Ground Zero Imam Travels on Uncle Sam’s Nickel!

"The State Department will be footing the bill for Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the controversial ground zero mosque, as he embarks on a tour of the Middle East.

Plans for the $100 million mosque have drawn strong criticism from 9/11 families, as well as prominent figures such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

Rauf personally has become controversial because he refuses to acknowledge Hamas is a terrorist group and for his stated belief U.S. foreign policy partly was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The trip’s announcement Monday raises concerns Rauf will be taking advantage of taxpayer dollars to raise money for the divisive project. But the State Department says the publicly funded trip intends to foster “greater understanding” about Muslim communities in the United States."

WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS??

We already HAVE a "greater understanding about Muslim communities in the United States", and that understanding is that those communities are a potential threat to the security of our nation. Perhaps the trip is meant to "foster greater understanding about Muslim communities in the United States" among ARAB nations. If that's the case, then let Feisal Abdul Rauf pay for his own trip! Why should you and I have our tax dollars squandered on a junket for somebody who wishes us nothing but ill-will?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE BUREAUCRACY IN WASHINGTON D.C.?

Obama's Motto

AIG Receives $173 BILLION Bailout, Pays $165 MILLION in Executive Bonusues

But the government is unclear what, if anything, they can do to cut the bonuses since the contracts seem legally binding. Contracts? Was there a contract with the people of the United States that said "We will bail you out if you fail?" No, there was not! The standard, but unwritten contract that exists between the people, or the government, and any "for profit" business, is: "If you fail, you go under. Tough noogies! You didn't share your profits with us, dont expect us to share your losses."

Can anybody tell me of one time in history when financial failure was rewarded with public money? The difference between today's bailout of numerous organizations, and the Chrysler bailout of 1980, is that the Chrysler bailout of 1980 was a government loan which, under Lee Iacocca's leadership, was repaid in 1983.

Is this current bailout a loan? I have yet to hear the word "loan" used in any sentence containing the word "bailout" thusfar. Let's assume it is a loan ... has anybody ever seen a lender that doesn't set the conditions of the loan being made? Is our government so incompetent, that with the legal minds of the entire Department Of Justice at their disposal, they failed to set those conditions? Conditions such as: "No company funded vacations or retreats for so long as the loan is in force and carries an outstanding balance."; "No expenditures for transportation beyond the cost of a business class seat, on a regularly scheduled commercial airline flight to the destination, or beyond the cost of an economy rental car while at the destination."; "Per diem will be reimbursed at the prevailing military rate of $70 for lodging and $39 for meals and incidentals and accommodations at the destination city will not exceed those rated as 3-star."; "Any and all contractual references to bonuses, scheduled pay increases, and severance pay (Golden Parachutes) are, effective this date, null and void, and without continuing effect."; "Effective immediately and throughout the active life of this loan agreement, the salaries of the CEO and CFO are to be no more than 1% of the net profit shown by the company. Other executive salaries are not to exceed $75,000 per annum, and all union employees will take an immediate 25% cut in pay. Non-union employees will be paid no more than 90% of the new union wage for similar jobs and years of service.", and so on! Where does it say that recipients of a public bailout must be allowed to continue amassing business, operating, and labor expenses as usual? That's what got them into financial distress in the first place! Where is it written that once they receive bailout funds, they can spend them in any manner they desire? It is only "written" when reasonable conditions are unwritten! Our government, by failing to specify conditions for use of the bailout money, thereby failed to protect our investment in the future of these - now (technically) "publicly owned" - corporate entities.

When did it become incumbent upon the taxpayers to reward corporate mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility?

I must have not seen that memo ... did you?