Category Archives: US Presidents

Barack Obama’s Spokesperson Defends $400,000 Wall Street-Sponsored Speech

From Yahoo: Barack Obama’s spokesperson Eric Schultz defended the former president’s $400,000 speaking fee for an upcoming speech at a conference sponsored by a Wall Street investment bank.

“With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I’d just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history — and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR,” Schultz said in a statement.

Reports that Obama would earn $400,000 for the speech drew criticism this week, as people argued that accepting money from Wall Street firms would go against his beliefs. Obama’s post-presidential career will include a number of speeches and a two-book deal with Penguin Random House for $60 million.

“While he’ll continue to give speeches from time to time, he’ll spend most of his time writing his book and, as he said in Chicago this week, focusing his post-presidency work on training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America,” Schultz said.

See original article on Fortune.com

DCG

Advertisements

Michelle Obama’s healthy school meals are set to be scrapped by Trump’s agriculture secretary next week

michelle obama lunch2

Say bye bye to Michelle Obama’s mandated school lunches

Another Obama legacy bites the dust.

From Daily Mail: Michelle Obama‘s healthy school lunches could be on the chopping block with the Trump administration expected to announce new measures as early as Monday to ease the program’s regulations.

The US Department of Agriculture announced on Friday that its secretary Sonny Perdue is set to introduce new standards that will give schools more flexibility in relation to the National School Lunch Program. It is not yet clear how the rules will change school lunches or the regulations.

The announcement will take place at the Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg, Virginia, where Perdue and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) will eat lunch with the students, The Hill reports.

Republicans have long held concerns about the school lunch program, which was spearheaded by the former First Lady to establish new healthy eating standards and curb childhood obesity.

But the more nutritious meals, which required more fruit, vegetables and whole grains, have not always been popular with schoolchildren.

The regulations pushed by Mrs. Obama led to the sarcastic hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama flooding the internet with unimpressed students sharing photos of their lunch.

Some pictures shared as recently as last week show piles of mushy lunches, small portions and the kind of fare that left some saying even ‘prisoners eat better food.’ 

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Hollywood director demeans teenage cancer-survivors’ looks to take shot at Republicans

joss-whedon

You own this piece of scum libtards.

From Washington Times: Hollywood producer-director Joss Whedon judged a group of teenage cancer survivors according to their (lack of) sexual attractiveness in order to take a shot at Republicans.

Mr. Whedon tweeted out a picture of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan meeting some teenagers and said they didn’t measure up in the attractiveness department.

“Tonight on White House Wife Hunt, Donny makes host P. Ryan give 2 more contestants the ‘Not a 10’ card,” tweeted Mr. Whedon, best known as the creator of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Firefly” and other TV shows and as the director of two “Avengers” movies.

According to Mr. Ryan, who had tweeted out the same picture, the girls were Wisconsin teenagers who “shared some powerful stories with me about their fight against childhood cancer.”

Numerous users on Twitter quickly pounced on Mr. Whedon’s remarks about the girls’ looks, calling them cruel, sexist and more. “The epitome of misogyny right here. Take a bow, bro,: said female Twitter user “Grace Under Pressure.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Joss has since deleted the tweet and offered some lame “apology:” “So I tweeted something that inadvertently offended everyone except the people I was trying to offend. I’m sorry. I’ll be quiet for a bit.”

What a deplorable man.

DCG

Your tax dollars at work: $390k grant to study duck penis

Elizabeth Harrington reports for Washington Free Beacon that among the protesters at the “March for Science” on Earth Day, April 22, 2017, against the Trump administration’s budget cuts was Patricia Brennan, a visiting lecturer of biological sciences at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, and a native of Columbia.

Brennan has a vested interest in taxpayers’ largesse as she is a leading researcher of a taxpayer-funded duck penis study that received $384,949 from the National Science Foundation. The grant was funded through the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package. The study looked at the differences in the corkscrew-shaped penises of ducks.

A recent interview with New England Public Radio revealed that Brennan is still fascinated by the genitalia of marine animals. She is now using her expertise on the penises of orca whales.

When an orca whale penis recently was delivered from Sea World to her lab, Brennan exclaimed, “Holy cow. Oh wow. Oh my goodness. It’s enormous! So this is the tip right there. It’s not super long, it’s just wide.”

New England Public Radio reported that “Although Brennan has spent 20 years studying the sex organs of marine animals, she’s never seen anything this big. It takes up an entire lab sink.”

In the face of a national debt of $20 trillion, President Trump wants to cut funding for frivolous research, among other cuts. Trump’s budget blueprint would leave the National Institutes of Health with $25.9 billion, but makes no mention of the National Science Foundation that currently gets about $7 billion annually.

Since taxpayers were informed about how much her duck penis study cost, Brennan has become a “sought-after science activist,” giving lectures on how scientists can defend their research.

Brennan said of news outlets reporting the nearly $390k grant for her duck penis study, “They were attacking everything. They were attacking the science itself, like, ‘what a waste of money.’ They were attacking me, as a person, like, I must be some kind of deviant to be looking at penises. Like, who does that?”

In a self-righteous article in Slate, Brennan justified her $390k duck penis study by its important, earth-shaking findings that:

  • Male ducks rape female ducks. (It doesn’t take a $390k study to know this. Anyone who lives near a lake, as I did, would have seen female ducks being gang-raped by males in springtime.)
  • Both the vaginas and penises of ducks have evolved in response to “sexual conflict”. As Brennan puts it, with barely suppressed outrage: “Males have counterclockwise spiraling penises, while females have clockwise spiraling vaginas and blind pockets that prevent full eversion of the male penis. Male ducks force copulations on females, and males and females are engaged in a genital arms race with surprising consequences. Male competition is a driving force behind these male traits that can be harmful to females.”

New England Public Radio calls Brennan a “basic scientist,” meaning she only observes how things work and is not “necessarily applying that knowledge to a particular problem.” In other words, there is no particular reason why she studies duck and orca whale penises. In Brennan’s words, “Just the fact that we just don’t know what we’re going to find is so exciting.”

Why, like, already beleaguered taxpayers must, like, fund her, like, “basic” pointless research on, like, marine animal penises is, like, not her concern.

~Eowyn

Martin Short calls Trump the “dumbest president ever”

AMBI benefit gala in support of the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation and Cinema To Help the World

Martin Short believes he has some kind of power…

The Trump Derangement Syndrome is a contagious infection in Hollyweird.

From Yahoo: Martin Short stripped down to a nude bodysuit to perform a musical number and became a human bagpipe in the hands of a large, kilt-wearing man — all for the sake of the environment.

Short was the multitalented master of ceremonies at “Stand Up! For the Planet,” an all-star comedy benefit for the Natural Resources Defense Council. With performances by Larry David, Pete Davidson, Jerrod Carmichael and Tig Notaro, the event raised $1.4 million to support litigation against President Donald Trump’s environmental policies, according to organizers.

“Do you realize if a drone hit this crowd, Trump eliminates all his problems?” Short said. “That’s the kind of power we have.”

Guests at the untelevised fundraiser at Beverly Hills, California’s Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts included Rob Reiner, Albert Brooks, Pierce Brosnan, Jordana Brewster, Amanda Peet, Marcia Cross and Christopher Meloni.

“Look how rich you guys look,” Carmichael said as he took the stage. David, who walked out to the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” theme, joked about the size of his carbon footprint, given his frequent use of air conditioning in his ample home. “People shun the homeless, but you’ve got to admire their footprint,” he said.

He also joked that he had “no divorce perks” with his ex-wife Laurie David, who organized Tuesday’s event and recruited him to perform.

Despite the event’s inherent political nature, Short was the only one who delved directly into that territory. As he introduced Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Tony Hale, Short described their show, “Veep” as “a political satire and turned into a documentary” and the two stars as “a more dynamic comedy duo” than Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer.

Short also called the current administration “amoral” and said Trump is “the dumbest president we have ever had.”

Trump had no immediate response on Twitter.

The president of the NRDC said the organization has already sued the Trump administration over the Keystone XL Pipeline project and proposed changes to Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

DCG

UN warned Trump that ObamaCare repeal could violate international law

United Nations

From Fox News: The United Nations warned the Trump administration earlier this year that repealing ObamaCare without providing an adequate replacement would be a violation of multiple international laws, according to a new report.

Though the Trump administration is likely to ignore the U.N. warning, The Washington Post reported the Office of the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva sent an “urgent appeal” on Feb 2.

The Post reported that the confidential, five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the U.S. “at odds with its international obligations.”

The warning was sent to the State Department and reportedly said the U.N. expressed “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for 30 million people, that in turn could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”

Congressional Republicans failed in March to pass an ObamaCare replacement bill. A new proposal is emerging on Capitol Hill, but it’s unclear when it might be considered and how sweeping it may be.

A spokesman for the U.N.’s human rights office in Geneva confirmed the authenticity of the letter, which was sent by Dainius Puras, a Lithuanian doctor who serves the U.N. as “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”

Xabier Celaya, a spokesman for the U.N., said Puras cannot comment on his ObamaCare letter until it becomes public in June.

Though the report calls out the Trump administration, there’s very little the U.N. can actually do. 

According to the report, the letter sent to the Trump administration also was supposed to be shared with the majority and minority leaders in both houses of Congress — but that did not happen.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s office said they never received the letter, as did officials in House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. The letter from Puras did make its way to the Department of Health and Human Services, where an unnamed employee supposedly leaked it.

DCG

CA judge blocks Trump’s defunding of sanctuary cities

It’s judicial over-reach by activist judges all over again.

The AP reports that today (April 25, 2017), a federal judge, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, blocked any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities on deporting illegal “undocumented” aliens.

Note: William Horsley Orrick III, 63, was nominated by Obama to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. On May 15, 2013, the U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination by a vote of 56 to 41. According to Public Citizen, a non-profit, consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick, then employed by Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, raised at least $200,000 for Barack Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.

“Sanctuary cities” is a loosely defined term for jurisdictions — cities, counties, states — that don’t comply with immigration authorities.

Orrick issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits – one brought by the city of San Francisco, the other by Santa Clara County – against Trump’s executive order to defund sanctuary cities, counties, and states. The injunction will stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through court.

The Trump Administration maintains San Francisco’s and Santa Clara County’s lawsuits are premature because the federal government hasn’t cut off any money yet or declared any communities to be sanctuary cities. The administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that is needed to get people to report crime.

Acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler had defended Trump’s executive order as an attempt to use his “bully pulpit’ to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law.” But Judge Orrick contends that President Trump has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending. And even if he could, the conditions would have to be clearly related to the funds at issue and not coercive because “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.”

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argue that Trump’s executive order threatens billions of dollars in federal funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan their budgets. But Readler said the threatened cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants and would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco.

In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order “by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing. And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.”

Trump’s executive order has also led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and the city of Richmond in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County lawsuits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.

Meanwhile, mayors from several U.S. cities threatened with the loss of federal grants emerged from a meeting today with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying they remain confused about how to prove their police are in compliance with immigration policies – a necessary step for them to receive grant money.

The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and a directive calling for a wall on the Mexican border.

A federal appeals court blocked the travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.

~Eowyn