Wednesday, 18 March 2009
From NBC-Miami, we get this incredible story (the bold print is mine):
Bestiality Soon to Be
Outlawed in Florida Lawmakers Consider Felony
Charges For Sex With Animals
Updated 2:00 PM EDT, Wed, Mar 18,
Senate agriculture committee, in a long
overdue measure, has voted unanimously to charge anyone who has sex with animals
with a third-degree felony.
Amazingly, Florida is one of
16 states that still permits bestiality, despite the obvious harm
caused to the victim - in most cases the family pet or farm animal.
"There's a tremendous correlation
between sexually deviant
behavior and crimes against children and crimes against animals," said
Sen. Nan Rich, a Sunrise Democrat,
told the Miami Herald. "This is long overdue. These are heinous
crimes. And people belong in jail."
Rich predicted the bill would pass
easily this year.
Can it be possible that 16 states allow humans to
copulate with animals? That's appalling.
Senator Rich seems to think that there is a high
correlation between bestiality and child molestation. I did a quick google search
and I'm having trouble confirming her claim. But regardless
of whether the correlation exists, it seems to me that basic
civilized behavior inherently precludes this truly disgusting activity.
At the very least, bestiality abuses the animals it is performed upon.
I don't know how anyone could disagree.
Let's hope Florida passes this law ASAP, and the other 15 states quickly
UNCRAPPING ON THE MILITARY
It was late in coming, but either President Obama or someone in his
administration has finally decided to use that lumpy thing above the
brainstem when considering whether to charge military personnel for treatment of
their service-related injuries.
Pelosi: Obama Scraps Idea of Billing Veterans
Private Insurance for Treating Service-Related Injuries
Wednesday, March 18,
By Fred Lucas and Michael
(CNSNews.com) House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Wednesday afternoon that President Barack Obama
is shelving a controversial proposal that would have forced the private health
insurance of veterans to pay for their war- and service-related
President Obama listened to the genuine concerns expressed
by the veteran service organizations regarding the option of billing
service-connected injuries to veterans insurance companies, said Pelosi.
Based on the respect President Obama has for veterans and the principle
concerns of our veteran leaders, the president made the decision that combat
wounds should not be billed through their insurance
Pelosi made her comments at a meeting with veterans
service organizations at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. After her announcement,
the group gave her a standing ovation.
The proposal, which was
discussed in recent hearings of the Veterans Affairs committees in the House and
Senate and in the House Budget Committee, would have shifted more of the cost
for service-related injuries from the government--through the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA)--to the private, third-party insurance plans held by many
Currently, the VA covers the full cost of medical
ailments related to military service and bills third-party insurers only for
non-service related ailments.
For example, if an injured veteran is
treated for the flu, the veterans personal insurance is billed. If the injured
veteran is treated for a service-related injury and requires hearing aids or
prosthetics, for example, the VA covers the cost. The proposal Obama has decided
to abandon would have shifted the expense of treating service-related
injuries and illnesses from the VA to private insurance
Last week, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki
confirmed to the House and Senate committees on veterans affairs that the idea
to bill veterans private individual insurance was being considered by the
administration but was not yet a formal proposal.
It is a
consideration. It is not in the budget, but it is a consideration, and I'll be
sure that your concerns are delivered, Shinseki told the House Veterans
Affairs Committee. And again, were talking--in health care--the two aspects of
this are delivery of health care and the financing of it. This is about the
financing. I want to assure you that there should be no concern about the
But the idea had already generated strong opposition
from veterans groups and members of Congress, and the veterans service
organizations were making their concerns known to the White
Also last week, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said, I believe that veterans with
service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line
for our safety. When our troops are injured while serving this country, we
should take care of those injuries completely. We shouldnt nickel and dime them
with their care.
House Veterans Affairs Committee Rep. Michael Michaud
(D-Me.) told Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki during the Mar. 10
hearing, If that [third-party payment proposal] is in the budget, I will not be
supporting the budget. It is unconscionable and is an insult to our veterans
who've been hurt overseas. So hopefully, you will give that message to OMB as it
relates to third-party collections for disabled veterans, which is just
unbelievable that anyone would ever think of doing that in this
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking member of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, also expressed opposition. If this proposal reaches
the Senate, I will strongly oppose it, Burr told CNSNews.com in a statement
The VA was created for the purpose of caring for those who have
fought and sacrificed for our country, and the care for injuries sustained while
serving is our responsibility.
On Wednesday, before Pelosi
announced that Obama was scrapping the proposal, a couple members of Congress
spoke with CNSNews.com about the issue.
"I'm for keeping the veterans
organization the way it is right now," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). "I
look at the VA this way -- 80 years ago the VA system was set up so that people
who served to defend our freedom wouldn't have to be on charity. I think the
system is still very good."
In reference to U.S. veterans, Rep. Louise
Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said, " I think they've done enough. I certainly don't want
them to have to pay out of their own pockets."
Given the dearth of bipartisanship in Washington these days, it's nice to
see a bit of it once in a while. And the imbecilic, offensive idea of
telling our military personnel that treatment for service-related problems is
their responsibility, is as good a place for it as you'll find.
Commendations to the congresspeople on both sides of the aisle for telling
the Obama administration where to go on this issue.
Now: how in the world did former 4-star general Eric Shinseki
allow himself to be its facilitator?
Despite his clashes with Bush and Rumsfeld over Iraq policy, Eric
Shinseki was a highly decorated, highly accomplished, very honorable
military officer. What was he thinking here? How could he have
been a party to this? How could he not have advised the President away
from it? What happened to him?
THANK ME.....ER, YOU....ER, WHO'S SUPPOSED TO READ THIS?
Try to imagine what media would have said if this were
From Sky News:
12:26pm UK, Wednesday March
A teleprompt blunder has led to Barack Obama
thanking himself in a speech at the White House in a St Patrick's Day
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address in Washington
when he realised it all sounded a bit too familiar.
It was. He was repeating the speech President Barack
Obama had just read from the same
Mr Cowen stopped, turned to the president and
said: "That's your speech."
A laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium to take
over but it seems the script had finally been switched and the US president
ended up thanking himself for inviting everyone to the party.
Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming
known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine
when he gives a speech.
But it wasn't President Bush. It was President Obama. So try and find it in the
Lucky the teleprompter didn't tell him to remove his clothes and do the
NATASHA RICHARDSON R.I.P.
Natasha Richardson is dead at the age of 45. From eonline.com:
has succumbed to her injuries.
The Tony Award winner was
pronounced dead today after being removed from life
support at a New York hospital. She was
A small private funeral is
planned, according to friends who spoke earlier to E! News on behalf of the
The wife of Liam Neeson and daughter of Oscar winners Vanessa Redgrave and Tony
Richardson was hospitalized Monday in Montreal
after a fall during a ski lesson. Richardson, accompanied by Neeson, was
flown Tuesday to New York and admitted to Manhattan's Lenox Hill
Hospital, where she was pronounced brain dead.
"Liam Neeson, his sons, and the
entire family are shocked and devastated by the tragic death of their beloved
Natasha," Neeson's rep, Alan Nierob, said in a statement. "They are profoundly
grateful for the support, love and prayers of everyone, and ask for privacy
during this very difficult time."
What a terrible tragedy for Ms. Richardson - and for her husband, the great actor
Liam Neeson and their two sons, aged 12 and 13.
May she rest in peace.
ANOTHER PROOF THAT THE UN IS DEAD
From Agence France-Presse:
Top UN official says US demonizing Iran
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) UN General Assembly
president Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a harsh critic of US foreign policy under
president George W. Bush, accused Washington on Tuesday of demonizing Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"I don't think anyone can doubt that in our part
of the world, Ahmadinejad has been demonized," the former Nicaraguan foreign
minister said as he briefed reporters on his recent foreign tour, including a
stop in Iran where he attended a regional economic summit.
"The United States has been in the business of the
demonization of people for ever and the canonization of the worst of dictators,"
he added, referring to the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos, Nicaragua's Anastasio
Somoza and Chile's Augusto Pinochet.
The hardline Ahmadinejad has come under fire in
the West over his country's refusal to scale back its nuclear ambitions and for
suggesting that Israel should be wiped off the map.
But d'Escoto, a US-born former priest, said he was
struck during his visit to Tehran earlier this month by the "great respect" Iran
enjoys from its neighbors for sheltering 3.5 million Afghan refugees.
D'Escoto, who served as foreign minister under
Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government from 1979 to 1990, has often been
harshly critical of US and Israeli policies -- particularly the US-led invasion
of Iraq in 2003 -- since he took over as General Assembly president seven months
He has consequently been accused by US and Israeli
diplomats here of being a divisive figure.
"As president of the General Assembly, his
responsibility is to unite and lead rather than living out his personal agenda,"
said one diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
D'Escoto visited Bahrain, China, Finland, Iran,
Syria and Switzerland during a recent three-week tour aimed at promoting the
holding of an international conference on the global financial crisis from June
1 to 4.
ahmadinejad, who runs a shari'a
law hellhole, informs the world, in so many words, of his plans to vaporize another
country (also a member of the UN, let's not forget).
But if we speak against him, we're demonizing him. That is what we are told
by a USA-hating lunatic leftist -- who just happens to be the UN
General Assembly President.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The UN is dead.
Morally, spiritually and ethically dead.
You want proof? There's a ton of it. But, for the moment, how about
the fact that the UN allows this imbecile to be in a position of power?
I rest my case.
WHEN DID OBAMA KNOW ABOUT THE AIG BONUSES?
The Obama administration is now claiming that the first it heard
of AIG's bonuses - the ones it is in full outrage mode over - was March 5. That
juu-u-u-u-uust happens to be three days after AIG got the last bailout
See, everyone? We didn't do anything wrong, it was those miserable
bastards at AIG who fooled us. We're as innocent as newborn babes and
as outraged as you are.
Here is the Obama administration's bullsh...er, explanation, via an excerpt
Tapper's article for ABC News:
Obama Administration: We Didn't Find Out About AIG
Bonuses Until This Month
March 17, 2009 7:18 PM
Sources in the Obama administration Tuesday said
that despite previous media reports administration officials did not know until
a couple weeks ago that the officials of the controversial AIG Financial Product
Division were set to receive $165 million in bonuses on March 13.
wasn't until Thursday, March 5, 2009, administration sources told ABC News, that
officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York informed officials of the
Treasury Department of the full extent of the $165 million in bonuses pending
for the controversial Financial Products Subsidiary.
This was three days after the Obama administration
had already announced a new commitment of an additional $30 billion for
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was alerted last Tuesday, March 10;
he phoned AIG CEO Edward Liddy on Wednesday evening, March 11, to protest the
bonuses, sources told ABC News.
On Thursday, March 12, Secretary Geithner
informed a senior White House official about the controversy, aides passed the
information on to President Obama later in the day.
How the Obama
administration was caught flat-footed by this controversy dates back to last
Fall, when the New York Federal Reserve Bank -- then run by Geithner -- stepped
in to give AIG a high-interest loan for $85 billion to help prevent the company
from going under -- which Lehman Brothers was doing at the time. As part of the
deal, AIG CEO Robert Willumstad was replaced by the new CEO, Liddy.
Isn't that special?
So tell me: When the initial bailout money was issued - and approved by
the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (both houses!) - did they do a thing about AIG's bonus
structure? It's not like it wasn't in place at the time.
Did Senate banking chair Chris Dudd or House financial chair Barney Fudd
raise the issue?
Well, actually, the answer is that Dudd acted. Unfortunately, his
action was to insert language that specifically protected these
bonuses. Oopsy daisy....
(Oh, by the way - pure coincidence of course - the US Senator who
got the most money in campaign contributions from AIG was Chris
Dudd. And the second most money? It went to Barack
And when Geithner was giving still more bailout money to AIG, did he
bother to ask where and how it would be spent? Well, no...
Huh? Wait a minute. That can't be, can it? Is it possible
that a Democratic congress passed the bailout money and an entirely Democratic
administration gave subsequent bailout money, without asking a thing about
whether some of the money would be used for bonuses --- in an industry
where it is entirely commonplace for bonuses to be given?
Are there Democrats in congress or the white house who are acquainted at all
with the fact that companies give bonuses? I guess not, since if they knew
such bonuses existed they surely would have asked, wouldn't they?
Folks, this isn't just a pile of BS. This is a lifetime supply.
What you are seeing is a
Democratic administration effing up so royally it's almost impossible to describe the extent of
the eff-up -- then feigning outrage to try and divert us from noticing.
And, predictably, they are being abetted in this consummate fraud, at
least so far, by the usual complicitors among our wonderful "neutral"
Inspector Renault would have been green with envy.
"I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to find that insurance companies give bonuses. I
demand that they be returned. I would never associate with a company that
would dare to..." "Here are your campaign contributions, sir" "Thank
you. As I was saying...."
MORE PROOF THAT OBAMA & CO. ARE LYING ABOUT THE AIG BONUSES
No one is going to accuse CBS TV News of Obamaphobia, that I can assure
So it is more than a little telling that CBS is the latest news venue to go
public with the fact that the President Obama and his administration are lying
to our faces when they claim ignorance about the AIG bonuses.
Here is the first part of CBS's
article (which I urge you to click on and read in its entirety):
AIG Bonuses Have Been Known About For
Failed Insurance Giant Filed Plans For Payouts In
Nov.; White House Scrambles To Explain Actions
WASHINGTON (CBS) ―
Liars. Absolute liars.
The Democratic congress knew full well about AIG's bonuses when it voted to
give them the initial bailout money.
The Obama administration has known about AIG's bonuses every day of its
And, if CBS is any indication, this lie isn't going to be buried.
Barack Obama has been lying to us ongoingly about a whole bunch of
things. Maybe now a few of the mesmerized ones will wake up long enough to
THE OUTRAGEOUS RETENTION BONUSES OF AIG...ER, MAKE THAT FREDDY MAC
While Barack Obama, and his tax-cheating stooge secretary of the treasury
Timothy Geithner, and his senate banking and house finance stooges, Chris Dudd
and Barney Fudd, all try to con you into thinking they have nothing to do with
the AIG executive retention bonuses.....
Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com provides
something none of this sorry bunch seem to have any familarity with.
The facts are from Ed. The bold print is mine:
Hey, guess who else has an executive retention
posted at 11:48 am on March 18, 2009 by Ed
While everyone assails AIG for using less than
0.1% of the taxpayer-bailout money it received to meet contractual obligations
in compensation through retention bonuses, another recipient of government
largesse has its own bonus program in operation. According to
their annual report, Freddie Mac has a generous retention bonus plan
built into its operation for the next year. Eligibility includes all of
the senior and executive VPs. It comes in four payouts, and only the last
has any connection to company performance.
Exhibit 10-4 on page 414-5 lays out the
Objective To retain as many
people as possible for 18 months (through March, 2010) in order
- Maintain maximum operational stability
- Allow time to evaluate the fundamental
- Fulfill Freddie Macs goal of re-establishing
stability and liquidity to the mortgage market
Retention Period Retention Period
runs from September 2008 through March 2010.
General Eligibility All Senior
Vice Presidents and Executive Vice Presidents who are employees of Freddie Mac
on or after September 1, 2008 are eligible to participate in the
Freddie Mac pays the bonus on a quarterly basis
for simply sticking around, at least until the final quarter:
Payout Timing The aggregate
retention award for each individual will be paid in the regular payroll cycle
occurring immediately after the following dates
20% December 15, 2008
20% August 1, 2009
25% December 15, 2009
35% March 15, 2010
Payment Numbers 1, 2, and 3 will be
based solely in the individuals continued employment with Freddie Mac the
through the indicated payment dates.
Performance Requirements Payment
Number 4 will be conditioned upon achievement of specific performance
objective(s) that will be determined during the upcoming businessplanning
That sounds a lot like the AIG retention bonus
plan, although Freddie Mac does have a disclaimer stating that they can modify
or end the program at their discretion. Since Freddie Mac and her sister
Fannie Mae got over $200 billion in a pre-TARP bailout, more than the private
AIG got (at least in the aggregate), one might ask why Freddie Mac built in
retention bonuses in this November filing two months after the
If AIGs retention bonuses are a problem, why
arent Freddie Macs?
Point of order: As Morrissey points out, this filing was made in
November of last year - two months AFTER the Freddy Mac meltdown.
What were those bonus schedules doing in there under any circumstances?
Aren't these the same executives that brought Freddy Mac down? Aren't they
(substitute any argument being made about AIG here, they all fit perfectly).
What frauds they are.
What liars they are.
What cynical politicians they are, counting on your ignorance (with the
copious help of the usually reliable mainstream media) to pull it off.
Remember, the bonuses being paid to AIG people were contracted
before the company's collapse. The bonuses being paid to Freddy Mac
executives were planted in a new filing, two months after the
If you're outraged about AIG bonuses, how exactly should you feel about the
ones at Freddy Mac? And what do you want done to the politicians who
went along with those bonuses and, as of right now, haven't said a bad word
DUDD LIES, AND THEN HAS TO UNLIE
WASHINGTON (CNN) Senate
Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNNs Dana Bash and Wolf
Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the
stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout
funds to pay bonuses.
Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd
On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had
anything to do with the adding of that provision.
The liar got caught in his lie; caught so badly that he had to unlie the next day, because
even usually reliable media venues refused to cover for hiim.
Now, when does Dudd apologize for his involvement in Enron? And in the
sub-prime mortgage disaster? And his ridiculously low mortgages from
Countrywide that look so much like a payoff?
As you can see, Dudd has a lot more to apologize for. And
media have a lot more to nail him on.
The sooner the better.