the country legally to finish their studies. And, upon completion, when their student visas expire, they must return to their native country. Their parents may have made the initial poor decision of bringing them here illegally, but, as legal adults, these students chose to compound the issue and made their own decisions to remain here illegally, to not seek legal status, probably made misrepresentations on their applications for admissions and financial aid, and deserve neither the education they are receiving nor the privilege of remaining in this country.
For an excellent discussion of the ethics of such cases, I highly recommend this link: http://ethicsalarms.com/2010/05/17/12-questions-about-the-jessica-colotl-case/
Monday, April 18, 2011
Entitlements
Entitlements have been defined as "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entitlements
Now, in the present political climate, entitlements have been defined solely as above. However, for the most part, we the taxpayers, have paid into the unemployment system, the Social Security system, the Medicare system. So, in my eyes, these are not really entitlements, they are debts to be paid. Much like I deposit money into the bank, the bank is holding the money for me and I get to with draw it according to our deposit contract. Well, our government made a contract with us when it took money from our paychecks for these programs - that money would be there for us when we needed it when we retired. Now the government wishes to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, again wishing to raise retirement age for those of us for whom it already raised the retirement age once, and to minimize the amounts paid out. I agree there are problems that need fixing. But taking away money from the taxpayers who entered into the contract, and played by the rules is not the way to go about it. For one thing, funds "stolen" by the government form the so-called "Social Security lockbox" to pay for other things need to be repaid immediately and the funds need to be invested responsibly to earn appropriate income to sustain Social Security.
But beyond these so-called entitlements, are entitlements that are never discussed and which must be cut first. The first priority of a government is to protect its people; however, our federal government is taking money from its citizens, making promises to citizens that it breaks, and then sends our tax dollars all over the world to foreign countries, paying those countries entitlements - entitlements that I have yet to hear anyone talk about cutting (if they are discussing it, they seem to be discussing quietly or the mainstream media is not reporting it). Take a look at the following link and scroll to the section captioned "Foreign Aid". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid.html There you will see things such as billions of dollars in "foreign grants, credits and military and foreign aid" granted over the past few decades. Billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars spent overseas (much to countries that are not our best of friends) and no indication that it is paid back. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf See also the top ten countries to which aid was provided in 2009 and for which aid was requested in 2010 here: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/top-ten-us-foreign-aid-recipients.html
As these are in millions of dollars, remember, that for Israel (for example only - I am not discussing the politics of aid to any specific country) in 2009, when it says $3,105, that means 3 billion, 105 million dollars.
Why are we not cutting foreign aid/"entitlement" programs first, before we speak of cutting contractual obligations to the American taxpayer? Please folks, ask your representatives and Senators this question. We need to take care of our taxpayers first; then if we can, help other nations. Charity should begin at home, and way too many Americans are suffering and will suffer while we spend trillions of dollars overseas (without much thanks, might I add).
Note, I am proud of the USA for assisting Japan in its present crises. That is what we are known for and we should continue to do. However, unconstitutional wars (Congress did not declare war on Libya as required by the Constitution, although the President has ordered our military to bomb a sovereign nation, thereby committing an act of war) that are unfunded will continue to raise our deficit and, if allowed, destroy our Constitution bit by bit.
Now, in the present political climate, entitlements have been defined solely as above. However, for the most part, we the taxpayers, have paid into the unemployment system, the Social Security system, the Medicare system. So, in my eyes, these are not really entitlements, they are debts to be paid. Much like I deposit money into the bank, the bank is holding the money for me and I get to with draw it according to our deposit contract. Well, our government made a contract with us when it took money from our paychecks for these programs - that money would be there for us when we needed it when we retired. Now the government wishes to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, again wishing to raise retirement age for those of us for whom it already raised the retirement age once, and to minimize the amounts paid out. I agree there are problems that need fixing. But taking away money from the taxpayers who entered into the contract, and played by the rules is not the way to go about it. For one thing, funds "stolen" by the government form the so-called "Social Security lockbox" to pay for other things need to be repaid immediately and the funds need to be invested responsibly to earn appropriate income to sustain Social Security.
But beyond these so-called entitlements, are entitlements that are never discussed and which must be cut first. The first priority of a government is to protect its people; however, our federal government is taking money from its citizens, making promises to citizens that it breaks, and then sends our tax dollars all over the world to foreign countries, paying those countries entitlements - entitlements that I have yet to hear anyone talk about cutting (if they are discussing it, they seem to be discussing quietly or the mainstream media is not reporting it). Take a look at the following link and scroll to the section captioned "Foreign Aid". http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid.html There you will see things such as billions of dollars in "foreign grants, credits and military and foreign aid" granted over the past few decades. Billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars spent overseas (much to countries that are not our best of friends) and no indication that it is paid back. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf See also the top ten countries to which aid was provided in 2009 and for which aid was requested in 2010 here: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/top-ten-us-foreign-aid-recipients.html
As these are in millions of dollars, remember, that for Israel (for example only - I am not discussing the politics of aid to any specific country) in 2009, when it says $3,105, that means 3 billion, 105 million dollars.
Why are we not cutting foreign aid/"entitlement" programs first, before we speak of cutting contractual obligations to the American taxpayer? Please folks, ask your representatives and Senators this question. We need to take care of our taxpayers first; then if we can, help other nations. Charity should begin at home, and way too many Americans are suffering and will suffer while we spend trillions of dollars overseas (without much thanks, might I add).
Note, I am proud of the USA for assisting Japan in its present crises. That is what we are known for and we should continue to do. However, unconstitutional wars (Congress did not declare war on Libya as required by the Constitution, although the President has ordered our military to bomb a sovereign nation, thereby committing an act of war) that are unfunded will continue to raise our deficit and, if allowed, destroy our Constitution bit by bit.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The People's President? I think not.
Just call me the Cranky Yankee (TM). I admit, I am rather cranky, but I certainly have a right to be.
Yesterday, the president of my college class, accessed personal college information in order to solicit campaign funds for the President of the United States. Now, not only was that a violation of my privacy rights, it also opened my eyes to this President, who not only is seeking to create a campaign war chest of 1 billion dollars (Hey Mr. Prez, how about spending that time and effort raising a billion dollars to pay down the deficit, or to at least pay for the third war in which you unconstitutionally involved this country when you chose to bomb Libya - yes, bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war and only Congress can declare war (the President after congress declares war may only "wage war" - one would think a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" would know that).
Okay, moving past the invasion of my privacy rights by a misguided Obama admirer (somehow, I think that if Dinesh D'Souza or Laura Ingraham, both alums of the same college, raided the college email banks to send out invitations to their candidate's soirees, all hell would break loose at the college, especially among the liberals) let's get to the invitation itself. The event is being held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC, and the minimum donation is $2,500. Hardly the small donations the President claims he raised for his campaign "war chest" for 2008. Of course, if you wish to "donate" $100,000, you buy yourself "Podium Acknowledgment, VIP reception, Photo Reception, Program Listing Dinner ". Won't you feel special? I particularly love the name of the fund: "Obama Victory Fund 2012". A little presumptuous in my book. I'm having difficulties posting a copy of the invite here, but maybe I'll be able to post one soon.
Yesterday, the president of my college class, accessed personal college information in order to solicit campaign funds for the President of the United States. Now, not only was that a violation of my privacy rights, it also opened my eyes to this President, who not only is seeking to create a campaign war chest of 1 billion dollars (Hey Mr. Prez, how about spending that time and effort raising a billion dollars to pay down the deficit, or to at least pay for the third war in which you unconstitutionally involved this country when you chose to bomb Libya - yes, bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war and only Congress can declare war (the President after congress declares war may only "wage war" - one would think a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" would know that).
Okay, moving past the invasion of my privacy rights by a misguided Obama admirer (somehow, I think that if Dinesh D'Souza or Laura Ingraham, both alums of the same college, raided the college email banks to send out invitations to their candidate's soirees, all hell would break loose at the college, especially among the liberals) let's get to the invitation itself. The event is being held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC, and the minimum donation is $2,500. Hardly the small donations the President claims he raised for his campaign "war chest" for 2008. Of course, if you wish to "donate" $100,000, you buy yourself "Podium Acknowledgment, VIP reception, Photo Reception, Program Listing Dinner ". Won't you feel special? I particularly love the name of the fund: "Obama Victory Fund 2012". A little presumptuous in my book. I'm having difficulties posting a copy of the invite here, but maybe I'll be able to post one soon.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The He Man Woman-Hater's Club
I wrote this before I learned that today is "International Women's Day" (for all the good that will do to stop atrocities like female circumcision in this world).
Anyway. . . On to what has become the train wreck from which the US just cannot avert its collective eyes. . . .
Let's start off with the newest members of the The He Man Woman-Hater's Club. The newest members would appear, at least to my mind, to be CBS and Warner Brothers. Charlie Sheen has had multiple women make multiple allegations against him regarding domestic violence and other claims. Did CBS/Warner Brothers fire him for those allegations? No - they continued to work his womanizing ways (and other bad habits) into the show, objectifying women and treating them poorly. In other words, bringing the dreams of many teen-aged boys to the small screen. However, when Charlie starts ranting and offending CBS/Warner Brothers and the producer during his visits with the press, now they fire him. Lesson to this story: objectify, mistreat and allegedly commit acts of domestic violence against women and not only will we renew your contract, but we'll give you a massive raise and pay you almost two million dollars an episode. Trash talk your bosses and we'll kick you out on your butt. As a woman, I'd love to sit on a jury for the wrongful termination case - I'd find for Charlie. As an attorney, I'd love to be filing Charlie's wrongful termination case, because I think he's got a great one. As an aside, why hasn't WB fired a certain someone else connected to this mess for the pointed rants/attacks he's been publishing on the air and online?
Anyway, on to another apparent member of The He Man Woman-Hater's Club: Mike Huckabee. He seems to have gone all-sheenlike on us and came out with his own sheenisms the past week, including an attack on Natalie Portman, for *gasp* being pregnant, not married, but engaged. Hey, Huckster, about 2000 years ago, wasn't there another woman who was engaged, not married but pregnant, and that turned out okay for the world, didn't it? Seriously, what would the Huckster have Natalie do? Abort the child because the pregnancy didn't come in the old "love, marriage and baby carriage" order? That hardly seems in keeping with conservative values that say life begins at conception. So, Huckster, just what is the problem? That Natalie just isn't getting married soon enough to suit you? Tough cookies.
Apparently the Huckster failed to learn any lessons from VP Dan Quayle when he took on fictional character Murphy Brown for being an unwed mother in the 1990s - that didn't do Dan's political career much good. In fact, the Murphy Brown fiasco was as bad if not worse than Dan's "potatoe" fiasco. I ask the Huckster two questions: why aren't you berating the father of Natalie's child? After all, it does take two to tango and two to make a baby. Second, Huckster, where have you been for the past 8.5 years that Two and a Half Men has been on the air "glorifying" single fatherhood (a man who leaches off his brother living rent free in a Malibu beach house where hookers and other women are paraded past his then young, now teen son on a daily basis)? Apparently, what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander (the male of the species) in the Huckster's eyes. . . .
For what it's worth, happy International Women's Day for all the good the day will do. And, remember, folks, this is just my opinion.
Anyway. . . On to what has become the train wreck from which the US just cannot avert its collective eyes. . . .
Let's start off with the newest members of the The He Man Woman-Hater's Club. The newest members would appear, at least to my mind, to be CBS and Warner Brothers. Charlie Sheen has had multiple women make multiple allegations against him regarding domestic violence and other claims. Did CBS/Warner Brothers fire him for those allegations? No - they continued to work his womanizing ways (and other bad habits) into the show, objectifying women and treating them poorly. In other words, bringing the dreams of many teen-aged boys to the small screen. However, when Charlie starts ranting and offending CBS/Warner Brothers and the producer during his visits with the press, now they fire him. Lesson to this story: objectify, mistreat and allegedly commit acts of domestic violence against women and not only will we renew your contract, but we'll give you a massive raise and pay you almost two million dollars an episode. Trash talk your bosses and we'll kick you out on your butt. As a woman, I'd love to sit on a jury for the wrongful termination case - I'd find for Charlie. As an attorney, I'd love to be filing Charlie's wrongful termination case, because I think he's got a great one. As an aside, why hasn't WB fired a certain someone else connected to this mess for the pointed rants/attacks he's been publishing on the air and online?
Anyway, on to another apparent member of The He Man Woman-Hater's Club: Mike Huckabee. He seems to have gone all-sheenlike on us and came out with his own sheenisms the past week, including an attack on Natalie Portman, for *gasp* being pregnant, not married, but engaged. Hey, Huckster, about 2000 years ago, wasn't there another woman who was engaged, not married but pregnant, and that turned out okay for the world, didn't it? Seriously, what would the Huckster have Natalie do? Abort the child because the pregnancy didn't come in the old "love, marriage and baby carriage" order? That hardly seems in keeping with conservative values that say life begins at conception. So, Huckster, just what is the problem? That Natalie just isn't getting married soon enough to suit you? Tough cookies.
Apparently the Huckster failed to learn any lessons from VP Dan Quayle when he took on fictional character Murphy Brown for being an unwed mother in the 1990s - that didn't do Dan's political career much good. In fact, the Murphy Brown fiasco was as bad if not worse than Dan's "potatoe" fiasco. I ask the Huckster two questions: why aren't you berating the father of Natalie's child? After all, it does take two to tango and two to make a baby. Second, Huckster, where have you been for the past 8.5 years that Two and a Half Men has been on the air "glorifying" single fatherhood (a man who leaches off his brother living rent free in a Malibu beach house where hookers and other women are paraded past his then young, now teen son on a daily basis)? Apparently, what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander (the male of the species) in the Huckster's eyes. . . .
For what it's worth, happy International Women's Day for all the good the day will do. And, remember, folks, this is just my opinion.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Stop the Blame Game
A person is responsible for his or her own actions. Lately, however, in light of the shooting in Tuscon, there has been this need to place blame on someone other than the shooter. Enough already. The shooter is responsible for his own actions. Unfortunately, due to his mental state, we may not be able to hold him accountable for his actions, but he is the one who made the decisions to act as he did, lucid or not.
I am so deeply troubled by those who are trying to politicize the actions of a lone lunatic with at least perceived mental problems (Pima Community College told him he could not re-enroll until he had passed a mental health evaluation). I am not a Palin supporter (frankly, I don't understand what some people think is so great about her), but I find this attempt to make her responsible for the shootings ridiculous. How about another famous quote from 2008: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html The name of the person speaking that line? Now-President Obama. Should he be questioned in relationship to this shooting as well - after all, his rhetoric could have incited the shooter as well. Given that Congresswoman Giffords is a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and thus not in lock-step with the party line, she's not necessarily a favorite of left-wing extremists.
How about we wait and see as to what comes out in the trial before we jump to all this speculation which is only driving the country further apart? The people involved in the shooting, the sadly deceased, the injured, the tormented bystanders, and their families, need our support. How about we agree to support those in need and honor the heroes of the day instead of fighting over the political leanings (if they can be determined) of the shooter? How about we come together as Americans and not advocates of a political party? This is what Rep. Giffords was reaching for in her email before attending the "Congress on your Corner" event: ". . . I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. . . . [I] think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/giffords-email-need-to-tone-our-rhetoric-and-partisanship-down/
I know the last question may be easier for me to comply with, being unaffiliated, but let's give it a try, folks. Otherwise, you are only spreading the same vitriol about which some of you are complaining.
I am so deeply troubled by those who are trying to politicize the actions of a lone lunatic with at least perceived mental problems (Pima Community College told him he could not re-enroll until he had passed a mental health evaluation). I am not a Palin supporter (frankly, I don't understand what some people think is so great about her), but I find this attempt to make her responsible for the shootings ridiculous. How about another famous quote from 2008: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html The name of the person speaking that line? Now-President Obama. Should he be questioned in relationship to this shooting as well - after all, his rhetoric could have incited the shooter as well. Given that Congresswoman Giffords is a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and thus not in lock-step with the party line, she's not necessarily a favorite of left-wing extremists.
How about we wait and see as to what comes out in the trial before we jump to all this speculation which is only driving the country further apart? The people involved in the shooting, the sadly deceased, the injured, the tormented bystanders, and their families, need our support. How about we agree to support those in need and honor the heroes of the day instead of fighting over the political leanings (if they can be determined) of the shooter? How about we come together as Americans and not advocates of a political party? This is what Rep. Giffords was reaching for in her email before attending the "Congress on your Corner" event: ". . . I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. . . . [I] think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/giffords-email-need-to-tone-our-rhetoric-and-partisanship-down/
I know the last question may be easier for me to comply with, being unaffiliated, but let's give it a try, folks. Otherwise, you are only spreading the same vitriol about which some of you are complaining.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
the Tonight show with Jay Leno and Mitt Romney
Fun and amusing interview with Mitt, with a few tidbits of political commentary as well. Go Jay and Go Mitt! :-) Be sure to watch the full interview.
http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/mitt-romney/1262892?__source=tnt|home|featured|recent
http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/mitt-romney/1262892?__source=tnt|home|featured|recent
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Chris Murphy: Too little, too late to try again with you. . .
Ah, old song lyrics come in handy, don't they? Little late Chris, to try "rebranding" yourself as the "new independent" voice in Congress. Especially when you have a 98% rate of voting with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats and have been in Congress for four years (that's not "new").
You must think voters are stupid, because only stupid people would fall for the rebranding you are trying to set forth in your ads. Let me tell you, independents are some of the best educated people in the country, which is why we won't align ourselves with political parties.
Unfortunately, I can't say may the best person win, because, unfortunately, the two party system in this country rewards political hacks who have "paid their dues" with the opportunity to run for certain seats. Me, while I may not be able to vote for the best, most qualified person, I can choose not to send Nancy Pelosi's errand boy back to Congress.
Mr. Murphy - you won't be getting my vote. And thanks so much for the over 5 trillion dollars in debt you ran up during your four year stint in Congress!
You must think voters are stupid, because only stupid people would fall for the rebranding you are trying to set forth in your ads. Let me tell you, independents are some of the best educated people in the country, which is why we won't align ourselves with political parties.
Unfortunately, I can't say may the best person win, because, unfortunately, the two party system in this country rewards political hacks who have "paid their dues" with the opportunity to run for certain seats. Me, while I may not be able to vote for the best, most qualified person, I can choose not to send Nancy Pelosi's errand boy back to Congress.
Mr. Murphy - you won't be getting my vote. And thanks so much for the over 5 trillion dollars in debt you ran up during your four year stint in Congress!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Can NPR be any less responsive?
I sent the following email to the NPR ombudsman, and received the following response (if you could call it that as it fails to answer any of my questions. . . .
The behavior of the CEO during the past week has been reprehensible. The way Juan Williams' employment termination was handled was atrocious. This is a private employment matter, and Ms. Schiller's behavior, first, in failing to see him personally to deliver the news instead of having an underling fire him over the phone, and secondly, suggesting that Juan's "feelings are between him and his psychiatrist" are grounds for dismissal in and of themselves.
There is no way I will be supporting NPR or the CPB any longer. And I am calling on my state and federal representatives to defund NPR. Perhaps Ms. Schiller needs to spend some time with a psychiatrist herself to examine why she acted the way she did last week.
And, since Juan has been fired, when will you fire Nina Totenberg for her 15 year old commentary that Jesse Helms or his grandchildren should contract AIDS? Or how about "journalist" Cokie Roberts for constantly expressing her opinions, the latest this past weekend?
Apologies to the press and to NPR employees are worthless. When will NPR apologize to Juan? Or are you waiting for quite the justified lawsuit to be filed so you can waste tax-payer dollars and contributions paying him off for Schiller's multiple and egregious mistakes?
And no, you do not have the right to publish or use anything I have said here - I have a right not to agree to your terms below.
And now, for something completely different (to quote Monty Python), here is NPR's Alicia Shepard's non-responsive response:
"Thank you for your thoughts about NPR’s termination of Juan Williams. NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard wrote this column in response to listener concerns: NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled. Please add to the discussion by posting your comments at the end of the blog.
Many of you have written or called saying you will no longer support public radio. Public radio is more than NPR. If you like Car Talk, Fresh Air, Marketplace, On Point, On the Media, This American Life, the BBC or Prairie Home Companion, then please support your local station. NPR is not responsible for any of those programs and your station needs help to pay for them.
Thanks for taking the time to write, your thoughts have been passed on to the proper folks in charge. Please sign up for the Ombudsman weekly newsletter. Visit www.npr.org/ombudsman and enter your email address in the bucket on the right-hand side.
Sincerely,
Office of the Ombudsman
NPR"
Seriously? Where are the answers to my questions? All I see is a request for money (what, NPR didn't get enough from George Soros?). So I responded, but not on their "blog" as they insisted:
Thanks for the non-responsive reply to my comments. It's all about money to you isn't it? What about the unprofessional, reprehensible behavior of Vivian Schiller? When is she going to be fired for improperly discussing personnel matters in public and slandering Mr. Williams?
I find it mind-boggling that the "Ombudsman's" response is more concerned with money than about what is right and wrong. Alicia, Vivian, and what's-her-name, the VP chosen to give Juan the hatchet job over the phone all make me ashamed of women holding high positions in corporations. Do you know how badly the behavior of those three (never mind Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts) will reflect upon the rest of us and upon young women trying to rise in the ranks?
Well, since NPR and Alicia only seem to care bout money, money, money, then that's what it's going to take to catch their attention. None from me. And, I am sending this email to everyone I know. Maybe you can hit up your friend George Soros for more money and become National Soros Radio. Because NPR is certainly not representative of the public in any way, given its clear and unmistakable bias. Never, ever again will I support CPB or NPR given that no one has the decency to follow the so-called policies upon which Ms. Schiller claimed to have based Juan's firing (if these policies were true, Totenberg and Roberts, among others, would have been fired long ago).
Grow a backbone and actually address my email today and below - don't be cowardly and cut and paste a non-responsive reply. Unless this is NPR's and the "ombudsman's" way of admitting they have no real credible response. In my eyes, Alicia's response does nothing to perform the ombudsman's duty to "implement[] the transparency, responsiveness, and accountability required of a modern media organization".
Somehow, I don't think I should hold my breath for a response. . . .
The behavior of the CEO during the past week has been reprehensible. The way Juan Williams' employment termination was handled was atrocious. This is a private employment matter, and Ms. Schiller's behavior, first, in failing to see him personally to deliver the news instead of having an underling fire him over the phone, and secondly, suggesting that Juan's "feelings are between him and his psychiatrist" are grounds for dismissal in and of themselves.
There is no way I will be supporting NPR or the CPB any longer. And I am calling on my state and federal representatives to defund NPR. Perhaps Ms. Schiller needs to spend some time with a psychiatrist herself to examine why she acted the way she did last week.
And, since Juan has been fired, when will you fire Nina Totenberg for her 15 year old commentary that Jesse Helms or his grandchildren should contract AIDS? Or how about "journalist" Cokie Roberts for constantly expressing her opinions, the latest this past weekend?
Apologies to the press and to NPR employees are worthless. When will NPR apologize to Juan? Or are you waiting for quite the justified lawsuit to be filed so you can waste tax-payer dollars and contributions paying him off for Schiller's multiple and egregious mistakes?
And no, you do not have the right to publish or use anything I have said here - I have a right not to agree to your terms below.
And now, for something completely different (to quote Monty Python), here is NPR's Alicia Shepard's non-responsive response:
"Thank you for your thoughts about NPR’s termination of Juan Williams. NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard wrote this column in response to listener concerns: NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled. Please add to the discussion by posting your comments at the end of the blog.
Many of you have written or called saying you will no longer support public radio. Public radio is more than NPR. If you like Car Talk, Fresh Air, Marketplace, On Point, On the Media, This American Life, the BBC or Prairie Home Companion, then please support your local station. NPR is not responsible for any of those programs and your station needs help to pay for them.
Thanks for taking the time to write, your thoughts have been passed on to the proper folks in charge. Please sign up for the Ombudsman weekly newsletter. Visit www.npr.org/ombudsman and enter your email address in the bucket on the right-hand side.
Sincerely,
Office of the Ombudsman
NPR"
Seriously? Where are the answers to my questions? All I see is a request for money (what, NPR didn't get enough from George Soros?). So I responded, but not on their "blog" as they insisted:
Thanks for the non-responsive reply to my comments. It's all about money to you isn't it? What about the unprofessional, reprehensible behavior of Vivian Schiller? When is she going to be fired for improperly discussing personnel matters in public and slandering Mr. Williams?
I find it mind-boggling that the "Ombudsman's" response is more concerned with money than about what is right and wrong. Alicia, Vivian, and what's-her-name, the VP chosen to give Juan the hatchet job over the phone all make me ashamed of women holding high positions in corporations. Do you know how badly the behavior of those three (never mind Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts) will reflect upon the rest of us and upon young women trying to rise in the ranks?
Well, since NPR and Alicia only seem to care bout money, money, money, then that's what it's going to take to catch their attention. None from me. And, I am sending this email to everyone I know. Maybe you can hit up your friend George Soros for more money and become National Soros Radio. Because NPR is certainly not representative of the public in any way, given its clear and unmistakable bias. Never, ever again will I support CPB or NPR given that no one has the decency to follow the so-called policies upon which Ms. Schiller claimed to have based Juan's firing (if these policies were true, Totenberg and Roberts, among others, would have been fired long ago).
Grow a backbone and actually address my email today and below - don't be cowardly and cut and paste a non-responsive reply. Unless this is NPR's and the "ombudsman's" way of admitting they have no real credible response. In my eyes, Alicia's response does nothing to perform the ombudsman's duty to "implement[] the transparency, responsiveness, and accountability required of a modern media organization".
Somehow, I don't think I should hold my breath for a response. . . .
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Vivian Schiller, it's time to earn some intergrity
Ms. Schiller, your disgraceful decision to fire Juan Williams this week shows your complete failure to understand the journalistic ethics you touted as a reason for firing Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams is a news analyst, a term which implies that, in the course of analysis, he would be expressing an opinion. Nina Totenberg claims she is a journalist, which means she is supposed to report the news in an unbiased way, without injecting her opinion.
You took one sentence Mr. Williams uttered (on another network) out of context and failed to listen to the rest of his comments for the full meaning of his comments. Presumably, Mr. Williams is entitled to express his feelings freely, just like any other American.
Yet, you fired Mr. Williams for an honest expression of his feelings, and Nina Totenberg still works at NPR. Nina Totenberg, who opined, on July 8, 1995, that God would give Jesse Helms or his grandchildren AIDS. http://www.wikio.com/video/nina-totenberg-god-giving-jesse-aids-4361443 Explain how that upholds NPR's journalistic ethics? Explain why she is still working at NPR for such a disgusting statement. Explain why you are still working at NPR for making the comment that Juan's feelings are between him and his psychiatrist (an apology issued in the press is no apology at all - you need to apologize to Juan for it to have any meaning).
So, Ms. Schiller, I call on you to earn some integrity here - if you believe in the reason you cite for firing Juan, then fire Nina. If you don't fire Nina, then we know you do not believe in the "journalistic ethics" you cited. In which case you should resign from your position in light of the hypocrisy and the "foot in mouth disease" you exhibited. In any case, you owe Juan an apology.
And you can feel personally responsible for federal cuts to NPR and CPB, as well as a drop in donations from Americans. And 1.8 million from Soros isn't going to make up for what you personally caused NPR and CPB to lose.
Mr. Williams is a news analyst, a term which implies that, in the course of analysis, he would be expressing an opinion. Nina Totenberg claims she is a journalist, which means she is supposed to report the news in an unbiased way, without injecting her opinion.
You took one sentence Mr. Williams uttered (on another network) out of context and failed to listen to the rest of his comments for the full meaning of his comments. Presumably, Mr. Williams is entitled to express his feelings freely, just like any other American.
Yet, you fired Mr. Williams for an honest expression of his feelings, and Nina Totenberg still works at NPR. Nina Totenberg, who opined, on July 8, 1995, that God would give Jesse Helms or his grandchildren AIDS. http://www.wikio.com/video/nina-totenberg-god-giving-jesse-aids-4361443 Explain how that upholds NPR's journalistic ethics? Explain why she is still working at NPR for such a disgusting statement. Explain why you are still working at NPR for making the comment that Juan's feelings are between him and his psychiatrist (an apology issued in the press is no apology at all - you need to apologize to Juan for it to have any meaning).
So, Ms. Schiller, I call on you to earn some integrity here - if you believe in the reason you cite for firing Juan, then fire Nina. If you don't fire Nina, then we know you do not believe in the "journalistic ethics" you cited. In which case you should resign from your position in light of the hypocrisy and the "foot in mouth disease" you exhibited. In any case, you owe Juan an apology.
And you can feel personally responsible for federal cuts to NPR and CPB, as well as a drop in donations from Americans. And 1.8 million from Soros isn't going to make up for what you personally caused NPR and CPB to lose.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Too much PC
It's really sad when people get fired in this country for voicing their opinions. I am no fan of Juan Williams, but, as Voltaire allegedly said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Juan expressed his own personal feelings on The O'Reilly Factor, and NPR punished him by firing him.
It's sad that an organization like NPR, instead of encouraging intellectual debate from all perspectives, chooses to silence those perspectives it disagrees with or because it is not perceived as politically correct. Actions like these tell me that NPR has no intellectual argument with which to counter Juan's personal beliefs and arguments, and, much like Whoopi and Joy, and other 5 year olds on the playground, has "taken its ball and gone home" leaving Juan without a game to play.
You can read the story here. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_en_tv/us_npr_analyst_fired
Well, NPR may get my tax money without my permission, but it will not get any direct donations from me, that is for sure. Given that NPR does get public funding ( http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/21/huckabee-calls-on-congress-to-cut-npr-funding/ , it's questionable as to whether, constitutionally, they can violate the First Amendment this way. In any case, all public funding should be cut if they wish to act like a private employer.
Finally, to top it all off, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller was quoted, saying whatever feelings Williams has about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist — take your pick." Now, if that isn't a bigoted comment about people who see psychiatrists, I don't know what is. Although she later issued an apology (hollow, no doubt, and not even to Juan himself), she should be fired for her thoughtless, contemptible, hateful and bigoted statement. She certainly does not follow any journalistic principles she claims she upholds http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_en_ot/us_npr_analyst_fired Heck, since it was directed against Juan, perhaps we should classify the comment as racist, as well - after all, that's what the folks at NPR do best - call people names and insult them when it suits their moods. Hate speech, anyone? Shame on Ms. Schiller - she certainly fails to practice what she supposedly preaches.
And if what she claims about journalistic ethics is true, then why wasn't Andrea Mitchell fired from NBC during the heated debates over Obama's health care bill when she opined (remember, she's a journalist, not a commentator) that Americans were basically too stupid to know what's good for them. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/07/31/they-may-not-know-whats-good-them "You've got 47% of the people in our NBC/Wall Street Journal opinion poll who have health insurance who don't like what the president is doing. The problem he's got -- 47% of the people who've got coverage don't want change. They don't like what they're hearing. Now, they may not know what's good for them. . . ." Also discussed in my blog here http://anindependentconnecticutyankee.blogspot.com/2009/08/connecticuts-5th-district-rep-really.html
And, let's not forget Nina Tottenberg's opinions and commentaries which are too numerous to mention - this also from someone who is supposed to be an unbiased reporter - not a commentator. Seems like Ms. Schiller keeps tap-dancing around the truth behind Juan's firing, since other journalists aren't being fired for far more "heinous" opinion offenses. but then again, they are speaking the ultra-left wing political mantra, so they don't get fired by their partisan bosses who accept millions of dollars from Soros.
It's sad that an organization like NPR, instead of encouraging intellectual debate from all perspectives, chooses to silence those perspectives it disagrees with or because it is not perceived as politically correct. Actions like these tell me that NPR has no intellectual argument with which to counter Juan's personal beliefs and arguments, and, much like Whoopi and Joy, and other 5 year olds on the playground, has "taken its ball and gone home" leaving Juan without a game to play.
You can read the story here. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_en_tv/us_npr_analyst_fired
Well, NPR may get my tax money without my permission, but it will not get any direct donations from me, that is for sure. Given that NPR does get public funding ( http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/21/huckabee-calls-on-congress-to-cut-npr-funding/ , it's questionable as to whether, constitutionally, they can violate the First Amendment this way. In any case, all public funding should be cut if they wish to act like a private employer.
Finally, to top it all off, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller was quoted, saying whatever feelings Williams has about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist — take your pick." Now, if that isn't a bigoted comment about people who see psychiatrists, I don't know what is. Although she later issued an apology (hollow, no doubt, and not even to Juan himself), she should be fired for her thoughtless, contemptible, hateful and bigoted statement. She certainly does not follow any journalistic principles she claims she upholds http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_en_ot/us_npr_analyst_fired Heck, since it was directed against Juan, perhaps we should classify the comment as racist, as well - after all, that's what the folks at NPR do best - call people names and insult them when it suits their moods. Hate speech, anyone? Shame on Ms. Schiller - she certainly fails to practice what she supposedly preaches.
And if what she claims about journalistic ethics is true, then why wasn't Andrea Mitchell fired from NBC during the heated debates over Obama's health care bill when she opined (remember, she's a journalist, not a commentator) that Americans were basically too stupid to know what's good for them. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/07/31/they-may-not-know-whats-good-them "You've got 47% of the people in our NBC/Wall Street Journal opinion poll who have health insurance who don't like what the president is doing. The problem he's got -- 47% of the people who've got coverage don't want change. They don't like what they're hearing. Now, they may not know what's good for them. . . ." Also discussed in my blog here http://anindependentconnecticutyankee.blogspot.com/2009/08/connecticuts-5th-district-rep-really.html
And, let's not forget Nina Tottenberg's opinions and commentaries which are too numerous to mention - this also from someone who is supposed to be an unbiased reporter - not a commentator. Seems like Ms. Schiller keeps tap-dancing around the truth behind Juan's firing, since other journalists aren't being fired for far more "heinous" opinion offenses. but then again, they are speaking the ultra-left wing political mantra, so they don't get fired by their partisan bosses who accept millions of dollars from Soros.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
No Go Blumie!
I used to like Blumenthal as our state's Attorney General. In fact, I voted for him every time he ran for that office. But, after hearing his lies (yes, LIES) about his service in Vietnam, I became disenchanted. He claims he "misspoke". Well, once, maybe, but multiple times, in my opinion, is out and out lying. And, as the daughter of a man who served his country serving in the Army, I agree with the veterans who have been saying it was a matter of honor, duty, service to the country and integrity, and definitely not a matter of POLITICS.
But, the final nail in Blumie's political coffin for me was the debate. When asked how he would create jobs, he was unable to put forth a coherent meaningful sentence, in my opinion. Basically, he said, I will create jobs by creatively creating creative jobs. In other words - no clue.
I'm not voting for him again. Do we really need another career politician in Washington? Especially when we just finally got rid of Dodd? I don't think so. I hope you don't think so either.
But, the final nail in Blumie's political coffin for me was the debate. When asked how he would create jobs, he was unable to put forth a coherent meaningful sentence, in my opinion. Basically, he said, I will create jobs by creatively creating creative jobs. In other words - no clue.
I'm not voting for him again. Do we really need another career politician in Washington? Especially when we just finally got rid of Dodd? I don't think so. I hope you don't think so either.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Another fine mess our government has gotten us into
Yet again, the stupidity of our massive federal government never fails to astound. The federal government issued stimulus checks to approximately 89,000 people not entitled to them (there could be more, who knows with our government - but this is the number it admits to). Why were these people not entitled to such checks? Well, because approximately $72,000 were DEAD, and 17,000 were incarcerated.
So, approximately 23.3 million wasted (although, the families of about half the deceased do deserve credit for returning the checks - thank you honest Americans. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_stimulus_checks_dead_people for more details. But really, what's 23 million dollars to Congress? Just chump change. Why? Because they just go to the chumps (i.e. hard-working American tax-payers) and get more money from them. Don't take it any more.
As for our government, IT'S TIME YOU GET YOUR ACT IN GEAR! We taxpayers are tired of you foolishly wasting our hard earned tax dollars. Most of us would be fired from our jobs if we made such bone-headed mistakes. Start taking names and firing those at fault. Because believe me, the voters will be doing an awful lot of firing of elected officials come this November.
Vote the incompetent career politicians OUT!
So, approximately 23.3 million wasted (although, the families of about half the deceased do deserve credit for returning the checks - thank you honest Americans. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101008/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_stimulus_checks_dead_people for more details. But really, what's 23 million dollars to Congress? Just chump change. Why? Because they just go to the chumps (i.e. hard-working American tax-payers) and get more money from them. Don't take it any more.
As for our government, IT'S TIME YOU GET YOUR ACT IN GEAR! We taxpayers are tired of you foolishly wasting our hard earned tax dollars. Most of us would be fired from our jobs if we made such bone-headed mistakes. Start taking names and firing those at fault. Because believe me, the voters will be doing an awful lot of firing of elected officials come this November.
Vote the incompetent career politicians OUT!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Why the DREAM Act and the Democrats are WRONG again!
Leave it to Harry Reid, the almost gone Senator of the economically struggling state of Nevada, to tack on the DREAM Act to a defense bill. The weasily act has been perpetrated because the senator knows that it will look bad not to fund our troops; however, what he is proposing is a way to reward the children of illegal aliens with American citizenship (and then they can bring in their families legally as well). basically, trying to buy a huge block of future Democratic supporters and voters at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Why is this wrong - well, the bills have nothing to do with each other (although the Democrats would argue that the children could earn legal citizenship through military service - yes, that's what I want, people without a legal commitment and allegiance to this country defending it - that should work really well).
Let me tell you a story: Once upon a time, an Italian man decided to immigrate to the United States. he did so legally, going through Ellis Island, getting his paperwork in order and becoming an American citizen. He then went back to Italy and brought back a bride, who also went through Ellis Island and was a legal resident of the United States. They made sure all was legal before they had three children. None of the children spoke English when they started school - and there were no English as a second language classes paid for by taxpayers to cater to them. The children learned English very, very quickly. One of those children even earned herself a scholarship to a prestigious Seven Sisters School (back when the Ivy League was not open to women). There were no handouts, and the family did everything legally. Both the daughters' children graduated from an Ivy League school. As one of those grandchildren, I am appalled, as I know my grandparents were as they spoke of illegal immigration often, that people who are violating the country's laws are getting rewarded while the citizens are paying the bill. If my family, and millions of other American families, could enter the country the "right" way, and become legal citizens, why is it that we should reward those who come here illegally, and continue to stay here illegally with free education, health care, and other social services?
Well, it's time for this foolishness to stop. How can we not have the money to deport the illegal aliens, and yet have all this money to give their children a free education and give all illegal aliens free medical care in our hospital emergency rooms?
Call your Senators' offices now and tell them to vote against the Dream Act - the vote is today.
Citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and is not earned by committing illegal acts (and yes, by the time the child is of the "age of majority" choosing to remain in this country illegally means they are committing the illegal act themselves).
Why is this wrong - well, the bills have nothing to do with each other (although the Democrats would argue that the children could earn legal citizenship through military service - yes, that's what I want, people without a legal commitment and allegiance to this country defending it - that should work really well).
Let me tell you a story: Once upon a time, an Italian man decided to immigrate to the United States. he did so legally, going through Ellis Island, getting his paperwork in order and becoming an American citizen. He then went back to Italy and brought back a bride, who also went through Ellis Island and was a legal resident of the United States. They made sure all was legal before they had three children. None of the children spoke English when they started school - and there were no English as a second language classes paid for by taxpayers to cater to them. The children learned English very, very quickly. One of those children even earned herself a scholarship to a prestigious Seven Sisters School (back when the Ivy League was not open to women). There were no handouts, and the family did everything legally. Both the daughters' children graduated from an Ivy League school. As one of those grandchildren, I am appalled, as I know my grandparents were as they spoke of illegal immigration often, that people who are violating the country's laws are getting rewarded while the citizens are paying the bill. If my family, and millions of other American families, could enter the country the "right" way, and become legal citizens, why is it that we should reward those who come here illegally, and continue to stay here illegally with free education, health care, and other social services?
Well, it's time for this foolishness to stop. How can we not have the money to deport the illegal aliens, and yet have all this money to give their children a free education and give all illegal aliens free medical care in our hospital emergency rooms?
Call your Senators' offices now and tell them to vote against the Dream Act - the vote is today.
Citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and is not earned by committing illegal acts (and yes, by the time the child is of the "age of majority" choosing to remain in this country illegally means they are committing the illegal act themselves).
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Further proof it's time to oust career politicians
Watching Meet the Press this morning just re-affirmed to me just how out of touch career politicians are with the American people.
Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, daughter of "Moon" Landrieu, the Mayor of New Orleans from 1970 - 1978, and the sister of the present Mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu (Are you catching a theme here? Do you think the Landrieus are working on a family dynasty in Louisiana?), had the nerve today to slap the faces of every single American citizen when she decided to opine that we haven't done enough for New Orleans. The quote was, as follows: "Do you know how many houses all of the nonprofits have built? No more than 5,000 in five years. Do you know how many we lost? Two hundred thousand." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38893472/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts So, non-profits, and the charity and sweat-equity of millions of American people are not enough for Senator Landrieu. How absolutely appalling and insulting. How many of those five thousand homes did you and your brother build, Senator? None, I would venture to guess. How dare you minimize what the non-profits have done for the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana? Have you asked the residents who have actually benefited from those homes what they think? Or, would you rather have them languishing in those formaldehyde-filled trailers that FEMA (that you as part of the federal government) provided them with? Since those 5,000 homes provided by the good people of America through non-profits are not enough for you, why don't you just reimburse, out of your own pocket, all those non-profits, and the volunteers who gave their time and effort for the "paltry" number of homes they provided your City? You and your brother should be on your knees every day thanking the non-profits, those who donate their time and effort in building the houses and the Americans who donate the money so the house can be built rather than tearing them down for building "only" 1,000 houses a year.
Then Senator Landrieu had the audacity to say that "The mayor of New Orleans at the time was offered $5 million. That wouldn't buy them a, you know, loaf of bread for the week." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38893472/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts Are you kidding me, Senator? If you can't figure out how to spend 5 MILLION dollars in a wise enough way to "buy a loaf of bread for a week" then that goes a long way to explaining why you people in Washington keep robbing American taxpayers blind and wasting our money. FIVE MILLION DOLLARS would go an awful long way to building more homes in the area.
Once again, it's time to vote out these out of touch incumbents and career politicians, as well as would be "family dynasty" politicians, who admit they are unable to even figure out how to spend FIVE MILLION DOLLARS wisely enough to buy a loaf of bread. You, the American taxpayer, want to know where your money is going - it's going to fools who make foolish and reprehensible statements like those above, and who think that FIVE MILLION DOLLARS is worthless. Well, lady, I can surely spend FIVE MILLION DOLLARS more wisely than you can, as can the bulk of the American population. Time for you to find yourself another job where you can actually learn the value of money.
Then, the Senator also opines that what happened as a result of Katrina was not a "natural disaster", but rather a "man-made disaster. Well, of course it was - even the French, when they first settled the area, knew not to build in locations that were BELOW SEA LEVEL. But you folks in Louisiana thought that you could conquer mother nature, and you foolishly still think you can. Let me tell you, it is supreme arrogance and foolishness to continue to build below sea level and rely on levees to protect you. And, why, Senator, when you claimed it was a man made disaster because the levees failed, did you not bring up the fact that the made-made disaster actually resulted from the initial foolish decision to build BELOW SEA LEVEL? And now you are making that same mistake once again and expecting the American taxpayer to pay for it, as well as for the next time disaster strikes New Orleans (and it will). No levee is going to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, so, good luck with the next Katrina. I hope by then, the City of New Orleans will be smart enough to have an actual, workable evacuation plan in effect, because, if you had one for Katrina, it didn't work, in case you didn't notice.
I'm so glad I don't live in Louisiana - the Senator's comments today made Senator Dodd look like a genius.
Also, as an aside, in a separate segment of Meet the Press, Brian Williams spoke to DouglasBrinkley who recently published the book, The Great Deluge, which some of you may find of some interest. I have not read it yet.
Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, daughter of "Moon" Landrieu, the Mayor of New Orleans from 1970 - 1978, and the sister of the present Mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu (Are you catching a theme here? Do you think the Landrieus are working on a family dynasty in Louisiana?), had the nerve today to slap the faces of every single American citizen when she decided to opine that we haven't done enough for New Orleans. The quote was, as follows: "Do you know how many houses all of the nonprofits have built? No more than 5,000 in five years. Do you know how many we lost? Two hundred thousand." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38893472/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts So, non-profits, and the charity and sweat-equity of millions of American people are not enough for Senator Landrieu. How absolutely appalling and insulting. How many of those five thousand homes did you and your brother build, Senator? None, I would venture to guess. How dare you minimize what the non-profits have done for the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana? Have you asked the residents who have actually benefited from those homes what they think? Or, would you rather have them languishing in those formaldehyde-filled trailers that FEMA (that you as part of the federal government) provided them with? Since those 5,000 homes provided by the good people of America through non-profits are not enough for you, why don't you just reimburse, out of your own pocket, all those non-profits, and the volunteers who gave their time and effort for the "paltry" number of homes they provided your City? You and your brother should be on your knees every day thanking the non-profits, those who donate their time and effort in building the houses and the Americans who donate the money so the house can be built rather than tearing them down for building "only" 1,000 houses a year.
Then Senator Landrieu had the audacity to say that "The mayor of New Orleans at the time was offered $5 million. That wouldn't buy them a, you know, loaf of bread for the week." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38893472/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts Are you kidding me, Senator? If you can't figure out how to spend 5 MILLION dollars in a wise enough way to "buy a loaf of bread for a week" then that goes a long way to explaining why you people in Washington keep robbing American taxpayers blind and wasting our money. FIVE MILLION DOLLARS would go an awful long way to building more homes in the area.
Once again, it's time to vote out these out of touch incumbents and career politicians, as well as would be "family dynasty" politicians, who admit they are unable to even figure out how to spend FIVE MILLION DOLLARS wisely enough to buy a loaf of bread. You, the American taxpayer, want to know where your money is going - it's going to fools who make foolish and reprehensible statements like those above, and who think that FIVE MILLION DOLLARS is worthless. Well, lady, I can surely spend FIVE MILLION DOLLARS more wisely than you can, as can the bulk of the American population. Time for you to find yourself another job where you can actually learn the value of money.
Then, the Senator also opines that what happened as a result of Katrina was not a "natural disaster", but rather a "man-made disaster. Well, of course it was - even the French, when they first settled the area, knew not to build in locations that were BELOW SEA LEVEL. But you folks in Louisiana thought that you could conquer mother nature, and you foolishly still think you can. Let me tell you, it is supreme arrogance and foolishness to continue to build below sea level and rely on levees to protect you. And, why, Senator, when you claimed it was a man made disaster because the levees failed, did you not bring up the fact that the made-made disaster actually resulted from the initial foolish decision to build BELOW SEA LEVEL? And now you are making that same mistake once again and expecting the American taxpayer to pay for it, as well as for the next time disaster strikes New Orleans (and it will). No levee is going to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, so, good luck with the next Katrina. I hope by then, the City of New Orleans will be smart enough to have an actual, workable evacuation plan in effect, because, if you had one for Katrina, it didn't work, in case you didn't notice.
I'm so glad I don't live in Louisiana - the Senator's comments today made Senator Dodd look like a genius.
Also, as an aside, in a separate segment of Meet the Press, Brian Williams spoke to DouglasBrinkley who recently published the book, The Great Deluge, which some of you may find of some interest. I have not read it yet.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Indicting Roger Clemens? Really?
What a waste of taxpayer dollars once again. Calling a A federal grand jury which today has indicted Roger Clemens on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs while playing baseball. Really. Is this truly a good use of tax-payer dollars?
So what?! I don't care. Keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame if he violated their rules. Baseball has no place before Congress, period! The hearings themselves were a waste of time and money. But indicting Clemens for "making false statements" and "perjury" to Congress? Are you kidding me? How many times have members of Congress "made false statements" to the American people? If the Feds need to keep busy, well, start holding grand juries to look into the false statements members of Congress have made to the American people and let's start indicting some of them.
Ridiculous!
So what?! I don't care. Keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame if he violated their rules. Baseball has no place before Congress, period! The hearings themselves were a waste of time and money. But indicting Clemens for "making false statements" and "perjury" to Congress? Are you kidding me? How many times have members of Congress "made false statements" to the American people? If the Feds need to keep busy, well, start holding grand juries to look into the false statements members of Congress have made to the American people and let's start indicting some of them.
Ridiculous!
Another vacation at taxpayer expense!
In this economy, can anyone be so stupid to be so out of touch to go on yet another expensive vacation with the "glitteratti"? Apparently, the answer to that question is a decidedly loud YES!
I wish I could find an accurate count of how many vacations he's taken this year, but alas, no one seems to have compiled it. U.S. News and World Report is calling this the fifth vacation for the Obama family since July 2010 http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/8/11/obamas-plan-fifth-vacation-since-july.html and the eighth since the beginning of 2010. Still think he's in touch with the average American?
Yes, Barry - i'monvacationagain - Obama is heading to Martha's Vineyard for yet another vacation, but all is not happy in Obama land. Apparently, his t-shirt sales have fallen:
"One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island.
But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say.
“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,’’ said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?’’" http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/18/vineyard_buzzes_less_for_obamas_second_visit/
I understand the bottom of the t-shirt says "How's that hopey-changey thing workin' for ya'?" I know it's not working so well for me. I'm still at no vacations for this year - how about the rest of you?
And before any Obama defenders come rushing to his aid - he gets a vacation allowance from taxpayers and we taxpayers foot the bill for all the Secret Service and the logistics of his every move, so don't even try to say that they pay their own way! "n addition to his salary, the President gets numerous expense accounts including:
* General account ($50000)
* Official expenses of the White House office
* Entertainment expenses
* Separate entertainment expenses for official presidential functions
* Traveling expenses for the president and anyone traveling with him (above and beyond the free limo, helicopter, and airplane rides)
In addition there is an account designated for "unanticipated needs" which is not to exceed $1 million per year. These unanticipated needs include anything for the furtherance of the national interest, security, or defense, including personnel needs and needs for services. Basically if the President is over-quota for anything listed above, he can dip into this money." http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1478184
I wish I could find an accurate count of how many vacations he's taken this year, but alas, no one seems to have compiled it. U.S. News and World Report is calling this the fifth vacation for the Obama family since July 2010 http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/8/11/obamas-plan-fifth-vacation-since-july.html and the eighth since the beginning of 2010. Still think he's in touch with the average American?
Yes, Barry - i'monvacationagain - Obama is heading to Martha's Vineyard for yet another vacation, but all is not happy in Obama land. Apparently, his t-shirt sales have fallen:
"One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island.
But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say.
“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,’’ said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?’’" http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/18/vineyard_buzzes_less_for_obamas_second_visit/
I understand the bottom of the t-shirt says "How's that hopey-changey thing workin' for ya'?" I know it's not working so well for me. I'm still at no vacations for this year - how about the rest of you?
And before any Obama defenders come rushing to his aid - he gets a vacation allowance from taxpayers and we taxpayers foot the bill for all the Secret Service and the logistics of his every move, so don't even try to say that they pay their own way! "n addition to his salary, the President gets numerous expense accounts including:
* General account ($50000)
* Official expenses of the White House office
* Entertainment expenses
* Separate entertainment expenses for official presidential functions
* Traveling expenses for the president and anyone traveling with him (above and beyond the free limo, helicopter, and airplane rides)
In addition there is an account designated for "unanticipated needs" which is not to exceed $1 million per year. These unanticipated needs include anything for the furtherance of the national interest, security, or defense, including personnel needs and needs for services. Basically if the President is over-quota for anything listed above, he can dip into this money." http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1478184
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)