Wednesday - July 15, 2009

A White House Dinner Parable

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a
respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics.
There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind.
I live in a free country. There’s nothing that the government can do to me if I’ve broken no laws. My
wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room.
We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the
china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off
my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

“Sorry about that,” said the President. “Andrew is very hungry.”

“I don’t appreciate...” I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt
immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. “Of course,” I concluded, and reached for my
glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the
wine in a single gulp.

“And his brother Eric is very thirsty.” said the President.

I didn’t say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don’t
want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

“Eric’s children are also quite hungry.”

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing
myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

“And their grandmother can’t stand for long.”

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool.

Obviously, I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to
find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.

“Their grandfather doesn’t like the cold.”

I wanted to shout-- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and
decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket
and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I
learned that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity
portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their
families were moving in. The President hadn’t moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I
lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

“Andrew’s whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven’t planned for retirement, and they
need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home.
They need it more than you do.”

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President
cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small
grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

“By the way,” He added, “I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I’m firing
you as head of your business. I’ll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There’s a
whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can’t come to you for jobs groveling like beggars.”

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He
drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his
chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging
over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a
lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had
I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board
between us.

What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to
mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

“You should have stopped me at the dinner roll,” he said.



Sent in by Rancino, thanks! 

Posted by Drew458     on 07/15/2009 at 09:20 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Corruption and Greed •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - June 28, 2009

Cuba Condemns Honduran Coup…

s

I’m sorry but Cuba has and the Castro’s have lost the ability to judge anything as criminal and Brutal.. everything points that while military rule may be bad, considering the currently ousted Honduran President was aligned with Chavez and Castro, anything is better then him staying in power.....

Posted by Infinity     on 06/28/2009 at 08:11 PM   
Filed Under: • FREEDOM • Corruption and Greed • Insanity • International • Outrageous • Politics • Terrorists • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

“We didn’t know what we voted for…”

Yes, that’ll be the mantra if and when this cap and tax bill becomes law. Ditto for national kill-Republicans-and-conservatives ‘healthcare’.

We didn’t know? Why not? Because we didn’t read the bill!

I ran into this about fifteen years ago, around the time that now-Congressman Mike Turner was making his first run for Dayton Mayor. The Dayton City Commission at that time had passed, without reading, a gun-control bill that banned several common firearms from the city limits. As a then-sitting Democrat City Commissioner explained at my neighborhood association meeting, ‘We just rely on our staff to tell us what’s in the bills…’

No excuse. The buck stops with the elected official.

The issue was that the bill outlawed the very firearms the Dayton Police used. There was a huge stink, which I think may have contributed to Mike Turner’s mayoral victory. Sadly, the Dayton City Commission has always had at least a 3-2 majority, so all Mr. Turner could do was mitigate some of the more egregious legislation.

Now, the Dayton City Commission is 5-0 Democrat. We are pretty much in the same shape as Flint, MI. I expect bulldozers in 5… 4… 3…

So now Congress, also a bastion of ‘Democrats-that-can’t-read-without-staff’, passes the cap and tax bill. (I thought Democrats were for the little people?) John Boehner had this to say. After this, the ‘we didn’t know’ excuse should fail the donks:

That’s right, they don’t even read what they’re voting on.

Target for 2010: everybody that voted for this. Democrats, certainly. Especially the Stupid Party GOP members who should know better or just do an Arlen Spectre:

Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
Mike Castle (R-DE)
Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL)
Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
John McHugh (R-NY)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Oust them! Especially Mary Bono. (I really always liked Sonny, shame wifey doesn’t measure up.)

Posted by Christopher     on 06/28/2009 at 10:20 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Economics • Government • Corruption and Greed • Obama, The One • Oppression • Outrageous •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 15, 2009

Muslim waitress wins £3,000 compensation for wearing ‘indecent’ dress, shows more on facebook

Gee, if any woman belongs in a burka this slag sure does.  Use the link to see her ugly photo. (Well I think she’s ugly. Opinions may differ.)

So, what’s a good muslim lady doing working in a bar anyway? And don’t women get hit on all the time in this sort of environment? How come her male master allowed her out?

What a scam. And NOT cos she’s muslim. Or so she claims. Just plain dishonest and got away with it. For now anyway.

Revealed: Risqué Facebook picture of Muslim waitress who won £3,000 compensation for wearing ‘indecent’ dress
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 3:30 PM on 15th June 2009

A Muslim cocktail waitress who won £3,000 for sexual harassment after refusing to wear an ‘indecent’ dress for work has posted pictures of herself wearing a low-cut top on the internet.

Fata Lemes, 33, told a tribunal that she was ‘not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes’ and that the bright red dress made her feel ‘she might as well be naked.’

But today she appeared to contradict herself by posting pictures of herself on the social networking website Facebook, in which she is wearing a revealing top.

The tribunal concluded the Bosnian Muslim ‘holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century’ but rejected her claim that the dress, which she was asked to wear at the Rocket bar in London’s Mayfair was ‘sexually revealing and indecent.’

However it accepted that Miss Lemes genuinely believed that the short, low-cut dress was ‘disgusting’ and made her look ‘like a prostitute’.

Her bosses should have made allowance for her feelings and their insistence that she wear the dress amounted to sexual harassment, the tribunal ruled.

The panel at Central London Employment Tribunal found that Miss Lemes overstated her trauma at being asked to wear the sleeveless dress that was open at the back.

It also rejected Miss Lemes’ claim that she was left with no choice but to walk out of her job after just eight days.

It branded her compensation claim of £20,000 including £17,500 for hurt feelings as ‘manifestly absurd’.

But it awarded her £2,919.95 for hurt feelings and loss of earnings..

In its judgment, the panel ruled that restaurant group Spring & Greene, which owns the Rocket chain, must ‘take their victim as they find her’.

It said of the dress: ‘It is eye-catching, not only because of its colour but also because of its cut and lines. It is clearly a garment for a girl or young woman. It is intended to, and does, show the curves of the body.

‘It seeks to make the wearer attractive. It might be seen as a party dress or something to wear at an informal celebration.’

But the panel ruled that wearing the dress could not amount to ‘conduct of a sexual nature’. 

It added: ‘We would see the matter otherwise if we considered the dress genuinely indecent or if the wearing of it was, or could reasonably be seen as, tantamount to signalling availability for sexual favours. 

‘But the facts do not put this case into that category. We appreciate that Miss Lemes takes a different view.’

Miss Lemes claimed she was pestered for sex by customers at the bar shortly after starting work in May last year.

She also alleged that bosses ran Rocket ‘like a sex club’ and that clients treated waitresses like prostitutes.

The panel ruled: ‘Her perception was that wearing the dress would make her feel as if she was on show, as if she was being presented as one of the attractions which the Rocket Bar was offering its customers. 

‘In our view that perception was legitimate and not unreasonable. In our judgment, the effect of requiring her to wear the dress was to violate her dignity.

‘We further consider that it created for her an environment which was degrading, humiliating and offensive.’

But the tribunal rejected Miss Lemes’ claim of constructive dismissal. It ruled: ‘It seems to us that the proper interpretation of events is that the employment ended by mutual consent once it became clear that there was no prospect of the differences over the dress being resolved. 

‘Miss Lemes holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century but this implies no criticism of her. In any event, the bar discriminated against her and they must take their victim as they find her.’

Giving evidence, Miss Lemes, of Camden, north-west London, told the tribunal she had worked as a waitress for 14 years and was experienced in silver service.

She took the job at Rocket, earning £5.52 an hour plus a share of service charge and tips, to supplement her income as a photographer.

Miss Lemes said that on only her second shift two guests told her they were looking for a blonde ‘for one or more nights’.

She said: ‘On my second shift, I was approached by two guests explaining that they were looking for a blonde Scandinavian or Swedish girl for one or more nights.

‘It was obvious that they thought that I was Scandinavian. I politely refused the offer. 

‘I was offended by that offer. I considered the company must be indicating to guests that the bar was the type of bar where they could make sexual offers to staff.’

She initially wore a loose-fitting black linen shirt and trousers but a week into the job, she was given the new outfit, which she considered ‘physically revealing and openly sexual’.

She said: ‘Waitresses told me, looking worried, that the company had brought dresses for us to wear that they thought I would not like.

‘It was a bright red dress that was clinging and revealing of the body. It was clearly designed to be attractive to men sexually.

‘It was indecent. If you put this dress on, you might as well be naked. Everything finishes in the middle at the chest. It is open at the front and back. I did not want men looking at my body.

‘I was particularly concerned that clients, who already had made sexual proposals while I was wearing loose black clothing, would regard me as a sexual object or a prostitute.’

At the tribunal, the restaurant group produced photos of another waitress, Amanda Bjursten, wearing the dress in the bar and she modelled it at the tribunal hearing.

Ms Bjursten, from Sweden, said she was ‘completely comfortable’ wearing the dress.

The bar’s manager Luca Scanu denied the dress was designed to boost custom and tips from male clients by being ‘sexually inviting’.

Miss Lemes’ lawyer Joe Sykes asked the restaurant’s general manager Danila Bodei: ‘The reason for choosing the colour red was to indicate that the waitresses were sexually available, wasn’t it?’

She replied: ‘No, it was just the colour to match the bar.’

PHOTOS HERE

Posted by peiper     on 06/15/2009 at 10:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Corruption and Greed • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 09, 2009

The makeshift minister who can’t even do her job because she’s still an MEP.

The other day I posted something and in passing mentioned this far left loony tune whose husband is very well known and a total schmuck in addition to being a Marxist/Leninist left wing big mouth.
Well ... it sure did set off our Lyndon here at BMEWS. I thought he was gonna stroke out which shows ya just how highly he thinks of them. Lyndon is not one to get too emotional or hot headed. Maybe he won’t see this post.

Actually, my own dear wife is not one to get overly excited and usually maintains her British cool.  EXCEPT where this couple is concerned. In fact, when I said there was this interesting article in the paper this morning on this subject, she refused to read it and asked me to please turn the paper over so this face doesn’t show. 

It’s interesting none the less, and I must say maddening to a degree.  This govt. must be mad as well. 
Get this, they are bringing back into govt., someone who had to resign over the expenses scandal recently.  ??

A Jewish comedian once said that Hitler created more Jews out of Jews who weren’t Jews before, then any single man on earth.
Well, Mr. Brown and his govt. here have created the situation where they have created hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of votes and support for the BNP Party which as many of you may know, have a rather foul reputation. 

Farce over Glenys Kinnock, the makeshift minister who can’t even do her job because she’s still an MEP

By Kirsty Walker
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 09th June 2009

Glenys Kinnock: Is she a minister or isn’t she?

Glenys Kinnock’s appointment as Europe minister descended into farce yesterday after it emerged that she could not do the job because she was still an MEP.

Under EU Parliament rules, Mrs Kinnock is not allowed to serve as a minister in a national Government until she steps down as an MEP on July 14.

Days after accepting Gordon Brown’s surprise invitation to join his Government, Mrs Kinnock was forced to admit she was a mere ‘acting minister’.

There was speculation in Westminster last night that Mrs Kinnock was reluctant to quit her job as an MEP as she would have to forgo some of her gold-plated pension and golden-goodbye.

The absurd situation is set to cause further embarrassment for Mr Brown as he fights for his political survival.

Downing Street sources last night insisted Mrs Kinnock had resigned as an MEP.

But a European Parliament spokesman said he had no knowledge of her quitting the post. ‘We would normally get a formal notification if that had happened,’ said the spokesman. ‘But we haven’t had one.’

Tory Europe spokesman Mark Francois said: ‘Today’s confusion regarding Glenys Kinnock is symptomatic of the kind of chaos which now reigns in Downing Street, whereby even Ministers of the Crown do not appear to know whether they are Ministers or not.’

By resigning a few weeks early, Mrs Kinnock is expected to lose out slightly on some of her MEP’s pension - believed to be worth around £66,000 a year. The pension is calculated on her time served as an MEP and her age. Her early ‘retirement’ is only set to cost her a few hundred pounds.

Mrs Kinnock is also entitled to receive a parachute payment - aimed at helping MEPs ease back into life after losing their seats - worth around £32,383.

But as she has gone on to a Government job, her salary will be deducted from this transition allowance, effectively cancelling it out.

A spokesman for Open Europe said: ‘The appointment of Glenys Kinnock is quickly turning into a shambles. The Government is all over the place on Europe. Yesterday’s election results show it needs to get its act together sooner rather than later.’

Mrs Kinnock, 64, and her husband have earned a reputation as serial junketeers after jumping on the EU gravy train in the 1990s. During her 15 years as Labour’s MEP for South Wales East, Mrs Kinnock’s salary had risen from £31,686 to £63,291, plus substantial expenses.

Yet a surprise call from Number 10 means she will make the transition from £63,291-a-year euro MP to £83,275-a-year Europe Minister.

Lord Kinnock, 67, and his wife are not the only members of their family who have a taxpayer-funded living.

Their son, Stephen Kinnock, headed the St Petersburg office of the publicly funded British Council until October. Its unpaid chairman is Lord Kinnock.

The 39-year-old now works as a director of the World Economic Forum.

The Kinnocks’ daughter, 37-year-old Rachel, landed a job on Mr Brown’s political staff two years ago.

Lord Kinnock was appointed as a European Commissioner in 1995, on a salary of £105,584 a year.

By the time he stepped down in 2004, he was earning £163,453 in salary, a £24,000-a-year housekeeping allowance and a £7,000 entertainment budget.

Mr Kinnock received almost £273,000 when he left the job to help him adjust to life outside the Commission. He can also draw on a £64,000-a-year pension.

Meanwhile, Mr Brown struggled to re-assert his battered authority on the Labour Party by plugging the gaps left in his Government with a string of ministerial appointments.

Sadiq Khan has become the first Muslim to attend cabinet after being appointed Transport Minister.

AND HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? THIS IS SURE TO WIN VOTER FAVOR. NOT.  THIS COUNTRY HAS ANOTHER WHOLE YEAR OF A LABOR GOVT. OH BOY.

MALIK TO RETURN

A Labour minister who was forced to resign over his expenses will return to the Government in the reshuffle.

Shahid Malik will be back on the Government payroll weeks after stepping down while Parliament’s sleaze watchdog investigated his living costs.

Government sources said Mr Malik has been cleared of any wrongdoing but will repay £730 of taxpayers’ money which he blew on a massage chair.

The former Justice minister will not fill his old job.

JUST A SMALL SELECTION OF VOTER COMMENTS ON THE SUBJECT.

Posted by peiper     on 06/09/2009 at 05:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Corruption and Greed • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 08, 2009

Oh Noes!

BEIJING—They take their quarantines very, very seriously in China. They don’t even allow phone calls.

The mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, is under lockdown in a suburban Shanghai hotel after a passenger on his flight from the U.S. exhibited symptoms of swine flu—and now his Chinese hosts are screening his calls “to keep him safe.”

Nagin and his wife Seletha have been in quarantine since Sunday, along with a member of the mayor’s executive protection team, after they had the misfortune of sitting within a few rows of a French student now confirmed ill with the A-H1N1 virus on their flight from the U.S.

Officials at the hotel where Nagin is quarantined, the Jinjiang Inn in Shanghai’s Nanhui district, have refused even to pass on telephone messages without the permission of the city’s Disease Control and Prevention Office. They, in turn, handed requests over to the municipal foreign affairs department, which yesterday claimed no knowledge of the case.

“We have to keep him safe,” said a woman who said she was acting as a translator at the hotel.

Ceeon D. Quiett, Nagin’s director of communications, said in a statement Sunday that the three were symptom-free and “being treated with utmost courtesy by Chinese officials.” But she couldn’t say how long they’ll be forced to stay in the hotel, which is a designated city quarantine site. Quarantine measures in China typically last seven days.

Nagin had planned several days of trade-related meetings in China followed by a flight to Sydney, Australia, where he is to give a speech on climate change at a university summit.

Posted by Drew458     on 06/08/2009 at 08:36 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Corruption and Greed •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 01, 2009

GM: the takeover begins

What was that bit about “controlling the means of production”?

General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday as part of a plan under which the government will pump another $30 billion into the company with the aim of re-creating the troubled automaker.

GM’s bankruptcy filing is the fourth-largest in U.S. history and the largest for an industrial company. The company said it has $172.81 billion in debt and $82.29 billion in assets.

Under the plan, GM would eventually have 50 percent fewer liabilities and far fewer product lines. The $30 billion government infusion is on top of about $20 billion in taxpayer money GM already has received in the form of low-interest loans.

Senior administration officials, who declined to speak for attribution, said the U.S. government will be a “passive” investor but will oversee operations at the new GM because “the taxpayer will want us to.”

Not one of President Obama’s senior economic advisers could or would venture a guess as to when taxpayers would see a return on their massive and White House-engineered investment.

“We’re not here to predict,” a senior official said when asked about any timeline for taxpayer payback.

The White House was more certain about GM’s future access to the taxpayer till—it’s over.

“One never says never, but this is it in terms of support for GM,” a senior official said.

GM will follow a similar course taken by Chrysler LLC, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in April and hopes to emerge from its government-sponsored bankruptcy this week.

The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM. The Canadian government would take a 12.5 percent stake, with the United Auto Workers getting a 17.5 percent stake and unsecured bondholders receiving 10 percent. Existing GM shareholders are expected to be wiped out.

One of the 5 greatest companies the world has ever seen, run into the ground by poor management, greed, excessive government regulation and unionism. And the tens of millions of investors ... get nothing. With the government(s) now owning absolute controlling interest in the corporation.

“We’re not here to predict” how long it will take for the gov to turn the company around and start paying back some of that nearly infinite amount of taxpayer investment. Yeah? Well I will. It’s called the Twelfth of Never. As in : No Business Run By The Government Will EVER SHOW A PROFIT, EVER.

I fully expect Ocommie to come up with a new law REQUIRING all citizens to purchase their next vehicle from either branch of Government Motors. Which will put Ford out of business pretty soon.

Now, let’s add to the bullshit. Let’s add another dozen sheep to the amount of wool being pulled over the citizen’s eyes. You want to know how CNN is covering this story? Like this:

How’s that for effective misdirection? Oh sure, in t h e o r y it’s correct, because of that whole “government of the people, by the people” thing. But the reality is that you, me, and everyone else will not have as much as a whisper’s worth of input.

This is an outrageous act of Socialism. Communism. Fascism. The label doesn’t really matter. It’s the government taking over business and dictating terms. It’s a total loss of freedom, a death knell rung on the golden bell of Capitalism, a usurpation of everything that America is supposed to stand for. Better for GM and Chrysler to go out of business.

And what does the Communist Newspeak Network see it? They are GLEEFUL. It’s Pop The Champagne Time over there. Here’s the link.

Note how the article has not one but TWO sidebar links to “GM’s junk heap” which list a dozen or so less than classic vehicles the company has made over the years. Like the “unsafe at any speed” Corvair, which had balance issues when the owners removed the front fender weights, and the Vega, which sold by the millions when America wanted a cheap little car that got good mpg [and let’s ignore the underlying theory of assembly line sabotage because this was one of the first American cars built with lots of robotized automation], and the Aztek, which was an odd looking but actually highly practical crossover vehicle. All of these vehicles were attempts to open up new market areas for GM. They were all about risk taking, which is what Capitalism is all about. Sure, in the long run they may not have all been the best ideas. That’s what “risk” means: sometimes you don’t get it right.

Notice that there are also two links to the other sidebar on “GM’s declining market share”. Yes, GM has lost market share for ages now. How much of that was due to the media I wonder?

PS - the price of gas is soaring, as if you didn’t already know that. Almost 20 cents in 2 weeks. Expect it to get worse, far worse. $3.50/gal by August. This cycle will continue until the new Obamamobile hits the market, with it’s 3 cylinder 40hp engine and a top speed of 48mph, which will get you around just fine on the 5 gallons of gas per week you are rationed for.

Posted by Drew458     on 06/01/2009 at 09:07 AM   
Filed Under: • Big Business • Commies • Corruption and Greed •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - May 20, 2009

FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME IN 300 YEARS OF BRIT HISTORY … AND ABOUT TIME TOO.  NOW THEN ..

LET’S SEE WHAT GOOD CAN COME FROM THE RECENT SCANDAL !

There are heads on the block following 13 continuous days of revelations concerning the sneaky underhanded and maybe illegal ways in which MPs have been robbing the Brit taxpayer blind.  They have been doing so for years, but not with the kind of proof that lately has come to light.  And the people are angry.

I really do hope some sort of good will come from all this and the folks here will find the leadership to put things right.  Truly tho, I despair. I really don’t have any sort of faith in anyone. But then, it really doesn’t matter what I think as I’m not a voter or even a citizen.  But we do pay taxes here.  OH BOY, DO WE PAY!  And all so a group of folks who feel very special can mooch off of everyone else.  Like welfare cheats of whom there are too many.

Many of these MPs have done things that we ordinary mortals would be fined and jailed for. And that is not a figure of speech but an absolute fact of the current matter.  I doubt much any Brit of any political party would disagree with me on that.

The Telegraph ran this editorial in the morning paper.  Even if some names won’t be familiar to some, it makes for interesting reading.
This is after all, the first time in 300 years that a speaker has seen the boot.  In earlier times some have been given the ax.  But this is not ALL about the speaker alone.  It’s my belief that this might be a very defining moment in English history.  Stay Tuned.

Speaker Michael Martin’s downfall: Only the start of a very British revolution
Telegraph View: Michael Martin’s departure amid the MPs’ expenses scandal is the clearest sign that this Parliament has run its course.

Last Updated: 8:18PM BST 19 May 2009

The resignation of Michael Martin as Speaker marks the latest stage of a very British revolution. While his departure has been precipitated by his fumbling and inadequate response to this newspaper’s disclosures about MPs’ expenses, it reflects a collapse of public faith in the political system that has been evident for some time. Over the past 12 years we have seen a Government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority turn the Commons into a cipher for often perverse decisions. It has burdened the Commons and the country with pointless and even dangerous legislation. People feel their political representatives are aloof and arrogant. Now, in addition, they think they are venal, too. In a characteristically British way, we have all put up with this for far too long – there have been no marches, no riots, no clashes with the police. The public has now decided it is time for change: its fury has forced apologies, repayments, suspensions and resignations; constituency parties are threatening deselections; MPs are voluntarily deciding to stand down; the Speaker has been forced out, for the first time in 300 years.

When he was elected on October 23, 2000, Mr Martin said: “I thank the House for its confidence in me. I pray that I shall prove worthy of that confidence and that all of us will maintain the high tradition of this place.” He was living proof of Thomas Rainsborough’s dictum during the Putney Debates in 1647 that “the poorest he hath a life to live as the greatest he”. Born into poverty in a Glasgow tenement, Mr Martin had risen to become the First Commoner of the Land. It is his tragedy, and that of Parliament, that he could not live up to the expectations placed in him. Indeed, the manner of his election contained the seeds of his downfall: it was, in essence, a political stitch-up whereby an MP for the governing party was installed in the chair through the mechanism of a massive Labour majority, when parliamentary convention suggested that an Opposition MP would have been more appropriate.

Not only was Mr Martin the wrong choice; he turned out to be a catastrophic one as well. His fate is symbolic of the rottenness of a political system that was once the envy of the world. That system now lies broken and demoralised. With its sovereignty already dissipated by the power of the European Union, the role of the House in scrutinising legislation has been further undermined by the placing of time limits on all debates; the hours it sits have shrunk, the chamber is often virtually empty, and MPs routinely fail to articulate the concerns and aspirations of the people who elect them. Westminster has sunk into a slough of despond. The dwindling turnout at successive elections is testament to what the country thinks of the system. Mr Martin, as Speaker, has presided over this sorry shambles.

The expenses crisis is symptomatic of his failure and of the wider malaise that has beset the institution. The argument that he should not be made a scapegoat for the failings of MPs ignores the fact that he is, in addition to chairing debates, effectively the chief executive of the Commons. As its administrative head in overall charge of the fees office, Mr Martin should have taken a grip on the abuse of allowances by MPs; instead, he turned a blind eye to it and then conspired to cover it all up by attempting to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information scrutiny they had imposed on the rest of the public sector.

Even that, however, does not explain why his resignation is necessary. There have been poor Speakers in the past whose demise has been hastened by a visit from the men in suits; there have been unpopular ones; there have been corrupt ones. It has always been said that the institution is greater than the office holder, and its gravitas must therefore be maintained at all costs. It is, then, a measure of the constitutional crisis now consuming Westminster that rebuilding the integrity of the Commons is only possible with a new Speaker at the helm.

MPs must choose the right person on June 22. It must be an individual who has not been tainted by the current second-homes scandal; who commands respect on all sides of the House; who has the intelligence, independence of thought, authority and strength of will to represent the interests of MPs against the executive, both this one and the next. It is a rare animal that is being sought. There is no reason why it should not be another Labour MP. Indeed, it should not matter which party the Speaker belongs to. It is a mark of the damage caused to the office by the perception, whether fair or not, that Mr Martin was “Labour’s man” that political considerations should be at issue. It is the character of the individual that matters, not party allegiance. The next Speaker will be more powerful than many of his predecessors. He or she will be chosen by secret ballot, introduced because of the circumstances of Mr Martin’s election, and so there will be less opportunity for the party gerrymandering that happened then.

Yet for all that the resignation of the Speaker is an exceptional event in British politics, it is still not enough. The Government is bereft of ideas, Whitehall decision-making is frozen and the Prime Minister is drained of all authority. It is clear that this Parliament has run its course. Once the new Speaker is installed, a general election should follow soon after. Gordon Brown should set aside party considerations, and go to the country this autumn. With a new start, the institution can be refreshed. That is the British way and it is still a good one.

Posted by peiper     on 05/20/2009 at 07:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Government • Corruption and Greed • Politics • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - May 18, 2009

THE TAXPAYER OWES ME …. I AM ABOVE THE RULES THAT GOVERN THE LITTLE FOLK.

I can’t remember what newspaper I cut this out of.
Tried finding it in the three weekend papers online but some newspapers don’t make everything easy to find.
Anyway ... No matter what country you’re in as you view this, I’d be willing to bet it could apply there as well.

At the moment here in the UK, there is a great outpouring of very real anger as over the last nine or so days, the papers have exposed a scandal in govt. of staggering proportions.

I did a post of only a few things a few days ago, there just is no space here to post all of it.
MPs (Members of Parliament) have been caught fiddling their expenses and doing something called “flipping” homes.  Buy a home with taxpayer money, use taxpayer money to fix it up, then sell for profit and keep said profit.  That’s the easy as I can make it explanation.  And that’s the least of it all.

In one case, a member claimed £125,000.00 for his office.  EXCEPT ....  his office turns out to be ....

HIS GARAGE!

One member had the moat (YES, MOAT) cleaned at his country estate. The taxpayer picked up the tab.

The list is loooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg.
There’s even a charge that some may have employed fictitious staff.
One member spent £8,000.00 on a fancy TV.  Do the math people.  What’s the current dollar pound ratio. You’ll get dollars for a better picture if you don’t think eight thousand pounds sounds large enough. On a freekin TV.  Like the taxpayer should have to buy his TV to begin with.

Understand this also folks .... not EVERYTHING they did was illegal because THEY WROTE THE RULES.  Unknown to the public. And many are now saying that hey, maybe we overstepped a bit but we weren’t breaking the rules.  The public isn’t buying that, nor should they.

One Asian member built a house in her homeland (I think it was India) and was also claiming expenses for an empty home here she never used.

Another thing.  Ministers here are entitled to homes that are called ‘Grace and Favor’ residences.  They do not actually have to use them if they’d rather have something of their own. BUT ... if they aren’t willing to live FREE of charge in homes provided for them, then they should damn well pay for the homes oif their choice with their own damn money.  Not the taxpayers.

Something else to think about as well and I should mention it as well.  An awful lot of these people are very,very wealthy in their own right.
So the idea that if we have really wealthy folks at the top, there might be less temptation for them to fiddle public monies, then someone who is poor and hungry.  Yeah well, better have another thunk.  Greed is greed is greed.

Tell ya what the real shame of it all is too.  These MPs and ministers actually believe they have things coming to them. They honestly believe they are, entitled.
The most telling reaction from most of them isn’t necessarily shock.  No.
They are truly surprised and stepping all over themselves saying sorry.  But it’s clear they’re only sorry they were all caught.
This is not over yet by a long shot.
Stay Tuned.

Posted by peiper     on 05/18/2009 at 12:32 PM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Editorials • Government • Corruption and Greed • Outrageous • Tyrants and Dictators • UK •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - May 10, 2009

PART TWO, THE SCREWING OF THE TAXPAYER but NO FOREPLAY.

This bit of sleaze and greed won’t go away too soon. Be interesting to see what turns up tomorrow.  This has become a very major story over here, and with good reason.

Oh, and this is rich. HaHa.
The MINISTER for TOURISM, Barbara Follett, yes. That Follett. She’s the wife of author Ken Follett.
Anyway ... The minister of Tourism has claimed almost $50,000.00 for Security because, get ready folks;

SHE DOES NOT FEEL SAFE IN LONDON!

Does that say something about the state of order dis-order here?

FOLLETTE STORY HERE

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
Last Updated: 8:15AM BST 10 May 2009

What are the rules?
In claiming taxpayer-funded expenses, MPs must abide by a parliamentary document known as the Green Book, which says that their claims should be “above reproach” and that there should be “no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money”.

Among the expenses MPs can claim is Additional Costs Allowance (ACA), for second-home expenditure including mortgage interest payments, utility bills as well as furniture, electrical goods, refurbishments and food.

The rules say the spending must have been “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of a Member’s parliamentary duties”. For 2008/9, MPs with seats outside inner London could claim up to £24,006 in ACA.

Are the rules being broken?

The vast majority of MPs are not breaking the letter of the rules – although some are.

However, MPs use a variety of questionable techniques to “milk” the system – including “flipping” the designation of which of two properties is their “second home”, buying goods for the “wrong” home, charging for stamp duty, avoiding capital gains tax, renting out a second home, moving up the property ladder by selling second homes, charging for trivial items, overspending on food or renovations, and doing up properties just before standing down from parliament.

Why is this scandal happening now?

A year ago the High Court backed an earlier ruling by the Information Tribunal that full details of MPs’ expenses, including receipts, should be made public.

Since then MPs have been accused of dragging their feet and playing for time. Full details are slated to be published in July but with some crucial details – such as addresses of second homes – blacked out. An investigation by the Telegraph has uncovered the full files.

What happens now?

MPs face pressure to release the full details earlier than planned – a move called for by Alastair Campbell, the former director of communications at Downing Street, and Charles Clarke, the former home secretary.

The revelations have unleashed a tidal wave of public anger against MPs who play the system. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, will face further calls to liaise with other party leaders and introduce urgent changes to the system, particularly regarding the ACA.

TELEGRAPH UNCOVERS

Now get this one. 

MPs’ expenses: Sinn Fein claimed £500,000 for second homes
The scandal of how absent Sinn Fein MPs have milked the Parliamentary second-home expenses system for nearly £500,000 can be revealed.

By Andrew Alderson, David Barrett and Alastair Jamieson
Last Updated: 12:07PM BST 10 May 2009
The five MPs, who represent the political wing of the IRA, have not even taken up their Parliamentary seats and yet they have rented three London properties from the same family at rates well above the market norm.

The party’s two best-known figures, Gerry Adams, the party leader, and Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland’s deputy first minister, jointly claimed expenses of £3,600 a month to rent a shared two-bedroom flat in north London. A local estate agent, who knows the properties, said a fair monthly rent for the flat would be £1,400.

HERE FOR THE REST OF STORY

Posted by peiper     on 05/10/2009 at 05:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Corruption and Greed • Politics • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

POLITICAL PERKS AND THE SCREWING OF THE TAXPAYER. BUSINESS AS USUAL.

It’s very doubtful if any American reading this will care a hoot about the ppl in power here and what they are up to.
But I have a personal stake, in a manner of speaking, in the financial side of things as after all, I live here.

Humor me on this people, ok?  Go on and read the article I copied from this morning’s paper.  If you read it slow like, even if not familiar with Brit doings, you’ll catch on to what’s going on and this is just one person. There are a 100 others.

Very soon, in fact by the end of July, the wife and I must come up with a ton of money for the inheritance tax on the house left to wife by her late mother. 
We have to pay the Inland Revenue (IRS in American terms) a sum of almost but not quite, $20,000.00 by July. 

There isn’t any loophole to crawl through, as you guys know at home, when dealing with income tax etc. There are just some things that can not be fought and won.  There are things that make us grit our teeth but we must simply move on. We can not make our own rules.
But seeing how govts. spend our money is always going to be a bit ulcer producing.  And what really frosts us is the current scandal exposed by The Telegraph in an exclusive brought about by leaked papers. And this thing is BIG.  As in HUGE.

Starting yesterday they have been publishing and have continued today, how the politicians here are claiming for expenses. And the sums are truly staggering.  In many cases the expenses are not necessarily illegal at all. 

THEY ARE MOSTLY ALL WITHIN THE LAW.  AH ...HERE’S THE CATCH.

HERE’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE AND THERE’S WORSE YET. BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT ARE ENSNARED IN THIS NET. BUT THEY’LL FIND A WAY OUT. THEY ALWAYS DO.

Here are a few translations from Brit to American usage.
Flat:  an apartment
MP:  Member of Parliament
MEP:  Member European Parliament
Inland Revenue :  IRS
Commons (House of): 
Actually, the House of Commons would be equivalent to the US House of Representatives, while the House of Lords’ counterpart would be the US Senate.  H/T with thanks to Macker for correcting me re. Commons.

CGT:  Capital Gains Tax

Politician: both countries. = lying, thieving,sneaky, conniving individuals working for themselves. Mostly. Might be exceptions but the sightings are rare indeed. Usually to be found in bloated condition after visit to public funds. Which is often.

The Communities Secretary, facing fresh questions over flat sale in row over MPs’ expenses
Hazel Blears is facing fresh questions over the tax arrangements surrounding the sale of a flat in South London she had designated as a “second
home.

By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
Last Updated: 9:35AM BST 10 May 2009

Miss Blears sold the property in Kennington, south London, in August 2004 for £200,000, making a profit of £45,000. She admitted last night that she did not pay capital gains tax (CGT) on the profit from the sale because “no liability” had arisen.

The admission suggested that Miss Blears declared the flat as her primary residence for tax purposes while at the same time telling the Commons authorities that it was her second home, a designation that enabled her to claim hundreds of pounds in parliamentary expenses.

See guys and ladies, here’s the trick.  It’s perfectly legal under the rules THEY WRITE, to say one thing to the Commons and another to the tax ppl.

CGT is liable to be paid on the profit from the sale of any property that is not classified with HM Revenue & Customs as a “main residence”. At the time of the sale Miss Blears had informed the Commons authorities that the Kennington flat was her second home, enabling her to claim mortgage interest payments on it at £850 a month. The Telegraph’s investigation into MPs’ expenses established that Miss Blears had claimed for three properties in a single year at taxpayers’ expense.

In March 2004 she stated to the Commons that her second home was a property in her Salford constituency, which she has owned with her husband since June 1997. During March 2004 she bought an £850 television and video recorder and a £651 mattress for this home.

In April 2004 she redesignated the Kennington flat as her second home with the Commons. After selling it four months later she spent taxpayer-funded nights in hotels in London, including the Zetter in Clerkenwell, where rooms cost £211 a night.

In December 2004 she bought another London flat with a mortgage of more than £1,000 a month and claimed it as her second home. Over the next four months, she claimed for groceries, furniture worth £4,874, a bed at £899 and £913 for a new TV.

Miss Blears’s spokesman said last night: “Hazel has complied with the rules of the House authorities and the Inland Revenue. No liability for CGT arose on the sale of her flat in Kennington.”

Tax experts said it was possible for Miss Blears to have designated the flat differently for the Commons and for HM Revenue & Customs.

Mike Warburton, a tax accountant at Grant Thornton, said: “The Inland Revenue rules work entirely independently of the parliamentary arrangements. It is open to anybody to elect which of their homes is their principal residence for capital gains tax. They will then not pay tax on the profit.”

LOOSE EXPENSES RULES FOR MPs; TIGHT ONES FOR TAXPAYERS. TELEGRAPH WITH MORE ON SUBJECT

Posted by peiper     on 05/10/2009 at 04:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Government • Corruption and Greed • Personal • Politics • Taxes • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - February 28, 2009

Right Wing Video presents…

Obama’s XXX Stimulus package.

Warning: this video is NSFW. Repeat, NSFW. You’ve been warned.

H/T Right Wing Video.

Posted by Christopher     on 02/28/2009 at 12:22 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Government • Corruption and Greed • Humor • Insanity • Odd-Strange • Sex •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

You’ve been had

Thank God for the internet. Because there are people who are willing to say on video what I think. Plus, they say it better than I ever could.

H/T Right Wing News

Posted by Christopher     on 02/28/2009 at 07:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Corruption and Greed •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 20, 2009

Black medical student who claims she was bullied by racists sues for £300,000.

First of all, judging by what her hair looks like in the hard copy edition of our morning paper, can’t say as I blame anyone for not wanting to share a shower room with her.  But no matter, since bloody when does not wanting to shop with someone or share a meal with someone open an institution to charges of race?  Why does this (please note her origin) former Nigerian believe anyone has some sort of moral obligation to have lunch with or go shopping with her.  This is what the world has come to and the blame isn’t with the self styled victims.  No.  It’s the white,left liberal brigade that’s taught em they have rights beyond normal rights.

Can anyone seriously believe that a college like this one, which isn’t some unknown backwater college, can anyone believe they would act in a way that might open them to this sort of thing.  But hey ... there’s money in victimhood. Sure, the school went looking for problems and so out of the racist blue they intentionally failed her.  Uh Huh.

Hell, no point in my ranting on when Drew did it better under comments in another posting.

Here’s part of Drew’s comments and nobody has said it better.

Race gets thrown up against white people constantly because without it - the “we’re treated differently because you think we’re different because we go out of our way to act and BE different, unless it suits our immediate purpose” there is no reason to expect anyone to not assimilate and act like the majority. And that means white folk.

The shoe has been on the other foot for 3-4 decades now. The young Up and Comers on today’s corporate fast track were all born after 1980. A full third of our population has never known a time or a situation when being a minority was not a distinct advantage. Another third was not aware of the wider world until after the Civil Rights movement had made huge gains. The poorer people in that age demographic have been on government support their entire lives. Entire. Lives.

A black medical student who claims she was bullied by white racists on her course before examiners deliberately failed her is suing her college for more than £300,000.

By Caroline Gammell
Last Updated: 2:18PM GMT 19 Feb 2009

Virginia Jibowu claims she was ostracised by students in an “institutionally racist” environment at London’s King’s College medical school.

The 25-year-old alleges that fellow students refused to shop, eat or share a shower-room with her in their accommodation.

She claims one female student suggested introducing a killer disease into Africa to wipe out all the black people, while a male student allegedly asked her if black men were less intelligent than whites.

A third allegedly complained that the black nurses at King’s College Hospital were no fun.

Miss Jibowu is suing the college, which is part of the University of London, at Central London County Court for harassment, race discrimination and victimisation.

She alleges that while her fellow students have graduated and are now working in the NHS, the college has refused to investigate her complaints, intentionally failed her and tried to stop her re-sitting the course.

Miss Jibowu, who is of Nigerian origin and from Lambeth in south London, is demanding over £300,000 for loss of earnings, aggravated damages and injury to health and feelings.

If she fails to qualify from the course, she is expected to sue at the High Court for further compensation for the loss of her career, which could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

In legal papers submitted to the court, she alleged: “The college disregarded my complaints and graduated all students complained about.

“All of the alleged racists are now practising as doctors in the NHS. This can only ingrain the problem of institutional racism within the medical practice.

“They were not interviewed. At no point has the college accepted it was at fault for allowing an institutionally racist and victimising, hostile studying environment to exist.”

Miss Jibowu enrolled on the college’s six year extended medical degree course for students from disadvantaged backgrounds in September 2002.

She said students on that course had to wear a special badge, which led to them being bullied by counterparts on the regular five year degree programme.

In the legal papers, she claimed one student “asked me if black men were less intelligent than other people. He also asked if black people were more prone to becoming fat.

“He also said that he had stopped contacting a mutual friend because he had become ‘too black’.”

Miss Jibowu claimed three other white students were “hostile” to her during her hospital placement in Hastings, East Sussex in 2006.

One allegedly said that immigrants were “spoiling the UK” and said of the hospital in Hastings: “The nurses are great here - might have some fun. It’s not like in King’s cos they’re all Afro-Caribbean.”

Miss Jibowu had passed the first five years of study without failure and fully expected to complete her final year.

She had secured a job as a doctor at Gwent Hospital in Wales and was due to start work in August 2008.

But she claims the college deliberately failed her from final exams and then, without informing her, contacted hospital bosses in Gwent to say she would not be taking up her post.

She said the post should have been held open pending her appeal against the exam results.

“The college appears to be continuing actively to take steps to ensure that I fail my course or am removed from the course before its completion and am thereby denied the opportunity of becoming a doctor.”

King’s college and the former students accused of racism deny Miss Jibowu’s allegations.

The college is vigorously defending her court claim but a spokeswoman said: “We are unable to comment while legal proceedings are ongoing.”

The case is due to be heard later this year.

TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 02/20/2009 at 01:38 PM   
Filed Under: • Corruption and Greed • Medical • Racism and race relations • UK •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner