22 Ways To Be A Good Democrat

 Political  Comments Off on 22 Ways To Be A Good Democrat
Jun 242017
 

22 Ways To Be A Good Democrat

22 Ways To Be A Good Democrat

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make “The Passion of the Christ” for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been In charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it’s okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it’s not okay to say “Merry Christmas.”

 

Auditor Says Janet Napolitano Kept Millions In Secret Fund

 Political  Comments Off on Auditor Says Janet Napolitano Kept Millions In Secret Fund
May 312017
 

Janet Napolitano Hid Stash of $175 MILLON for Berkeley, Home of ANTIFA Protests

Auditor Says Janet Napolitano Kept Millions In Secret Fund

The University of California school system and the site of an ongoing free speech battle has another problem—corruption. In the battle over free speech, President Janet Napolitano has been criticized for not taking action to protect the university, free speech, and the First Amendment of the Constitution. Janet Napolitano has a bigger problem, though. A state audit found that the University of California—and in particular, Napolitano’s office of the president—hid a stash of $175 million in secret funds while its leaders requested more money from the state.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the audit found that the secret fund ballooned due to UC purposely overestimating how much was needed to run the school system, which includes ten campuses in the state. Janet Napolitano, the former Department of Homeland Security chief, is in charge of the UC system.

Report-on-UC-Office-of-the-President-p3-normal

Napolitano denied the audit’s claim. She reportedly said the money was held for any unexpected expenses. Her office also denied the amount in the fund but had no documentation to dispute the report’s findings.

Elaine Howle, the state auditor who authored the report, found that from 2012 to 2016, UC’s office of the president attempted to raise more funding by inflating estimates of what was needed to operate the university system. Howle also said that a top staff member in Napolitano’s office improperly screened confidential surveys that were sent to each campus and deleted or changed answers critical of Napolitano before the surveys were sent to the auditor.

“I’ve never had a situation like that in my 17 years as a state auditor,” Howle said. “My attorneys are looking at whether any improper government activities occurred. Taken as a whole, these problems indicate that significant change is necessary to strengthen the public’s trust in the University of California.”

Howle said Napolitano overcharged the UC system’s campuses to fund its operations, paid its employees significantly more than state employees, and interfered with the auditing process.

The audit found that over the course of four years, the UC’s central bureaucracy amassed more than $175 million in reserve funds by spending significantly less than it budgeted for yet still asked for increases in future funding based on its previous years’ overestimated budgets rather than its actual expenditures.

“In effect, the office of the president received more funds than it needed each year, and it amassed millions of dollars in reserves that it spent with little or no oversight,” the report said.

University employees and lawmakers, who requested the audit, expressed outrage over the audit’s findings.

“Today we learned that after squandering millions of public dollars on bloated management and unaccountable initiatives, the office of the president has effectively operated a slush fund and hid hundreds of millions of public dollars from public scrutiny,” Kathryn Lybarger, president of UC’s largest employee union, said in a statement.

She criticized the office’s “skyrocketing executive pay,” a reference to the audit’s finding that the ten executives in the office were paid a total of $3.7 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year. That amounted to over $700,000 more than the combined salaries of their highest paid state employee counterparts.

The audit went on to say that University of California president Janet Napolitano’s office hid the secret funds even from its own board of regents and created a secret spending plan while padding the salaries and benefits of her staff.

For years, state lawmakers have been clashing with the university system over its opaque finances and escalating costs amid calls for belt-tightening by Gov. Jerry Brown. The tension between the state and the prestigious university system had mounted since the recession, when UC repeatedly hiked tuition to backfill state budget cuts and turned away record numbers of California high school seniors while admitting higher-paying out-of-state and international students.

The audit cited extensive problems with financial management at UC’s central office, including the following findings:

Administrative spending shortly after Napolitano took control increased by roughly $80 million, or 28 percent, between 2012-13 and 2015-16, but the central office doesn’t have a reliable or consistent way to track such expenditures.

It received significantly more money than it needed in each of the four years reviewed by the auditor but asked for increases in future funding based on inflated budgets from previous years.

It paid executives a total of $3.7 million in the fiscal year 2015-16—$700,000 more than other top-paid executives at comparable state agencies—and spent at least $21.6 million in employee benefits, including contributions to supplemental retirement savings plans.

Janet Napolitano was United States Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013 under President Barack Obama.

The auditor’s report can be found here.

 
 
via

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

 Political  Comments Off on Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias
May 192017
 

Harvard Study Proves Trump Was Right About Negative Media Coverage

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.

From Heat Street:

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.