TheStupidItHurts: What Liberals Think About – II

My good friend, the Liberal, allows the following:

Where’s those trump tax returns? 

Veterans’ Charities Say Trump Hasn’t Handed Out Donations

The two questions at-hand are Trump’s tax returns and the donations given to TheTrumpster when he skipped the January 2016 Republican debate in order to stump for vets.

In the first installment, we asked the question why Liberal’s have the odd desire to view a political candidate’s tax returns before an election and in doing so we proved the hypocrisy of the Liberal’s view of taxation in general. Contrary to the rhetoric of Liberals, in their practice, as evidenced by Bernie Sanders’ tax returns, the Liberal does everything he can possibly do to reduce his own taxable income, while piously proclaiming that the rest of us should not.

Now we’ll take on the Trump charity “issue”.

So, according to the Time article cited above by my good friend, TheLiberal, as of 04/08/2016 the following is true:

Almost $4 million raised by Donald Trump’s campaign at a veterans’ charity fundraising event in January has yet to be distributed to the intended recipients, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper contacted 19 of the 22 veterans’ charities to which Trump promised to donate the proceeds, and found that only about $2.4 million of the $6 million raised has been distributed.

Now on April 22 we hear from the Daily Beast:

In the lead:

Three months ago Donald Trump held a fundraiser for wounded veterans and apparently raised $6 million. But most of that money has yet to be distributed and Trump’s chairman for veterans issues couldn’t care less.

And the opening paragraph:

Trump campaign’s adviser for veterans issues can’t account for $6 million raised for veterans charities by the billionaire—and from the sounds of it, couldn’t care less.

Already it’s clear the author contradicts himself. First we’re told that “most of” the $6 million raised has yet to be distributed (which obviously presupposes some of it has), but then in the next paragraph we’re asked to believe that the Trump organization can’t account for any of the $6 million. So in this case we’re asked to believe that both some and none of the donations have been accounted for.

Does this sound reasonable to you? How is it possible that both some and none of the $6 million raised can be accounted for?

Moving on in the article body:

Questions have lingered about whether that money has actually been dispense [sic] to those charities—since the fundraiser, numerous media organizations have investigated whether the charities have received the $6 million. The investigations span the ideological spectrum: the progressive MSNBC and the conservative Weekly Standard have been unable to find all the funds; as have The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and The Daily Beast. 

The money simply hasn’t been found.

Ok now according to the author it would appear that the entire $6 million is lost yet again somewhere in Trump’s vast empire. Or is it? The author does throw in a quick  “all the funds” there after his link to the Weekly Standard piece, so we’re not sure. We’re led to believe that whether $6M or part of it, the “money simply hasn’t been found”.


Maybe the very next paragraphs can clear up any further contradiction on the author’s part:

In early March, CNN was able to track down $2.9 million, citing the Trump campaign. In early April, The Wall Street Journal traced $2.4 million of the promised funds.

What these investigations have yielded is a solid conclusion that, thus far, Donald Trump and his nonprofit have dispensed, at maximum, about half of the $6 million to the listed beneficiaries. Nearly three months—85 days—have passed since the fundraiser.

Whew! It would seem we’ve finally gotten somewhere, but I’m pooped after the ride! After going round and round the winding road losing and finding our funds at least twice in our own article we now have a “solid conclusion” that about $3 million of the $6 million, or about half of it, has been dispensed.

Why couldn’t the author just start off with the facts? Is it because the facts aren’t quite capable of pushing the theme the author wants to push? It’s much harder to steer your reader into hating Trump for not giving money to veterans by telling them right off the bat that $3 million has been given to veterans isn’t it? First we need to push the narrative that the poor veterans have received nothing. First we need to push the narrative that evil Trump has pocketed all that money that belongs to those poor veterans. All that money they wouldn’t have were it not for him in the first place.

What’s going on with $3.2 of the $6 million Trump raised for veterans? Do critics have a point here?

Initial questions:

  1. Why weren’t all the charities contacted by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)?
  2. How long is too long to distribute charitable funds?
  3. Are Liberals justified in criticizing Trump compared to their actions against veterans?

As to question #1:

I have to wonder why the WSJ declined to contact 3 of the charities involved in the event? Maybe they have some, all or none of the money, but how do we know anything until they’re asked? Did the others ask all of the charities involved? If not, why not? Is it unreasonable to suggest that if we’re going to query those charities targeted to benefit from any event as to whether they’ve received funds that we should query all of them?

As to question #2:

Is there a standard by which all charitable events are judged as to when funds raised at such events are to be distributed? If so, what is that standard, who decides and where is it published?

According to our author:

Charity watchdog groups have urged Trump and his organizations to swiftly account for the funds they promised to veterans groups. 

“Groups that hold fundraisers for charities should distribute the funds to those charities as rapidly as possible. By not doing so it delays aid or assistance to people in need of help and increases the risk that these funds get diverted to something other than their intended use,” said Daniel Borochoff, the president of CharityWatch. 

Ok, but maybe the funds are being distributed “as rapidly as possible”. What does “as rapidly as possible” mean? Do different organizations have different procedures, methods, etc., for dispensing funds to their respective charities?

Missing from Mr. Borochoff’s statement is some clear definition of “as rapidly as possible”. Is he not defining it because it would be difficult to define a standard for the tens of thousands of organizations that exist and how they individually dispense funds to their respective charities according to their varying procedures?

Any delay here isn’t going to do any additional harm to any veteran over and above what was already going to happen if Trump never had the event in the first place is it? And “increasing the risk that funds get diverted to something other than their intended use” doesn’t mean anything until it actually happens. A “risk” isn’t an “actual”. We have no evidence that an “actual” has occurred, hence no reason to believe the supposed “increased risk” is really a problem.

“A highly publicized event such as Trump’s fundraiser for veterans charities ought to disclose within a few months what it has done with the funds that it has raised.”

Okay why does the level of publicity have any bearing on disclosure? What if the event is not highly publicized? Does this mean that those organizations sponsoring less publicized events have more than “a few months” to disclose what they did with funds? And disclose to whom? The Wall Street Journal? The Daily Beast?

“The charities should at least have been told when they can expect to receive the money!” said Sandra Miniutti, a vice president at Charity Navigator, a watchdog group. “Given the publicity surrounding the event, I believe timely delivery of the donations is in order.” 

Should the individual charities have been told when they can expect to receive funds? Why? If I’m giving you something how is it justified, much less polite for you to ask, “when”?

And like Mr. Borochoff, Ms. Miniutti argues that publicity is the standard by which timely delivery of the donations to any charity are judged. Does that make sense to you? If publicity alone is the standard then it would seem to follow that unpublicized events presuppose untimely delivery of donations, yet no one would try to make this argument.

Furthermore, wouldn’t the donors themselves be the ones who should complain if there’s a complaint to be made? They’re the ones who shelled out the money after all. Are they complaining? Did the Wall Street Journal donate? The Weekly Standard? The Daily Beast? If not, who asked them to get involved in the first place? Are they getting involved perhaps for their own reasons that may have nothing at all to do with the welfare of veterans?

At this point if a smell test were to be applied here wouldn’t the thinking man’s nose begin to crinkle just a tiny bit at that distinctive, “Odor de Liberal” fragrance which seems to be ever so slightly beginning to waft about the nostrils?

What do we really know, if anything? What are the most rational conclusions we can draw based on the available evidence versus mere speculation and inference based on the desire to push our own narrative?

Based on the available evidence, we know that about half of the money donated at the event has been distributed. We also know that of those employees of charity watchdog groups who are willing to comment their strongest argument offers nothing more than a generalized conclusion based on a suspicious premise.

The author, Ms. Miniutti and Mr. Borochoff can believe whatever they like, but offering belief by faith as evidence convinces no thinking man.

As to question# 3:

Does being late in distributing $3 million of $6 million in donations have anything on murdering these poor men? How does my good friend, TheLiberal, criticize Trump for giving $3 million of $6 million when those of his ilk, i.e., Liberals, have systematically murdered veterans for no other reason than to make themselves look good?

“Murder” you say? “Isn’t that a bit harsh”, you say?

Judge for yourself, the evidence is below. If it had only been once, e.g., at the Phoenix center, I might have offered a manslaughter charge were I the prosecutor. But it isn’t once. It’s systematic. Nothing has changed since 2014 when the scandal came to light. Despite the flapping Liberal gums that something was going to be done, nothing has been done.

That’s no longer an accident, no longer manslaughter, but premeditated murder.

As an individual with a veteran in my family greatly suffering, in my opinion, as a direct result of the lack of concern and care for them by the Obama administration, I would humbly request any Liberal looking to criticize Donald Trump for his actions kindly not do so in my hearing. I would prefer to avoid the devastation that could follow. And so would you.

Just do us a favor and shut up.

Shut…up…when it comes to veterans you pathetic, murdering, monsters. You don’t have the moral authority. How dare you self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites speak a single word against anyone for anything having to do with any United States veteran when you have allowed so many of these honorable men and women to die on your watch, then and now.

FU, Liberals…FU!

The Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014 is a reported case of negligence in the treatment of United States military veterans. CNN reported on April 30, 2014 that at least 40 United States Armed Forces veterans died while waiting for care at the Phoenix, ArizonaVeterans Health Administration facilities. By June 5, 2014, Veterans Affairs internal investigations had identified 35 veterans who had died while waiting for care in the Phoenix VHA system.[1] 

More than 1,000 veterans may have died in the last decade because of malpractice or lack of care from Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, a new report issued by the office of Sen. Tom Coburn finds. 

The report aggregates government investigations and media reports to trace a history of fraudulent scheduling practices, budget mismanagement, insufficient oversight and lack of accountability that have led to the current controversy plaguing the VA. 

The VA has admitted that 23 patients have died because of delayed care in recent years, but the report, titled “Friendly Fire: Death, Delay, and Dismay at the VA,” shows many more patient deaths have been linked to systemic issues affecting VA hospitals and clinics throughout the U.S.

Mr. Bradfield raised issues with management about practices such as improperly stored medicine and used syringes, poor performance by other employees and other instances of bullying in the workplace prior to being removed from patient care and forced to sit idle in the library. 

The VA has long been criticized for retaliating against those who bring to light practices it would rather not address publicly. Last month, a House oversight subcommittee on oversight and investigations hearing aired charges of continued whistleblower retaliation within the VA.

Just one person has been fired by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the wake of the scandal — though investigators found more than 100 VA facilities kept secret waiting lists that left veterans struggling to get the treatment they deserved. 

“What the hell happened to the rest of them?” Mr. Boehner said on the floor of the House, saying the looming Memorial Day holiday should be a time for Mr. Obama to revisit the issue and get a grip on things at the struggling agency. “It’s arrogance, and it’s arrogance that allows our veterans to be lied to, ignored, and frankly, left to die.”

Christian DeJohn, an Army veteran and VA employee who has blown the whistle on mismanagement in the Philadelphia office, said the agency has been engaging in “symbolic gestures” but still fails to hold managers accountable for problems such as fraud and employee retaliation.

The number of veterans seeking health care but ending up on waiting lists of one month or more is 50 percent higher now than it was a year ago when a scandal over false records and long wait times wracked the Department of Veterans Affairs, The New York Times reported.

Over the last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been repeatedly cited for waste, fraud, abuse and theft that took valuable tax dollars away from veterans, many who are still waiting in long backlogs to get benefits decisions. 

The examples are jaw-dropping, starting with the a memo that surfaced in March by the VA’s chief procurement officer, Jan. R. Frye, who went public with a stunning admission that the VA likely wastes $6 billion a year on unnecessary contracts, purchases and services.

On Veterans Day President Obama will lay a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery and talk about his administration’s progress in caring for vets, but critics of the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs point to fresh scandals and persistent mismanagement as proof that little has changed.

If you thought the Obama administration had put its problems with veterans behind it, think again.

 Two years after the scandal emerged over phony waiting lists for patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs facility in Phoenix, the department is still beset with problems ranging from fresh accusations of falsified waiting lists to a system-wide failure to discipline wrongdoing.

 “The VA is still struggling with a lack of accountability, an inability to properly manage a budget rapidly approaching $200 billion, and a failure to provide veterans with timely access to care and benefits,” said John Cooper, a spokesman for Concerned Veterans for America. “The VA is broken, and if we want veterans to be assured of a VA that works, we need to systemically reform it.”

Senior Republican lawmakers called Friday for more changes at the Department of Veterans Affairs after internal investigations found widespread falsifying of patient wait times at 40 VA medical facilities in 19 states and Puerto Rico.

 The VA’s inspector general has released two years of reports totaling 70 investigations, finding that VA supervisors ordered employees to cook the books on wait times regularly, despite a promised crackdown on mismanagement and data manipulation by Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald. In some cases, investigators found that VA facilities had been falsifying records for a decade.

A top House Republican criticized the Department of Veterans Affairs Tuesday for persistently misleading the public and Congress on the amount of time veterans must wait to receive health care.

 House Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller, Florida Republican, said the VA is still manipulating its records and failing to hold employees accountable for inaccurate record keeping, two years after a scandal hit the agency over phony waiting lists and veterans who died awaiting care.

 “Two years after what was and is a systemic crisis in care being brought to light, it is time for VA to stop using misleading data to tout wait times successes that simply do not show the real wait time experience of veterans,” Mr. Miller said at an oversight hearing.


This entry was posted in Hypocrisy, Liars and Lying. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply