DC Democrat Mayor hands out improper bonuses

Full Story



More than two dozen senior D.C. officials were inappropriately given more than $500,000 in cash bonuses in the waning days of the administration of former Mayor Anthony A. Williams.

"The 28 employees were comprised of agency directors, deputy mayors, the city administrator and senior officials in the Office of the Mayor," according to a report issued Friday.

Among the major findings in the report by D.C. Auditor Deborah K. Nichols:

Employees received a total of $525,846 in bonuses that were not submitted, reviewed or processed under proper procedures, according to D.C. personnel rules and before the chief financial officer had certified that sufficient surplus funds were available in agency budgets to pay for them.

Agency heads received $379,690 in bonuses, despite the lack of contracts spelling out the goals and expectations for their performance. Deputy mayors and other senior employees received $122,465 in bonuses, despite not having individual performance plans or employee evaluations.

City officials paid $89,565 in awards to 10 senior employees based on evaluations the employees wrote for themselves. The employees, who were not identified in the report, received bonuses between 7 percent and 8 percent of their annual salaries.

A $15,600 bonus was paid to a city employee who was no longer serving on the job. The employee is not identified, but the report also indicates that a $15,600 bonus was paid to the city administrator on Oct. 24, 2006.

Former City Administrator Robert C. Bobb left the D.C. government to run for president of the Board of Education in September 2006. The bonus was awarded slightly more than two months after the city administrator received a $15,600 bonus on Aug. 4, 2006.

Gil and his butt buddies continue to screw up history

This was someone who had nukes versus Ahmadinejad, who merely wants them. Ahmadinejad vows to wipe Israel off the map; Khruschev vowed to wipe us off the map — by "burying" us.

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception in Moscow in November, 1956.[1] The translation has been controversial because it was presented as being belligerent out of context. The phrase may well have been intended to mean the Soviet Union would outlast the West, as a more complete version of the quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you"—a meaning more akin to "we will attend your funeral" than "we shall cause your funeral".

Several online sources incorrectly claim that he made this statement at the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1960, when he is said to have pounded the table with his shoe, or with an extra shoe he had brought with him explicitly for that purpose. [2] (Occasionally these incorrect reports give the date October 12, the date this incident was reported in most newspapers.)

Speaking some years later in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev himself remarked, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you", [3] a nod to the popular Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." Khrushchev later went on to explain that socialism would replace capitalism in the same manner that capitalism itself supplanted feudalism.

Source

In 1957, Nikita Khrushchev was feted by then-president Dwight Eisenhower. He got a 21-gun salute and a state dinner at the White House, toured Manhattan and San Francisco, even visited the set of the Frank Sinatra movie "Can-Can."

Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev Visits San Francisco Bay Area [09-14-59 - 09-22-59, 223 negatives].

1959 [September] 15-27 Khrushchev tours US, visits President Eisenhower.

Khrushchev Trip to the U.S.
Sept 15, 1959 - Khrushchev arrived in U.S. for 13 days
-helicopter ride over D.C.
-escorted by Henry Cabot Lodge to New York
-tour of Can Can set in Hollywod (no Disneyland)
-San Francisco, Roswell Garst farm in Iowa, steel mill in Pittsburgh
-Camp David meeting with Ike - bowling unknown in USSR
-"Spirit of Camp David" - Paris summit planned
-Ike agreed that Berlin "abnormal"
-Ike polls up from 49% in '57 to 66% in '59

Well, Khrushchev had promised to wipe the U.S. off the map. ("We will bury you.") And, unlike Mr. A, who has but some possible stores of fissile material, Mr. K very much had the means, motive, and opportunity to do it—thousands of nuclear-tipped rockets aimed at every city in the land.

Excerpt from Bedwetter Nation, cited by Smart


Click graph for clear view.

The USSR literally had 0 strategic ICBMs in 1959. Source.

That is most assuredly a fib. Gil, Check your sources. Check your sources. Please - check your sources!

Beware of phony soldiers

Fake veteran gets 5-month sentence - Man claimed to have helped kill civilians in Iraq

AP: 8-month Sentence for Man Who Lied about Iraq Fighting

I personally know for a fact one of these phony soldiers appeared on Lancaster's Talkback forum using the name JohnJ.

Edwards: 'Pretty Soon We’re Not Going to Have a Young African-American Male Population in America.'

Full Story

Ahmadinejad says US, Iran NOT headed for war

Full Story

U.S. military chief foresees 'no war' with Iran

Full Story

Media Matters: Wash. Post ignored parts of Petraeus testimony to claim he "did not toe the White House line"

Full Story

Summary: A Washington Post article asserted that Gen. David Petraeus "did not toe the White House line completely" during his recent congressional testimony regarding progress in Iraq, citing as evidence an exchange between Petraeus and Sen. John Warner in which Warner "[a]sked [Petraeus] whether fighting in Iraq makes the United States safer, as Bush argues, [and] he answered, 'I don't know.' The article did not report that Petraeus backtracked later in his testimony, embracing the White House position that the United States has "very serious national interests in Iraq" and that "achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security."

Also during the hearing, before Bayh's questioning of Petraeus, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) asked Petraeus if the sacrifices being made to fight the war in Iraq are "worth it to us." Petraeus responded that "the national interests that we have in Iraq are substantial. An Iraq that is stable and secure, that is not an Al Qaeda sanctuary, is not in the grip of Iranian support, Shi'a militias, that is not a bigger humanitarian disaster, that is connected to the global economy. All of these are very important national interests." Graham then asked: "Would that be a 'yes'?" Petraeus replied: "Yes, sir."

Sea Ice Anomally has Global Warming Conspiracist Panties in a Bunch

Contributing to the loss: sea-level pressure and clear skies

Why have we seen such a rapid loss of sea ice in the summer of 2007? A major cause is unusually clear-sky conditions in the months of June and July. Figure 3 is a contour map of sea-level pressure averaged for June and July. High pressure dominated the central Arctic Ocean during this period, promoting very sunny conditions just at the time the sun is highest in the sky over the far north. This led to an unusually high amount of solar energy being pumped onto the Arctic ice surface, accelerating the melting process. Satellite data show that skies over the Beaufort Sea were clear or mostly clear for 43 of the 55 days between June 1 and July 23, 2007.

Dems end week with another Iraq defeat

Full Story

Barley Snyder lawyer investigating Steve MacDonald for violating election laws in MD, PA

Full Letter

Democratic Fundraiser Charged With Fraud

Full Story



Steady Eddie and a Boy Named HSU

Congress Approval Rating: 11%!!!!

Full Story

The Lowest Rating of All Time!

Something rank about remarks

For indeed, right-wingers tell us, Iran poses an existential threat to the United States. You read that right: Iran, with a mere fraction of our population and gross national product, which spends 1/86th what we do on our military, threatens our very existence.

Source

- Gil Smart

So you mean to tell me that a country with less people that is slightly larger than Alaska that has a fraction of the GDP spends less on their military than we do? Wow, now there is a real revelation...

Here is the Rank Order of Military expenditures as a percent of GDP.

The US spends about 4% while Iran spends about 2.5% of its GDP on its military. Vietnam also spends 2.5%. Didn't Dems escalate a war with them? Gee, Germany spends 1.5%, Italy spends 1.8% and Japan spends 0.8%. What was WWII all about Gil?

Maybe Gil thinks 66 million people chanting "Death to America" is no great cause for concern. Perhaps he should take a vacation to Iran.

Democrats sit around while gas prices go through the roof

On a day when Shell Oil Company announced profits of more than $6 billion, Americans continue to be gouged at the pump while Republican leaders in Washington offer no solutions, only tax breaks for their industry friends.

"Today another oil company joined the growing list of big energy firms raking in record profits on the backs of American consumers. It looks like the Bush-Cheney Administration's experience in the oilfields has really paid off for big oil," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "Time and again, Republicans in Washington have had an opportunity to offer a real energy policy to the American people but instead have chosen to side with their friends in the industry. The American people want change, not more of the same failed Bush policies that have led to gas prices reaching an average of $3 a gallon and done nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Democrats remain committed to stopping price gouging and enacting a comprehensive energy policy that makes America energy independent by 2020. Together, America can do better."

The Democratic Party website in May 2006

NORAH O'DONNELL, GUEST HOST, "HARDBALL": What is it that the Democrats can do about high gas prices that the Republicans can't?

HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN: We can do a lot. The first thing we would do is give back the $16 billion that the Republicans gave to the oil companies. Here you have the spectacle of them giving away $16 billion worth of tax breaks, which are paid for by us and then we have got to pay $3 a gal on top of that. That's not right. If the Democrats had been if power, those kind of tax breaks never would have been given away...

...O'DONNELL: So you're telling me that if in these midterm elections that if Democrats win, that Americans will see an immediate drop in the price of gas at the pump?

DEAN: What I'm telling you is that if Democrats win, we'll be able to stop the president from doing the kinds of things that he's done that have increased oil prices dramatically.
Source

LOL...

Oil Hits $80 a Barrel for First Time

At the pump, meanwhile, the average national price of a gallon of gas inched higher by 0.1 cent overnight to $2.815, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Retail prices, which typically lag the futures market, peaked at $3.227 a gallon in late May.

Democrats insisted on fuel additives Like MTBE, which was recently determined to be poisoning water supplies and causing cancer, a key reason for lower gasoline supply, lower refinery production and (subsequently) rising gas prices.

Smart seems very familiar with bathroom cruising...why is that?

Well, if we are to use the "logic" of the liberal media, it is because he is a gay transvestite hooker.

But even though the charge was "disorderly conduct", Craig is married with children, Craig insists he is NOT gay, and the post arrest interview reveals some holes in the police story, we must presume that Craig is gay?

I thought "sexual orientation" was no big deal, yet here is a prominent librul jumping up and down with joy, pointing his accusatory finger.

"Hey everyone - Craig is GAY!!!!!"

Boy, if that isn't hypocrisy - I don't know what is.

Gil talks about specks alot - but the Dems seems to have a Frank - er, plank in their own eye. Under the logic of librul media, should I expect Barney Frank's resignation on my desk tomorrow morning? I won't hold my breath.

"Toiletgate" has been flushed.

The "Rooskies"?

Russkies or Russkis

Not Rooskis!

Can't a guy take a shit in peace?

Full Transcript