0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Last week I reported to you that Judicial Watch had received mission expense records and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama’s family vacation to Africa. Per the documents, we calculated that the total cost to American taxpayers was $424,142 for the flight and crew alone. Other expenses, such as off-flight food, transportation, security, etc. were not included. Well, shortly after our documents were splashed all over the news, the Obama White House responded. As you might expect, they did not concede the cost of the trip. In fact, they said we got it wrong.“The number stated is misconstrued and out of context,” said an unnamed White House senior official.That is utter disinformation.We came up with our number based on specific directions given to us by the United States Air Force!As you will recall, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force to get hold of documents related to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s abuse of military aircraft. On January 3, 2011, we received a letter from the Air Force that explains how to calculate the fuel costs for military travel. Here is the relevant excerpt:Our office was provided 100 pages of responsive records from the 89th Airlift Wing (A W) at Andrews AFB; however, they do not have records specifically related to the fuel costs incurred for Ms. Pelosi's transportation. The 89A W Public Affairs office provided the following link to the OSD Comptroller public website at: http://comptroller.defense.gov/rates/fv2011.html where, along with the aircraft type and hours flown, you can determine the approximate cost per flight. The releasable documents attached contain the type of aircraft and hours flown.Example: Mission # 16888 shows ETE (Estimated Time Enroute) as 05+45 (5 hours and 45 minutes) and return flight was 4 hours and 45 minutes. The Aircraft type was C3 7, found on page two. Go to link: Change Fiscal Year to 2010, find Air Force heading, then locate C-7A under Type. Cost per hour is $1623.00. Therefore, 10 hours would = $16230.00. The hourly costs are derived from various charges, to include local maintenance, depot maintenance, personnel, etc.We used this exact same formula to calculate the cost of Michelle Obama’s trip. So if the White House has a beef over the numbers, it’s with the U.S. Air Force, not us. But really this response has nothing to do with the numbers.Regarding the nature of the trip, the unnamed senior White House official also argued “against any suggestion that this trip was a vacation,” noting there were 5-7 official events each day. But was it really necessary for Michelle Obama to bring her daughters, niece, nephew and mother on this “official” trip (or a separate make-up and hair stylist, for that matter)? What role did any of them play in helping to advance the business of the United States? Would the entire mission have been at risk if Michelle Obama had not brought her extended family along for the ride or for the safari?"
I want a f**king reporter to ask Jay Carney when the Obama daughters became "Senior Staff", and what their role is as senior staff members.That is nothing short of fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars. They expect us to turn a blind eye because it's the president's children. Fraud is fraud.
“The number stated is misconstrued and out of context,” said an unnamed White House senior official.
It's our fault to let them have this much rope in the first place. That plane is for official use only. She holds no title in our government and therefore should fly commercial on her dime.
...First Ladies often do represent the country in official gatherings or on trips. And, yes, a First Lady has been known to go off on her own at government expense....
Quote from: John Florida on October 08, 2011, 05:09:16 PMIt's our fault to let them have this much rope in the first place. That plane is for official use only. She holds no title in our government and therefore should fly commercial on her dime.You know, honestly? I think that's a little overboard, JF. First Ladies often do represent the country in official gatherings or on trips. And, yes, a First Lady has been known to go off on her own at government expense. So I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I will say, what with the extreme extravagance disdainfully displayed by our royal couple, the haughty Michelle Antoinette and Louis XVI, towards us peasants, the Obamas have taken grifting to a whole 'nother level: They've grifted an entire first world country. And like the movie Paper Moon, they use their two Senior Staff kids in the con.
One thing that hopefully will be said about the Øbongo's - they supplied the incentive to redefine propriety. In typical tu quoque fashion the left says that they haven't done anything that anyone else hasn't also done. I don't know that this is true but I do know that they took advantage of every opportunity and stretched the envelope further than anyone has ever done before.They are the very definition of wretched excess.I suspect that there will be new guidelines that walk some of these back to something more closely approaching responsibility and a sense of decency (both of which totally absent with the Øbongo's) that future presidents and their families will have to live with.
It's a Reuter's photo so in order to view you've got to click the link. It's worth it. Click then scroll down just a tiny bit.http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Angela+Merkel&view=detail&id=60F083E50C2C36361CDA62B8DCA3B029ED7009C1&first=181&qpvt=Angela+Merkel&FORM=IDFRIR
Quote from: Alphabet Soup on October 09, 2011, 09:14:13 AMOne thing that hopefully will be said about the Øbongo's - they supplied the incentive to redefine propriety. In typical tu quoque fashion the left says that they haven't done anything that anyone else hasn't also done. I don't know that this is true but I do know that they took advantage of every opportunity and stretched the envelope further than anyone has ever done before.They are the very definition of wretched excess.I suspect that there will be new guidelines that walk some of these back to something more closely approaching responsibility and a sense of decency (both of which totally absent with the Øbongo's) that future presidents and their families will have to live with.I'm cross posting this:Quote from: Charles Oakwood on October 08, 2011, 07:34:36 PMIt's a Reuter's photo so in order to view you've got to click the link. It's worth it. Click then scroll down just a tiny bit.http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Angela+Merkel&view=detail&id=60F083E50C2C36361CDA62B8DCA3B029ED7009C1&first=181&qpvt=Angela+Merkel&FORM=IDFRIRhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buffalo%20butt
Yes, and within propriety, one would expect her to wear a slip.
