Thursday, June 4, 2015
Senator Advocates Use Of RICO Statute To Crush Political Discourse
Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator from Rhode Island and The Washington Post team up to crush the voices of dissent.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Items From My Mailbox: Thanks Bonnie
Splinters in her crotch......this is clean/funny!
A woman from Los Angeles , who was a tree hugger, a liberal Democrat, and an anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timberland near Colville , WA .There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract.
She wanted a good view of the natural splendor of her land, so she started to climb the big tree.
As she neared the top, she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her. In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many splinters in her crotch. In considerable pain, she hurried to a local ER to see a doctor.
She told him she was an environmentalist, a Democrat, an anti-hunter and how she came to get all the splinters.
The doctor listened to her story with great patience, and then told her to
go wait in the examining room and he would see if he could help her. She sat and waited three hours before the doctor reappeared.
The angry woman demanded, "What took you so long?"
He smiled and then told her, "Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a "recreational area" so close to a waste treatment facility.
I'm sorry, but due to ObamaCare...they turned you down.”
GOD BLESS AMERICA !
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
"Bob Schieffer Retired." "How Can You Tell?"
Our esteemed Fourth Estate took a break from their seven year siesta to pay tribute to a departing colleague. The chorus of snores will continue without the grating of one their finest somnambulists. Bob, we hope your retirement is as restful as your working life. This yawn is for you.
MAYBE?
MAYBE?
Sunday, May 31, 2015
An Immodest Proposal: New Debate Format
I gave been kicking this one around for a while and for whatever reason the smart people aren't knocking on my door to harvest mu ideas. Go figure.
This is easier to explain by example:
First, We seed the candidates based on past presidential runs, current and length of political position and lastly, name recognition.
So the GOP would have a field that looked something like this.
1. Rick Santorum (Highest ranked 2012 candidate).
2. Rick Perry.
3. Gary Johnson.
4. Mike Huckabee.
5. Lindsey Graham.
6. Chris Christie (I like to stagger governors and senators to make for more interesting debate.)
7. Marco Rubio (More or less arbitrary assignment over Rand Paul as both joined US Senate in 2010.)
8. John Kasich.
9. Rand Paul.
10. Scott Walker.
11. Ted Cruz.
12. Peter King.
13. Bobbie Jindal.
14. Jeb Bush.
15. George Pataki.
16. Donald Trump.
17. Ben Carson.
18. Carly Fiorina.
The Democrats would have a field that looked something like this.
1. Hillary.
2. Bernie Sanders.
3. Martin O'Malley.
4. Jim Webb.
5. Evan Bayh.
6. Michelle Obama.
7. Charlie Crist.
8. Ben Affleck.
9. Lyndon Larouche.
10. Bill Maher.
11. Brian Williams.
12. Candy Crowley.
Now we need a network to pull this off. We can use my Youtube channel until another venue develops. We can split the ad revenue. Here goes.
On a Monday night Carly Fiorina battles Ben Carson in an hour long (minus commercials) debate. There is no moderator as such. The candidates ask each other questions which reveals as much about them as do their answers. The closest thing we have to a moderator is a minimum wage guy in a suit who rings a bell if a candidate exceeds his time limit or restores order should there be a breach of protocol.
In this format, the audience decides who wins the debate. As with "American Idol" supporters call one of two numbers, one associated with Carson, one with Fiorina. Calls cost one dollar and a small percentage goes to the hosting network and the rest goes to the candidate's campaign. In this example Carson wins so he squares off against Trump on Tuesday. The winner bumps heads with Pataki on Wednesday.
This is not a detailed blueprint. It's not a perfect system but it would be better than anything we have seen in the past. As anyone can vote, Dems and Indies could vote in the GOP debates and vice versa. I don't see that as problematic and there are ways to get around that should it bother certain people.
The logistics of getting twenty candidates on one stage on the same evening....giant ugh! This proposal also addresses issues of fairness. The moderator is non-existent and thus cannot ask tougher questions to one candidate or to ignore one of the twenty.
The seeding might be done on the rank of campaign coffers to give the back of the pack more chances to earn revenue.
Parties might share the wealth by allowing last in the nation places like Vermont, New Jersey and Indiana to host the debates. They might also adopt a different state every night format.
The beauty of this debate format is that it could be repeated just as soon as one debate cycle ended. They might even start new debates before the prior series of debates ended. A preliminary to main event to be enjoyed by hardcore political dweebs.
Other considerations. If there is an excessive number of candidates they might consider a second tier series of debates to be viewed by those people who lament that there are but three C-Span channels. So whoever wins the second tier qualifies as the first night debater in the big show.
The powers that could be might consider pruning the number of candidates with each successive debate. Say the first series had eighteen. The second would have seventeen. the third sixteen and so on.
The powers that could be might also consider changing the format so that the later debates with smaller fields could only receive votes from registered party members. This would reduce the overall number of voters and also reduce the revenue. They might compensate by charging each voter say five or ten dollars. They might also allow additional votes for political party office holders.
As I said, this is just a rough sketch but this would be more engaging and more interesting than what we have done in the past. It would also generate revenue. Best of all, we wouldn't have to look at George Stehanopolous for any reason. Mr. Nine Figures is 86. Can there be a better selling point?
This is easier to explain by example:
First, We seed the candidates based on past presidential runs, current and length of political position and lastly, name recognition.
So the GOP would have a field that looked something like this.
1. Rick Santorum (Highest ranked 2012 candidate).
2. Rick Perry.
3. Gary Johnson.
4. Mike Huckabee.
5. Lindsey Graham.
6. Chris Christie (I like to stagger governors and senators to make for more interesting debate.)
7. Marco Rubio (More or less arbitrary assignment over Rand Paul as both joined US Senate in 2010.)
8. John Kasich.
9. Rand Paul.
10. Scott Walker.
11. Ted Cruz.
12. Peter King.
13. Bobbie Jindal.
14. Jeb Bush.
15. George Pataki.
16. Donald Trump.
17. Ben Carson.
18. Carly Fiorina.
The Democrats would have a field that looked something like this.
1. Hillary.
2. Bernie Sanders.
3. Martin O'Malley.
4. Jim Webb.
5. Evan Bayh.
6. Michelle Obama.
7. Charlie Crist.
8. Ben Affleck.
9. Lyndon Larouche.
10. Bill Maher.
11. Brian Williams.
12. Candy Crowley.
Now we need a network to pull this off. We can use my Youtube channel until another venue develops. We can split the ad revenue. Here goes.
On a Monday night Carly Fiorina battles Ben Carson in an hour long (minus commercials) debate. There is no moderator as such. The candidates ask each other questions which reveals as much about them as do their answers. The closest thing we have to a moderator is a minimum wage guy in a suit who rings a bell if a candidate exceeds his time limit or restores order should there be a breach of protocol.
In this format, the audience decides who wins the debate. As with "American Idol" supporters call one of two numbers, one associated with Carson, one with Fiorina. Calls cost one dollar and a small percentage goes to the hosting network and the rest goes to the candidate's campaign. In this example Carson wins so he squares off against Trump on Tuesday. The winner bumps heads with Pataki on Wednesday.
This is not a detailed blueprint. It's not a perfect system but it would be better than anything we have seen in the past. As anyone can vote, Dems and Indies could vote in the GOP debates and vice versa. I don't see that as problematic and there are ways to get around that should it bother certain people.
The logistics of getting twenty candidates on one stage on the same evening....giant ugh! This proposal also addresses issues of fairness. The moderator is non-existent and thus cannot ask tougher questions to one candidate or to ignore one of the twenty.
The seeding might be done on the rank of campaign coffers to give the back of the pack more chances to earn revenue.
Parties might share the wealth by allowing last in the nation places like Vermont, New Jersey and Indiana to host the debates. They might also adopt a different state every night format.
The beauty of this debate format is that it could be repeated just as soon as one debate cycle ended. They might even start new debates before the prior series of debates ended. A preliminary to main event to be enjoyed by hardcore political dweebs.
Other considerations. If there is an excessive number of candidates they might consider a second tier series of debates to be viewed by those people who lament that there are but three C-Span channels. So whoever wins the second tier qualifies as the first night debater in the big show.
The powers that could be might consider pruning the number of candidates with each successive debate. Say the first series had eighteen. The second would have seventeen. the third sixteen and so on.
The powers that could be might also consider changing the format so that the later debates with smaller fields could only receive votes from registered party members. This would reduce the overall number of voters and also reduce the revenue. They might compensate by charging each voter say five or ten dollars. They might also allow additional votes for political party office holders.
As I said, this is just a rough sketch but this would be more engaging and more interesting than what we have done in the past. It would also generate revenue. Best of all, we wouldn't have to look at George Stehanopolous for any reason. Mr. Nine Figures is 86. Can there be a better selling point?
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Items From My Mailbox: Thanks Bonnie. (Michelle Obama's staff.)
UGH! We never knew it was this bad.
Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing China for the White House during the Civil War.
And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband’s salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by you the taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower: One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.
Jackie Kennedy: One
Rosaline Carter: One
Barbara Bush: One
Hilary Clinton: Three
Laura Bush: One
Michele Obama: Twenty-two
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Mrs. Obama are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
One.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
Two.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
Three.. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four.. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five.. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six.. $90,000 Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Seven.. $84,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
Eight.. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
Nine.. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)
Ten.. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve.. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
Thirteen.. $60,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
Fourteen.. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen.. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen.. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant f or Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
Seventeen.. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
Eighteen.. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen.. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Twenty.. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One. . $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two. . $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Total $1,591,200 in annual salaries all for someone we did not vote for, and apparently have no control over.
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe ...
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press: canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 >
The Canadian Free Press had to publish this. I wonder why the US media has not brought this to light??? Too scared that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama???
Friday, May 29, 2015
FIFA Corruption: Who Cares?
Do we need to point out everything wrong with this picture? Too many to list but we can highlight a few absurdities.
1. Priorities. The IRS investigation of political abuse has never gotten off the ground. There is strong evidence of voter fraud all over the US. It might be too idealistic to hope a Dem Administration might investigate the cozy relationships of bundlers and contributors who have received cushy government contracts but it has happened before. For that matter we might investigate the parties who hold up pipelines so that their railroads can transport potentially catastrophic volumes of oil through places like Chicago. We might look into the choreographed rioting in US cities that is about as spontaneous as a Benghazi bonfire. We could prosecute Hillary for her pay for play (or is it play for pay?) or we could prosecute her for deleting government emails and we could prosecute her for installing an unsecured server is her home and we could prosecute everyone who facilitated this security breach. We have a Baskin-Robbins choice of scandals that beg to be investigated.
We don't have to go to Switzerland to find scandal.
2. Bribery and corruption are not necessarily criminal activities. Bribery has a specific legal definition. That legal definition is not universal. If a party offers cash to a private firm to bring the private firm's enterprise to their country, that is what is known as the way of the world. It's life. Business as usual. Hardly an international crisis.
3. The expanding US scope. How does an interaction between parties in Russia and Switzerland involve the US? It does not but DOJ justifies the meddling because US-based financial institutions were used in the transactions. Not only is that a stretch it will also give pause to anyone who wants to use US-based companies in the future.
4. There is a hidden agenda here. The Obama Administration is all deception all the time. It's all smoke and mirrors and look at the right hand as the left hand...I don't know exactly what the deal is but it smells bad.
Vladimir Putin is not the greatest leader in the world but he will stand for his country and he is capable of honesty, something we cannot say about the chronic fabulist in the White House. If I could not swap Obozo for Netanyahu or Merkel or even Cameron or Harper, I would gladly swap him for Putin.
Direct from The Kremlin:
1. Priorities. The IRS investigation of political abuse has never gotten off the ground. There is strong evidence of voter fraud all over the US. It might be too idealistic to hope a Dem Administration might investigate the cozy relationships of bundlers and contributors who have received cushy government contracts but it has happened before. For that matter we might investigate the parties who hold up pipelines so that their railroads can transport potentially catastrophic volumes of oil through places like Chicago. We might look into the choreographed rioting in US cities that is about as spontaneous as a Benghazi bonfire. We could prosecute Hillary for her pay for play (or is it play for pay?) or we could prosecute her for deleting government emails and we could prosecute her for installing an unsecured server is her home and we could prosecute everyone who facilitated this security breach. We have a Baskin-Robbins choice of scandals that beg to be investigated.
We don't have to go to Switzerland to find scandal.
2. Bribery and corruption are not necessarily criminal activities. Bribery has a specific legal definition. That legal definition is not universal. If a party offers cash to a private firm to bring the private firm's enterprise to their country, that is what is known as the way of the world. It's life. Business as usual. Hardly an international crisis.
3. The expanding US scope. How does an interaction between parties in Russia and Switzerland involve the US? It does not but DOJ justifies the meddling because US-based financial institutions were used in the transactions. Not only is that a stretch it will also give pause to anyone who wants to use US-based companies in the future.
4. There is a hidden agenda here. The Obama Administration is all deception all the time. It's all smoke and mirrors and look at the right hand as the left hand...I don't know exactly what the deal is but it smells bad.
Vladimir Putin is not the greatest leader in the world but he will stand for his country and he is capable of honesty, something we cannot say about the chronic fabulist in the White House. If I could not swap Obozo for Netanyahu or Merkel or even Cameron or Harper, I would gladly swap him for Putin.
Direct from The Kremlin:
Question: Reports have appeared today about a major scandal at FIFA – the organisation in charge of football. It was accused of corruption and 14 employees were arrested. Do you think all this could have any bearing on the 2018 World Cup in Russia?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I do not know. This is not our business. However, I do have an opinion on the matter, of course. As we all know, on Friday FIFA was to elect its president, and Mr Blatter has every chance to be re-elected. We are aware of the pressure that was put on him to prevent the 2018 World Cup in Russia. We know of his views, which have nothing to do with any special relations between FIFA and Russia. This is his general principled position: it’s not right to mix sports and politics. Moreover, he believes sport should have a positive influence on politics and serve as a platform for dialogue, for reconciliation and a search for solutions. I believe this is the right position.
As for the arrests that were made, it seems strange in the very least as the arrests were conducted on the basis of corruption charges made by the American side. Whom did they charge? International officers. It may be possible that some of them did something wrong, I do not know, but the USA definitely have nothing to do with this. These officers are not United States’ citizens, and if anything did happen, it did not happen on the territory of the United States and the USA have nothing to do with it. This is yet another obvious attempt to spread their jurisdiction to other states. I have no doubt that this is obviously an attempt to prevent Mr Blatter’s re-election to the post of FIFA President, which is a grave violation of the principles that international organisations function on.
Meanwhile, according to our media, the United States Attorney General has already stated that these officers of the FIFA executive committee have committed a crime, as though he as a prosecutor is unaware of the presumption of innocence. Only a court can find a person guilty or not guilty, and only after that can anyone say anything, even if we assume that the United States have a reason to extradite those people, though the actions occurred on third party territory.
We are aware of the position of the United States regarding the former special services employee Mr Snowden, who was a National Security Agency employee and who made public the illegal practice of the United States practically all over the world, including tapping the phones of foreign leaders. Everybody is discussing this, including in Europe, but nobody wants to grant him asylum, guarantee his security, nobody wants to quarrel with their partners, with their senior partners.
This may be understandable, as Mr Snowden is a former security service employee and a citizen of the United States. What about Mr Assange, who has been forced to hide at a foreign embassy for several years? This is almost like being imprisoned. What is he persecuted for? For sexual crimes? Nobody believes that, you do not believe that either. He is being persecuted for spreading the information he received from US military regarding the actions of the USA in the Middle East, including Iraq.
Why did I bring this up now? Unfortunately, our American partners use these methods for their own ulterior purposes. They are illegally persecuting people. I do not rule out the possibility that the same goes for this situation with FIFA. Although I do not know what this will result in, but the fact that this is happening on the eve of elections of the FIFA president leads one to think so.
----------------------------------------------------------
Amen, Vladimir.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Report From Pataki Kick-Off
Let me go on record stating that I prefer George Pataki to Rick Santorum. And in light of Hillary Clinton's graft and illegal email shenanigans, I prefer George Pataki to Hillary Clinton. And I definitely prefer George Pataki to the most corrupt and abusive and deceptive and dictatorial president in US History.
It was without a high degree of enthusiasm that I dropped by Pataki's presidential kick-off. There is something serious about a presidential campaign. For this dog and pony show there were at least 100-200 members of the media on hand. And a lot of suits--lots and lots of suits--from Pataki's campaign shipped in from New York. Very few locals.
New Yorkers look out of place twenty miles outside of New York. Texans in Stetsons or Mexicans in sombreros would look more at home than these lost souls. You got the feeling they were just hoping the speech would get over with so they could find the nearest bagel and then they could complain about the local bagels.
Pataki is a good looking 72. He said he was a farm boy and he looks like he could do a day's work if he had to. He seems likable.
For reasons unknown, Pataki gave part of his speech in Spanish. He also had a major flub, concluding with a "right here in Nashua, New Hampshire." We were in Exeter, 45 minutes away from Nashua.
Protestors: A handful of Bernie Sanders types with homemade signs. There were a half dozen or so guys in lime green "No Label" t-shirts, most of whom carried clipboards. They looked a lot like landscapers. Not sure if Pataki is adopting the "no-label" label for his campaign or what they would be doing there. Some of them clapped at applause points so there must be some affiliation.
After the speech, reporters literally bumped into each other trying to find locals to talk to. A real feeding frenzy with just a few scraps of meat in the water.
Given that the GOP field will have more candidates than Spinal Tap had drummers, the race will probably be decided at the convention and just about anyone can win the nomination. I won't write off Pataki, or anyone else for that matter, just yet.
It was without a high degree of enthusiasm that I dropped by Pataki's presidential kick-off. There is something serious about a presidential campaign. For this dog and pony show there were at least 100-200 members of the media on hand. And a lot of suits--lots and lots of suits--from Pataki's campaign shipped in from New York. Very few locals.
New Yorkers look out of place twenty miles outside of New York. Texans in Stetsons or Mexicans in sombreros would look more at home than these lost souls. You got the feeling they were just hoping the speech would get over with so they could find the nearest bagel and then they could complain about the local bagels.
Pataki is a good looking 72. He said he was a farm boy and he looks like he could do a day's work if he had to. He seems likable.
For reasons unknown, Pataki gave part of his speech in Spanish. He also had a major flub, concluding with a "right here in Nashua, New Hampshire." We were in Exeter, 45 minutes away from Nashua.
Protestors: A handful of Bernie Sanders types with homemade signs. There were a half dozen or so guys in lime green "No Label" t-shirts, most of whom carried clipboards. They looked a lot like landscapers. Not sure if Pataki is adopting the "no-label" label for his campaign or what they would be doing there. Some of them clapped at applause points so there must be some affiliation.
After the speech, reporters literally bumped into each other trying to find locals to talk to. A real feeding frenzy with just a few scraps of meat in the water.
Given that the GOP field will have more candidates than Spinal Tap had drummers, the race will probably be decided at the convention and just about anyone can win the nomination. I won't write off Pataki, or anyone else for that matter, just yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)