During last week’s presidential debate, Republican Mitt Romney horrified some fans of “Sesame Street” when he said he was going to stop federal subsidies of PBS even though he likes Big Bird. Many pundits seemed to think the beloved children’s character was headed for the barbecue.
“A collective stab pierced the heart of Generation X, who grew up with Big Bird, Bert and Ernie, and Oscar the Grouch as their best friends. I immediately thought, ‘Oh no, Big Bird will be unemployed if Romney wins,’” Suzi Parker wrote in the Washington Post.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee formed “Team Big Bird” to rally the troops around public broadcasting, asking pointedly, “What did Big Bird ever do to Mitt Romney?” “Saturday Night Live” even allowed Big Bird a chance to rebut the former Massachusetts governor.
But they’re missing a bigger point. Mitt Romney is not as big of a threat to Big Bird as for-profit rivals such as “Yo Gabba Gabba” and “Dora the Explorer.” Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit that produces “Sesame Street,” gets very little direct support from the government. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting awarded the show $1.25 million in funding through a National Program Service grant to PBS in fiscal 2011 and $1.4 million under the same program a year later, according to a CPB spokesperson. Those funds represent about 2% of Sesame Workshop’s annual budget.
Read it all HERE.
If you’re concerned about the decline of American economic power and the rise of China, then there is no better case study than Huawei. Chances are you’ve never heard of this Chinese technology giant, but in the space of 25 years it’s become the largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment in the world; everything from smart phones to switchers and routers that form the backbone of the global communications network. It’s an industry the U.S. invented and once dominated, but no more.
(CBS News) U.S. companies have largely left the telecommunications business to foreigners, but can we trust the Chinese to build and maintain the critical data infrastructure that government and industry rely on without spying on us? Steve Kroft investigates.
In a briefing to Capitol Hill staffers delivered the day after the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the killings appeared to be the result of a terrorist attack.
Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy — who exercises responsibility for all department personnel, facilities, and operations, and who is one of the department’s most respected civil servants, having served in his position under both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations — delivered the assessment in an unclassified, half-hour conference call with staff aides to House and Senate lawmakers from relevant committees, and leadership offices, on the evening of Sept. 12.
That a State Department official of Kennedy’s rank — one with direct oversight of the installations and people targeted in Benghazi — reached so swiftly the conclusion that the attacks were premeditated and coordinated stands in stark contrast to the opposing narrative pressed at that time, and for several days afterward, by other top officials at State, the White House, and the intelligence agencies.
Three days after Kennedy’s conference call, for example, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows to insist that the attacks were neither coordinated nor premeditated, but were rather the result of a spontaneous mob action, inspired by an anti-Muslim video on the Internet, that spun out of control.
From Allen West’s campaign.
Obama is still trying to bring Gitmo terrorists into the U.S. Andrew C. McCarthy sums it up in a recent article exposing the bi-partisan complicity, via Obama Flouts Congress, Orders DOJ to Buy White-Elephant Illinois Prison
Obama has been blocked by bipartisan congressional opposition. So, as is his wont, he is now imperiously ignoring the naysayers, and has directed the Justice Department to go ahead and buy the prison from Illinois, using “unobligated” funds in Justice’s budget.
The move is drawing irate responses from key members of Congress, such as Representatives Frank Wolf and Hal Rogers of the House Appropriations Committee, and Pete King, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee. But the question, of course, is whether they will do anything about it. Congress is not without remedies here; it can start slashing money from the Justice Department’s budget and other areas where the administration will feel it. To this point, though, despite serial provocations, they’ve shown no indication of a willingness to do that.
The Republican establishment, which gets cover from the Republican punditocracy, lamely claims that the GOP only controls “one-half of one-third of the government” and therefore can’t do anything about Obama’s profligacy as long as he is backed in it by the Democrat-controlled Senate. It is nonsense: Can you imagine the Supreme Court ever saying, “Gee, we can’t foist our preferences on the country because, after all, we’re only one-third of the government — and we’re not even elected”? We don’t have separation of powers by percentage; we have separation of powers by constitutionally assigned responsibilities.
“GOP leaders want you to think that, when an executive agency like the Justice Department goes rogue, they are simply powerless to start slashing its budget. But the spending and the taxes necessary to support executive malfeasance can happen only with the House’s complicity.”
There is no reason why Congress can’t enact a law saying, “not one penny of public money for Thomson,” and dare Democrats to vote against it in an election year. All they need is the will to do it.
Of course, they’d need to be in session to exhibit that will, but they are not. Speaker Boehner orchestrated one of the earliest election-year congressional exoduses from Washington in the last half-century — and in the four months from August 3 through Congress’s scheduled post-election return on November 14, our lawmakers will have put in eight days of work. In sum, then, the brazen Obama directive to buy the white-elephant jail is a window into what Americans can expect from an Obama second term — or even, if Romney should win, from the ten weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day.
Imagine Obama, no longer concerned about political accountability, and confronted by a Congress that, for all its whining, is unwilling to use the powers the framers gave it to rein in a runaway executive. He will govern against the will of the American people: opening Thomson; closing Gitmo; transferring the Blind Sheik; funding the Muslim Brotherhood; supporting the Brotherhood and its Islamist allies in Syria just as he did in Libya and Egypt; closing Gitmo; showing Putin “more flexibility” on our defenses; moving ahead with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on restricting free speech; signing the U.S. on to other unpopular international conventions; and so on. Maybe we can take ten more weeks of this stuff, but four more years . . . ?
Vote them all out. Starting at the top.
Bob McCarty has more in Here We Go Again: GITMO Detainees Coming to Illinois? and video of Band of Mothers on this issue, Could new federal prison house Gitmo detainees? White House bypasses Congress
Go and view the video, and do read more found on this blog, HERE.
The Spacelander is a streamlined Monocoque fiberglass bike designed by British-born designer Benjamin G. Bowden in 1946. It took fourteen long years before it went into full production in 1960. It was only a short run. The $89.50 pricetag was too high at the time and tastes had changed. Also, bike manufacturers considered it too exotic for mass marketing. Nowadays, these extremely rare beauties can fetch up to $15,000 in good condition!
Curious History: The Deadly Affects of Makeup
For thousands of years women slowly poisoned themselves by wearing face makeup called Venetian Ceruse. Venetian Ceruse was a 16th century cosmetic used as a skin whitener. It was in great demand and considered the best available at that time. Ceruse had the effect of making a woman’s skin look ghastly white. The women who wore it usually kept adding more to the old layer rather than washing it off. But the pigment of white lead was extremely poisonous. It rotted teeth and turned skin color to horrible shades. It made hair fall out and caused eyes to swell. Usage of Venetian Ceruse over an extended period of time could cause death.
The most notable user of Venetian Ceruse was Queen Elizabeth I of England seen above. It is believed that the Queen’s constant use of ceruse, which created her trade-mark look of snow white skin, led to her extreme hair loss. She wore a large variety of wigs during her reign. There were many rumors that Queen Elizabeth I was bald by the age of 30 due to her extremely high hair line, but there is no historical proof to verify this fact.
Read more and see more HERE.