Until you have to pay for it:

Could the Detroit Institute of Arts’ billion dollar collection, including works by Van Gogh, Picasso and Matisse, be headed for the auction block to satisfy creditors of the financially troubled city?

…

Museum officials oppose the idea of a fire sale and say they have hired a bankruptcy attorney to suggest ways to protect the collection from possible losses. In a statement, the DIA said it and the city “hold the museum’s art collection in trust for the public” and that “the city cannot sell art to generate funds for any purpose other than to enhance the collection.”

According to Crain’s Detroit Business, a city report from 2004, when the DIA was still a city department, valued the art collection at more than $1 billion.

The city owns the Detroit Institute of Arts’ building and collection, while daily operations are overseen by a nonprofit.

What other city owns an art museum? New York? Chicago? Boston? I can’t think of one.

But however foolish and wasteful such an “investment” might have been for a bankrupt city, it’s a godsend. A billion-dollar windfall (probably more by now) without having to break a sweat?

Sold!

Of course, some overdue bills exact not a monetary cost, but a human one:

Gun owners could carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the last state in the nation to prohibit it, under legislation that swept through the House Friday with the backing of the powerful Democratic speaker from Chicago, a city torn by violence despite what critics claim are the nation’s toughest firearms restrictions.

Fox Butterfield, is that you?

The appeals court declared Illinois’ last-in-the-nation prohibition on public possession of weapons unconstitutional in December and gave lawmakers until June 9 to adopt a carry system.

The measure, sponsored by ardent gun-rights advocate Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from Harrisburg in deep southern Illinois, outlines a so-called “shall issue” law, meaning law enforcement officials would be required to issue permits to qualified gun owners. Only about 10 states, such as New York, have more restrictive “may issue” laws, which give police more discretion to deny permission.

Despite deep, conservative roots outside of Chicago accompanied by fervent support for the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, the Prairie State has for decades resisted a carry law because of gun-wary Windy City Democrats. The nation’s third-largest city is a leader in murders and violence despite what muscular restrictions on weaponry.

“Criminals are cowards,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a southern Illinois Republican. “If they know there’s an opportunity they’re going to get caught or get shot — because they don’t like a fair fight — they’re not going to commit the crime.”

That remains to be seen. But the liberal Democratic machine of Chicago has tried everything else—to the detriment of mostly young black men.

And, of course, the occasional young black woman:

Hadiya Pendleton, 1997(?) – 2013

You don’t have to look far.

If you think you’ve seen this film before, you have:

Egyptian film shines light on sexual harassment
By Catriona Davies, for CNN
April 6, 2011

A film lifting the lid on sexual harassment on the streets of Egypt is gaining plaudits around the world.

“Cairo 678″ tells the story of three fictional women from different backgrounds as they search for justice from daily sexual harassment.

One of them is sexually harassed by a group of men after a football match, another insists on taking her harasser to court despite pressure to drop her case and the third responds by stabbing harassers in the groin with the pin from her head scarf.

Several aspects of the film were drawn from real-life incidents, said the director, Egyptian Mohamed Diab.

“Three years ago there was the first reported case of gang sexual harassment,” he said. “An individual starts harassing a woman and others jump in and start doing it too.

“I was shocked and started researching it. I wanted to know why this was happening.”

He said one of the film’s actresses suffered real gang sexual harassment while the scenes were being shot.

The issue of sexual harassment in Egypt came to the attention of the world when CBS reporter Lara Logan was attacked in Cairo’s Tahrir Square after former president Hosni Mubarak stepped down. Other women reported incidents ranging from mild harassment to violent attacks.

A survey in 2008 by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights claimed that 98% of foreign women and 83% of Egyptian women in the country had been sexually harassed.

Diab said he was optimistic that attitudes were beginning to change since the revolution.

Ha-ha! Sucker!

From just last fall:

Campaigners in Egypt say the problem of sexual harassment is reaching epidemic proportions, with a rise in such incidents over the past three months. For many Egyptian women, sexual harassment – which sometimes turns into violent mob-style attacks – is a daily fact of life, reports the BBC’s Bethany Bell in Cairo.

Last winter, an Egyptian woman was assaulted by a crowd of men in the city of Alexandria.

In video footage of the incident, posted on the internet, she is hauled over men’s shoulders and dragged along the ground, her screams barely audible over the shouts of the mob.

As the poet might have written:

In the Arab Spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of groping.
It’s not a classy way to get laid, but, hey, there’s always hoping.

His enforcers, however, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—them I miss:

Donald Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary under Bush from 2001-2006, said Obama has “blamed the Bush administration for practically everything since he took office.”

…

Rumsfeld said the United States has not engaged terrorism ideologically in the same way it took on Communism during the Cold War.

“I gave us a D-minus, and I’m an easy grader. I would give this administration an F, because they won’t even use the words,” said Rumsfeld.

“Until today, I haven’t heard people use the word jihad. I haven’t heard the people in the Obama administration talk about the fact that there are people that are determined to kill innocent men, women, and children that are attacking the whole concept of the nation state,” said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld also took issue with Obama’s assertion that al Qaeda had “been gutted.”

“That just simply isn’t true. Al Qaeda is still effective. We have killed or captured any number of al Qaeda leadership, and they get replaced.

…

Drones were not started by the Obama administration; there were drone attacks during the Bush years as well.

“We had very few when I came into office. They were increased, and this administration has the benefit of those unmanned aerial vehicles,” said Rumsfeld.

But Rumsfeld said that it is a very tough issue, and agreed with Obama’s statement that the administration would consider options for making drone strikes more transparent, like an independent oversight board, or a special court to approve the attacks.

“Going to the Congress and discussing it with them and getting them on board for some policy – that makes sense to the American people, so that he has that kind of support. He will need it,” said Rumsfeld.

…

Rumsfeld said there is one particular rule he would give to Obama.

“When I was a Navy pilot, the rule if you’re lost is to climb, conserve, and confess. Get some altitude. Take a deep breath, and get on the radio and say, you’re lost,” said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld said the administration changes its tune “week after week after week, whether it’s Benghazi or whether it’s the Internal Revenue Service.”

“What you need to do is get the people in the office, sit them down, and find ground truth, because the currency a leader has is credibility,” said Rumsfeld.

President Obama has followed most of that advice. He got the people in the office, sat them down—and concocted a cover story. Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video, and the myriad abuses by the federal government happened because of a few rogue junior personnel. That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.

Watching Lois Lerner take the Fifth.

There has been a sixth night of rioting in Sweden’s capital, Stockholm, despite police reinforcements being deployed.

Cars were set alight in poor suburbs inhabited largely by immigrants, although the unrest was reportedly not as serious as on previous nights.

The rioting also spread outside the capital for the first time on Friday, with youths torching vehicles and buildings in two towns.

The US and UK meanwhile warned their citizens to avoid affected areas.

The UK Foreign Office advised people to stay away from large gatherings in the Stockholm suburbs of Husby, Hagsatra, Ragsved, Skogas, and to take care and monitor local reports.

The riots began on Sunday in Husby, a deprived, predominantly immigrant area in the north-west of the capital.

It is believed they were sparked by the death of an elderly man nearly a week before, who was shot by police after he allegedly threatened to kill them with a machete.

Those poor “immigrants”. Beset by violence not of their own making.

Unless:

Youth unemployment is especially high in neighborhoods such as the ones where the riots have taken place, home to asylum seekers from Iraq to Somalia, Afghanistan and Latin America.

About 15 percent of Sweden’s population is foreign born. While many are from neighboring Nordic countries, others are drawn by the country’s policy of welcoming asylum seekers from war-torn countries.

…

It was sparked by the fatal police shooting earlier this month of a 69-year man, reported by local media to be a Portuguese immigrant and suspected of wielding a large knife, in the Stockholm suburb of Husby.

Is Portugal “war-torn”? It wouldn’t surprise me, given that crazy language they speak. Who can understand a word they say? Misunderstandings are inevitable. I’m just not aware of any Battle of the Algarve.

I know Aggie covered this story yesterday, but it still puzzles me. It sounds like a smaller outbreak of the rioting “youths” in the banlieues of Paris in 2005. Maybe like locusts and cicadas, this is just a natural cycle. Youth larvae emerge from their sacs and start to feed off the environment: cars, shop windows, policemen, etc. I blame global warming.

But they do leave vacancies!

The woman responsible for completely removing references to terrorism from the Benghazi talking points has been nominated by President Obama to become an assistant secretary of state.

Victoria Nuland — the State Department spokeswoman who famously altered the talking points regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack — will become assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs if the nomination clears the Senate.

It’s a toxic nomination for the president to put forward, particularly as congressional Republicans hammer the administration for failures in readiness and response to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Yeah, I’d say so.

I’d also say this amounts to a big middle finger stuck in the face of every American who mourns the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi—on 9/11!

Forget the question we ask about terrorists: why do they hate us? Why does our own president hate us?

Anthony Weiner’s campaign for New York City mayor got off to an energetic, but bumpy, start this week after his campaign website briefly featured an image of the wrong city’s skyline — instead of showing the Big Apple, the website featured a shot of beautiful Pittsburgh.

A technology firm is taking the blame for the photo mix-up. NGP VAN, which does consulting work for Democratic campaigns, said in a statement that a designer simply used the wrong image.

What’s Pittsburgh’s nickname, the Big Banana?

Rush Limbaugh on the other hand…

RUSH: We had a bridge collapse, which kind of surprised me because, you know, we spent almost a trillion dollars to repair the bridges in America, and I remember the president talking about it.

Let’s go back. November 22nd, 2008. This is after the election. This is his weekly YouTube address. He wasn’t president yet, but he was president-elect. And he’s talking about his stimulus plan. This is leading up to the stimulus, which he would put in place a few months later.

OBAMA: There will be a two-year nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges.

RUSH: How’s that working out?

…

OBAMA: Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrading mass transit, building high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout our nation.

Wait, so where’d nearly a trillion dollars go? Well, boys and girls, once upon a time:

All of that money went to unions. All of that money went to teachers and other public employee unions during the recession to make sure they were not laid off. Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat voters. Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat donors. Eighty percent of the stimulus went to Democrat supporters.

None of it went to rebuild bridges and none of it went to rebuild roads and none of it went to rebuild schools. But back then it was exciting and everybody was filled with anticipation, because over 50% of the country bought into this. They believed it. They thought this was what’s gonna happen. They thought this was good. They thought this was the proper way to spend money. Especially to bring us out of economic doldrums. We’ve now know that the bulk of that money went to make sure unionized Democrats didn’t lose their jobs because unionized Democrats is a money laundering scheme. Teachers, other public employee unions pay dues.

Now, Obama just can’t go to the Treasury and write himself a $900 billion check for himself, the Democrat Party, for their campaign coffers. So what did they do? They wrote a check for $900 billion and told you they’re gonna rebuild roads and bridges and schools and levees and broadband connections and high-speed rail lines, and all they did was send it to states who then used it to keep their public employees working so that they continued to pay dues. And a percentage of that $900 billion check that Obama wrote came back to him and the Democrat Party in the form of campaign contributions. A fantastic, and never before described this way, money-laundering scheme.

Questions…? Yes, Sally…? Did any bridges get fixed?

Well…

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2009, 10:46 AM

Tens of thousands of unsafe or decaying bridges carrying 100 million drivers a day must wait for repairs because states are spending stimulus money on spans that are already in good shape or on easier projects like repaving roads, an Associated Press analysis shows.

President Barack Obama urged Congress last winter to pass his $787 billion stimulus package so some of the economic recovery money could be used to rebuild what he called America’s “crumbling bridges.” Lawmakers said it was a historic chance to chip away at the $65 billion backlog of deficient structures, often neglected until a catastrophe like the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed two years ago this Saturday.

States, however, have other plans. Of the 2,476 bridges scheduled to receive stimulus money so far, nearly half have passed inspections with high marks, according to federal data. Those 1,123 sound bridges received such high inspection ratings that they normally would not qualify for federal bridge money, yet they will share in more than $1.2 billion in stimulus money.

…

Repaving or widening roads requires less planning and can be done quickly, which is why such projects account for 70% of the $17 billion in transportation stimulus money approved so far. Bridge projects represent 12%.

The spending decisions by states are okay with the Obama administration.

Of course it was okay with them, what did they care? They got their cut.

File it with the myriad other examples of the Obama regime turning the government into a RICO outfit. Extortion, money laundering, union corruption, intimidation—Barack Obama, meet Al Capone. Two corrupt Chicago gang leaders brought down by tax abuses.

But earlier efforts by Team Obama suggest this was not a bug but a feature of this administration—and liberalism in general—from the beginning:

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”

AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer’s response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the “sham” AIP’s “illegal electoral purpose.”

Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”

The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign’s high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. “There’s going to be a reckoning here,” he had warned publicly. “It’s going to be rough—it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it’s at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions.”

Intimidating donors and voters during a campaign is bad enough—and very bad indeed—but continuing that intimidation with the machinery of government—not least the biggest and baddest of all government machinery, the IRS—is unconscionable.

And yet it happened. It was known by, and carried the seeming approval of, the people at the very top. Because this sort of behavior is in the very DNA of the contemporary Democrat Party.

Last week, and while under oath, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a House committee that when it comes to “try[ing] to prosecute the press for the publication of material” he has “never been involved in, heard of” such a thing.

Thursday, however, we learned that it was Holder who signed off on the application for a warrant to gain access to the private emails and phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen. In doing so, Holder labeled Rosen a co-conspirator to obtain classified material under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Out of one side of his mouth, and while under oath, Holder says he has never heard of anyone trying to prosecute the press for publishing material. Out of the other side of his mouth, Holder is accusing reporters of espionage on applications for subpoenas.
That statement and that action are awfully hard to reconcile.

So I doubt if anything will happen to him no matter what he says or does, because I believe the Constitution has been rendered null and void. But it is interesting to consider how dumb he apparently is.

- Aggie

- Aggie

Youth gang riots in the Swedish capital Stockholm have entered fifth straight night. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years.

At least six vehicles were torched throughout the city late on Thursday while the police called for reinforcements from other Swedish cities bracing for further unrest.

Firefighters were putting out flames that engulfed several cars and a school in immigrant-dominated areas of Stockholm.

Hmmm. I guess one can create terror with bombs packed with nails, with knives, even with matches!

Stockholm firefighters were busy throughout the night, saying they had “never before seen so many fires raging at the same time.” Some 90 blazes were reported in total, most of them reportedly caused by the rioters. Still, the fourth night of violence was relatively quiet compared to the previous three, RT’s Peter Oliver reported from Stockholm.

Leaders of immigrant communities were out on the streets in a bid to stop young people from rioting. Despite their efforts, as soon as the night fell, groups of arsonists took to the streets to set cars on fire.

Video at the link, if you care.

- Aggie

I heard a report on ObamaCare from Oakland, CA, about the cost of care for a forty year old person. The report said that it would be quite affordable, something like $300 per month and heavily subsidized for low income people. The report said that the coverage was excellent. And then the announcer said something to the effect that this report was made by “NPR partner, Kaiser Health Care”.

I found that to be concerning, if I understood it correctly. My understanding is that an “NPR partner” is basically what those of us living in the real world would call an advertiser. In other words, Kaiser gives NPR money and then NPR personalities say nice things about Kaiser, “thanks to our partners” blah, blah, blah. That’s what I thought, anyway. In that instance, it is relatively easy to tell the advertisements from the news.

But this piece was produced and sounded exactly like “news” at NPR. Does that mean that corporate entities can now purchase blocks of “news”, then use NPR talent, and the rest of us become confuses, accepting these ads as news? Because, if so, the Koch Brothers need to give NPR a few bucks and produce a few spots. This a a brave-new-world coming together of corporations and media and government, all in one sticky, blobby mess.

Or did I misunderstand?

- Aggie