Friday, January 29, 2016

B.H.Obama’s Government Job Exit Interview

MIDDLE FINGER NEWS SERVICE


The latest trend in the world of human resources is the so-called exit interview. In theory, it gives a departing employee an opportunity to express their grievances while at the same time providing useful feedback to the employer.

 After a slight miscalculation (and resulting disappearance of a small portion of the nearby population) the MFNS Time Machine is once again in working order, and we were able to reach into the future and grab some historic government document of interest. Among the recent cache of files we came across the Exit Interview of one government employee......



Executive Branch Human Resources Dept.
  Form 2148/2700B-5 - Exit Interview:  
Barack H. Obama - 44th President - Jan 5, 2017:


What is your main reason for leaving your employment?

"Basically, my failure in both nullifying the 2016 election and ramming through an amendment allowing me a third and fourth term, which I thought was only fair considering all my predecessors were white folks."


Did anything trigger your decision to leave?

"The deadline of January 20, 2017 obviously has a lot to do with it but, getting away from those crazy Republicans and getting Joe Biden out of my hair came in a real close second."


What was most satisfying about your job?

"Sleeping late and being the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth......and working in a building big enough to get away from Michelle most of the day." 


What was the least satisfying thing about your job?

"Being made fun of by that bully Alex Putin. 


Did your job duties turn out to be as you expected?

"A big NO on that one. I thought I’d be entertaining celebrities and eating good and setting a legislative agenda to help guide America's future. I didn't expect that I'd spending so much of my time meeting with foreign leaders and their fat ass wives I never heard of and couldn't understand a word they were saying.


Did you receive adequate training to do your job?

"Well, I never took lessons, but I did get to play with some of the best golfers in the world" 


Did you receive sufficient feedback about your performance?

You kiddin'? Ever listen to talk radio?


Were you able to fulfill your career goals?

"Not really. I always wanted to be a point guard for the Bulls."


What would you change to make your workplace better?

"Close down the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. Seriously, though, how about shutting down the House and the Supreme Court?"



Did any policies or procedures make your job more difficult?

"Yes, the Constitution often got in the way of what I wanted to accomplish. Also, I wasn't always a big fan of the judicial system."


Would you consider working again for this employer?

"Well, obviously I can’t be President anymore, and Hillary's Supreme Court Justice idea ain't gonna happen, but I might try and get on at the DMV or something.  But after the riots, my Health-care reforms being overturned, those &$@# damn Mexicans turning on me and my party....not to mention that little thing with the male intern, I don't think that's going to happen."


Did anyone discriminate against you, harass you or cause hostile working conditions?

"Two words....McConnell and Boehner !"


Based on your experience, what do you think it takes to succeed in your position?

"Probably a “coup d’etat.” Am I still allowed to say “coup d’etat”?


 What did you like most about your job?

"Flying around on Air Force One.... with the private and untraceable Internet connection. Man. you could stream any kind of videos you could want......if you get my drift?"


What did you like least about your job?

"Dealing with  that frickin' Netanyahu.... and Putin's damn gay comments on my Facebook page.....and Pelois farting in Leadership meetings all the time....and Harry Reid's nose hairs, and Biden babbling about the squirrels outside on the lawn..."

Mr. President...

.....and Michelle bitchin' about me sneaking a smoke on the terrace... and Boehner drinking up all the oval office booze....and Valerie Jarrett kicking me under the table in cabinet meets....and Barney Frank's naked pictures in his Christmas cards....and "

Mr. President!


 Before leaving, did you consider a transfer?

"Yes, many times I considered transferring Joe Biden."

Do you have any tips or advice to help your replacement?

"Yes! Replace the mattress in the White House residence. Seriously, replace it!  If that thing could talk!

Other than that, I think President-Elect Trump needs no advise from me."



Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Grandma Clinton's Private Server

If You Wanted to Destroy Conservatism

by Noah Rothman

If you wanted to destroy conservatism – not merely to shatter the Republican Party’s governing coalition, but to break up and discredit the conservative movement itself – how would you go about it?

First, you would have to begin by dismantling its most cherished assumptions. Foremost among them is perhaps that the United States of America is a center-right nation. Only the most cynical would judge the country’s political orientation by the affiliations of its president or, for that matter, its governors or the politicians who make up the majority in its legislatures. The foundation of the presumption that America is a conservative nation is in the values of its peoples.

The notion that the United States is, at root, a conservative nation rests in the belief that its people are hearty, noble, and industrious. That they cherish hard work and believe productivity and inventiveness deserve to be rewarded over accidents of birth. That Americans do not believe the public sector should be the font from which spring, but that the people are the primary sources of compassion and altruism. You would attack the notion that conservatives believe, above all else, in the preservation of every privilege enshrined into the Bill of Rights. And you would attack it by virtue of And you would attack it by virtue of your own example.

Then, you might undermine the central hypothesis at the core of the American experiment itself: that all the people can unite, not around tribal affinity or class associations, but around an idea. The idea, that mankind is fit for self-governance, and that it need not look toward a ruling caste of elites to manage national affairs. You might expose the central divisions within conservatism by exacerbating internal disagreements over the execution of American foreign policy objectives. You might suggest that the value of Fortress America is not merely the preservation of American security, but of meting out a sort of cosmic justice for those born into poverty, authoritarianism, and savagery abroad. Maybe those poor souls deserve their Hobbesian lot, you’d imply strongly. And the crowds would cheer.  

From here, you’d target the contradictions within the conservative governing coalition. You could stoke class consciousness and persecution complexes among those who have been left behind as a result of unstoppable global economic forces. You would nurture in them the idea that their unhappy fates were not of their own making. You would show the world conclusively that the economic program offered by countless conservative scions is not all that popular – even among conservatives. The curious subset to whom you have appealed would demonstrate their antipathy for basic conservative programs like small government, a private health care system, a reduced tax burden on the most productive sectors of society, frugality, and the moral imperative of bequeathing unto the next generation a manageable debt burden. You would marry class and racial suspicion with a program that promises even more unsustainable benefits, for which children not yet born will pay.  

Having made virtues of consumption and extravagance, you would then seek to short-circuit the conservative movement’s moral compass. You might pay lip service to scruples, but you would also compel your followers to defend your own excesses. You would deemphasize the importance of private property rights, and, in doing so, reject among the most animating beliefs of the nation’s Founders. You would compel opportunistic faith leaders to join you, even as you demonstrate the hollowness of their allegedly principled belief in the sanctity of marriage or the incontestable idea of all God’s children deserve the the gift of life.

You would promote vanity. You would sow conflict and disunity. You would destigmatize crassness and vulgarity, and you would flirt with the notion that violence is an acceptable tool to achieve political ends.

You would never forgive. You would always harbor grudges, and you would threaten and seek vengeance for even the most minor of perceived slights. You would surround yourself with like-minds who place little value in the art of refined communication, and you would make hypocrites of the conservative movement’s heroes.  

Finally, you would destroy the conservative movement’s last pillars of unity: its common media. You would pit its intellectual leaders against its most captivating orators. “Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal,” one of conservatism’s beloved communicators might say. You would succeed where the most divisive presidential administration in living memory failed and target the only bastion of true conservative thought on the cable dial. You and your supporters would make allies of those who do not have the conservative movement’s best wishes at heart, while turning your supporters against those who do.

When you were through, you would have rendered the conservatism a political orientation guided not by undying ideas but by one infinitely fallible man. Whether or not you win something as trite as an election, you would have succeeded where so many thousands had failed. You would have destroyed the American conservative movement.

But why would anyone want to go and do that?

[Commentary Magazine]

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Leonardo DiCaprio Offered Role As Vladimir Lenin in Russian Propaganda Movie

Russia's 'Lenfilm' film studio has responded to Leonardo DiCaprio's statement of interest in playing a Russian public figure by offering to collaborate with the actor in a film about everyone's favorite Commie, Vladimir Lenin.

Bernie Sanders supporters in Hollywood must be excited.

While Little Leo's Oscar snubs have become the butt of a long-standing joke, many predict that he'll finally take home a gold statue for his two and a half hour grunting session  in 'The Revenant '.  And his nominated performance hasn't gone unnoticed by our Russia friends, who  seemed to have liked watching Leo freeze his ass off trying to get noticed.

Sputnik 
St. Petersburg based studio'Lenfilm' has offered Leonardo DiCaprio the chance to star as a young Vladimir Lenin in a film about the revolutionary, after the actor gave an interview where he expressed interest in portraying Lenin, Rasputin or Russian President Vladimir Putin. Leonardo DiCaprio is often compared to Lenin in his youth. We have enough scenery and props to recreate the era of the revolution," Lenfilm spokesman Valeriy Karlov  
The Lenfilm studio is the oldest in Russia, which traces its roots back to 1914 when a local military committee in St. Petersburg started making films. In 1918 the studio expanded to become the St. Petersburg Film Committee and opened 68 cinemas in the city; after two decades it was renamed 'Lenfilm.'


On Sunday DiCaprio, who has recently received his sixth Oscar nomination for his role in 'The Revenant,' told German newspaper Welt on Sonntag that he would like to play Vladimir Putin in a film someday. 
According to Leo, we’ll all be underwater in a few hundred years, but at least he’s making international relations less hostile for the short time humankind has left.

No word out of Hollywood if any of the famous show business lefties have expressed interest in playing any of the hundreds of thousands killed during the ruthless Lenin Regime......  

Monday, January 25, 2016

Can you believe that we’re both sitting in this Oval Office?

Some talentless rapper named Kendrick Lamar and Barack Obama shared a powerful moment at the White House 
“Can you believe that we’re both sitting in this Oval Office?”

The first black president and a prominent(?)rapper were recently pondering the power of their positions. To understand the significance of the moment, look no further than Lamar’s critically acclaimed sophomore album, “To Pimp A Butterfly.” Immediately notable is the subversive cover art featuring the Compton, California, rapper in front of the White House, surrounded by a bloc of young black men, pulsating a jubilant, defiant black energy. The group crowds around a dead white judge with a gavel in his hand, symbolizing the criminal justice system.



Enjoy it while you can you no-talent Scumbag. It will be a long time before there will be one who looks like you to sit in the Leaders Chair after what your America loathing boy Barack has done to help bring out the worst in your race, and done to the country. 


Creaming For Bernie


A Good Monday Morning

Saturday, January 23, 2016

ObamaCare to Rollout Auction Surgeries To Lowest Bidder

MFNS - With concerns over rising health care cost and outrageous insurance premium hikes, a new voluntary addition to the ObamaCare reform act to help keep cost manageable has been announced by HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and a White House committee on Health Care headed by Vice President Joe Biden. 

"Let Us Help Us" (LUHU) would create a health care auction house, where everything from simple dental procedures and mental health counseling to organ transplantation could be submitted and bid on. A person with a high deductible looking to lower the cost of a procedure like having their gall bladder removed, could fill out an online form and have any number of bids to sift through within a matter of minutes.

"We call it Let Us Help Us, and we think it will revolutionize the way we seek health care in this country," Rep. Billy Long (D-MO) one of the initiative's authors, told reporters at a press conference. "It embraces the essence of the free market system, without the oppressive hand of government regulation Republicans whine about so much.

"It's like eBay for sick folks. This is a real neighbor helping neighbor system we've developed, and it could be a real boon to veterinarians, and some non-health care professionals with special skills to help take up the slack and make a few bucks on the side," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal), another LUHU supporter.


"People looking to help the sick will be able to search the LUHU website by malady, region, even keyword," noted Sen. Boxer. "We envision neighbors teaming up with neighbors to create co-ops to heal the sick. How much good could a seamstress/wood carver/sausage stuffer co-op achieve helping America's growing trans-gender community by doing sex change operations?  With this addition to ObamaCare, we'll find out."

Reaction to the Democrat public option plan has been mixed, with 23% of those polled suggesting they'd take up arms to see it implemented. A less-vocal majority have expressed some concern over farming their health care out to the lowest  bidder.

"I bought a lamp on eBay last year, and that thing sucked," said one woman. "It looked great online, though. Do I really want to trust my hip replacement to a system like that?"

Others see benefits in the open market approach the Democrats have laid out.

"I'm hoping they let illegal Mexicans in the program. That only seems fair, to let them illegals in," said Dr. Shabang X,  personal physician to Leader of the Nation of Islam,  Louis Farrakhan . "I'd be low bid, man. Ever' time."

The first test for the Democrats public option plan will come later this week, when the plan's authors will meet with insurance company CEOs to try and shore up support among Blue Dog and other moderate democrats. With sufficient backing, the 'Let Us Help Us' marketplace could be instituted later this year.

Former NYC Mayor Bloomdouche Contemplates Presidential Run

Just What We Need, Another Wealthy Leftist Crackpot Who Wants to Be King 

NYT- Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus to his presidential aspirations.

Mr. Bloomberg, 73, has already taken concrete steps toward a possible campaign, and has indicated to friends and allies that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his fortune on it, according to people briefed on his deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his plans. He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

He has retained a consultant to help him explore getting his name on those ballots, and his aides have done a detailed study of past third-party bids. Mr. Bloomberg commissioned a poll in December to see how he might fare against Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, and he intends to conduct another round of polling after the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9 to gauge whether there is indeed an opening for him, according to two people familiar with his intentions.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Pentagon Unable to Explain How $800 Million Program in Afghanistan Failed


ACC- Nobody knows where all the money went. The guy running the program said he just approved projects without having any idea how much they were going to cost.

Nothing like having a pile of taxpayer money to play with I say. No need to be exact. Hell, no need to even be remotely competent apparently. Just write those checks and dump them into that giant hole in the Kandahar Desert.
“Founding director Paul Brinkley told SIGAR that as TFBSO director, he approved programs without knowing what they would cost… Since April 2015, DOD has stated that since Congress ended funding for TFBSO, the Department does not have the expertise, authority, or funding to respond to investigations related to TFBSO activities in Afghanistan,” reports Bronstein. “DOD’s responses to SIGAR requests since March 2015 raises a question whether TFBSO operated independent of any internal DOD management and oversight.”
“The stated failure of the Department to retain any institutional knowledge, and its apparent failure to seek input from what institutional knowledge remained at DOD, indicates a fundamental lack of planning that has resulted in adverse effects on oversight and accountability” he adds. “This failure inhibits oversight of the activities of a Task Force that obligated approximately $760 million.”  
Of the nearly $823 million that Congress had appropriated since 2009 for the program in Afghanistan as of September 30, 2015, nearly $760 million was obligated and about $640 million has been disbursed.

Fishnet Friday

Thursday, January 21, 2016

The Kookiest Idea Yet For Getting Guns Off the Streets

ACC - A new idea being pushed by gun control advocates hellbent in their beliefs that firearms, not the criminals who use them, are the real dangers to society has pushed the limits of absurdity to all new levels.

Officials in Tacoma, Washington want people to drop off guns the same way we drop of library books. By placing gun “drop boxes” into residential neighborhoods –specifically away from police presence– the city hopes that the lack of police oversight will encourage people turn in guns.

No, this is not a joke. The world of stupid ideas is stacked with notables, but its entirely possible this one may take home the All-Time Champion award.


Tacoma Police Chief Don Ramsdell defended the idea saying:
“The main intent and goal is just to get these weapons off the streets.”
Melissa Cordeiro, Gang Reduction Project Coordinator for Tacoma, also defended the idea stating: 
“It takes out the up-front interaction with law enforcement. They would just have to drop the gun off and later law enforcement would swing by and pick it up out of the drop box.” 
Commentary from the sane side of the isle has chimed in too. Tacoma Police Union President Sgt. Jim Barrett made (obvious) observations about the usefulness of the boxes:
“Are we really expecting these people to walk down the street to this drop box, with the gun tucked in their shorts, and drop it off?” he asked, “It doesn’t seem to me to be a well thought-out process as of right now.” 
The amount of lunacy and number of flaws surrounding this idea are too numerous to count, but here’s a few:

Expecting a criminal, someone who uses a gun for illegal activity, to simply turn theirs in thereby diminishing their own job performance prospects is ludicrous. It’s like asking an Uber driver to turn in their oil filter, yes you can still go to work but you just voluntarily made things a lot harder on yourself. Even if the idea were realistic the criminal could sell, pawn or find another way to get rid of the gun in exchange for money or something of value as opposed to just voluntarily giving it away.

Legal gun owners would also opt to sell their firearms instead of just throwing them away. For those convinced this idea would take off the streets — in what universe is placing a box full of guns somewhere away from police eyes a good idea? So here you’d have a box, no matter how secure, that criminals know:
a) Has guns in it
b) Has specifically been placed in an area void of police (to encourage people to use the box)
Talk about “lead me not into temptation". Ideas this bad don’t come around everyday but when they do you can bet your bottom dollar on this; they’re the brainchildren of liberal politicians and bureaucrats who are driven by their ideological notions of a utopian society.