Monday, 12 December 2016
Have you ever wondered exactly how those so-called progressives really act? How they exercise their sense of entitlement? How they spend our money? How they look after one another using our money?
Well here are two examples from the hundreds of thousands, the millions, out there.
First, let’s consider the infamous Tony Blair and his never-ending personal cupidity. This man is the archetype of those who live in the fantasy la-la land that ‘progressives’ inhabit, but he is also adept at raiding the public purse whenever he thinks that he can get away with it:
“Boris Johnson has knocked back a bid from Tony Blair for more resources amid alarm at the taxpayer's £3million annual bill for the former PM.
Mr Blair is understood to have been racking up huge costs in expenses and security as he tours the world on his various projects.
Sources said the millionaire ex-premier presented a request for more resources at a private meeting with the Foreign Secretary - who is responsible for signing off spending for dignitaries - in October.”
Three million pounds! Ye gods and little fishes! That’s disgraceful. No ex-Prime Minister should cost that much. It’s obscene. Reading on there’s this:
“Mr Blair receives a £115,000 a year allowance from the government for running his
The 63-year-old has also been receiving around £80,000 a year from a platinum-plated pension deal since the day he left office nine years ago.
A Government source told The Sun: 'Blair is costing us an awful lot of money, and nobody is clear exactly what he's achieving by it.
'We can't take it all away, as he's entitled as an ex-Prime Minister. But we can stop him from spending any more.
'Wanting diplomatic plates is also pretty outrageous, as that makes him look like a Government representative - which he is not.' “
Nice work if you can get it, eh?
Now consider how Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund who is demonstrably another mentally unstable inhabitant of la-la land and completely and utterly unfit for any public office, looks after her fellow ‘progressives’. Let’s just take one example:
“International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde went on trial today, accused of negligence for allowing the French government to give Adidas tycoon Bernard Tapie a £338million bailout.
The case revolves around a 403million euro (£338million) payout to tycoon Bernard Tapie over the botched sale of sportswear maker Adidas in the 1990s.
The amount of the award, agreed by an arbitration panel and confirmed by Lagarde, prompted indignation in France when it was revealed.
Investigators suspected the process was rigged in favour of Tapie, a business magnate and former owner of Olympique Marseille football team, who had close connections with political circles, including then President Sarkozy.
Lagarde is accused of 'serious negligence' that allegedly allowed other people in the case to commit a suspected major misappropriation of public funds.
Investigating judges say Lagarde committed a series of serious errors when she made the arbitration choice and when she refused to challenge the deal, suggesting she may have been influenced by the political connections between Tapie and Sarkozy, according to court documents.”
“...influenced by...” Don’t be silly. She was merely taking care of her friends and fellow ‘progressives’ by using the public purse. Where’s the harm in that?
“ 'Ms Lagarde's behaviour proceeds not only from a questionable carelessness and precipitation, but also from a conjunction of faults which, by their nature, number and seriousness, exceed the level of mere negligence,' the investigating judges wrote at the end of their investigation.”
But all that is just so much verbiage when one realises that Ms Lagarde is being tried in a special court. It’s called the ‘Court of Justice of the Republic’ and it’s a special court for government ministers. Can you believe it? These people are so entitled that they have to have their own courts! Naturally, this one is staffed by people who are other ‘progressives’ and guaranteed to understand the necessities of life as reckoned by the likes of Christine Lagarde. Incidentally, in front of that court Lagarde gave her name and address and salary - $450,000 (£355,000) a year. Boy-oh-boy, even a banker in the public sector gets a salary bigger than those given to most heads of government – nice work if you can get it, eh? It gets worse, however:
“A separate criminal investigation is looking into the case.
Tapie, his lawyer, one of the arbitrators and Lagarde's chief of staff at the ministry, Stephane Richard, now the CEO of the telecom company Orange, have all been notified of gang-related fraud charges.”
“...gang-related fraud.” I should say so, and it’s one of the biggest and most unscrupulous gangs on the planet. It’s the gang that raids tax payer provided funds (our money, yours and mine) without conscience or remorse because they are entitled to it and we should just shut the f___ up. It’s the gang that the arch liar Hillary Clinton belongs to. Its members call themselves ‘progressives’. I, and all other sensible people, call them criminals and embezzlers. What would you call them?
Posted on 12/12/2016 4:57 PM by John M. Joyce
13 Dec 2016
The difference between roast beef and pea soup? The first is what the "ins" require us to do for them, the second is what we are left to do for ourselves. Same as it ever was.
And Merry Christmas.