Al Gore

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #31
The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities, including George Washington University's Cardiothoracic Institute and a charity for low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area, Capital Partners for Education.


Story Continues Below

The Cheneys' charitable generosity stands in marked contrast to that of their predecessors, whose sometimes stingy donations became a national embarrassment.

In 1997 for instance, Al and Tipper Gore contributed just $353 to charity, a sum that raised eyebrows even in friendly media circles.

The Los Angeles Times noted, for instance, that the Gores' slender donation "caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president's 'good guy' image as an advocate for public service and social causes."

The same year the Gores gave $353 to charity, they reported $197,729 in adjusted gross income.
Click to expand...

Cheney and Reagan are/was so arrogant it makes me ill just thinking about it.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #33
The White House also released the 2005 tax return filed by the Cheneys. They reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

According to the return, they have overpaid their taxes this year and are entitled to a refund of about $1.9 million.





The couple contributed $75,560 to churches and charitable organizations, about $2,200 less than last year. Those included the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army’s funds for hurricane relief in the United States and Pakistan; Martha’s Table, which provides food and services to the underprivileged in the Washington area; the Archdiocese of New Orleans Catholic Charities; and the Mississippi Food Network.
Click to expand...

Chinese Bill Clinton's favorite charitable foundation....



Time Line of Clinton China Decisions

(BY TOM CURRY AND ROBERT WINDREM)
As the Clinton administration debated whether to allow U.S. satellites to be lofted into orbit aboard Chinese missiles, Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space & Communications, and Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, allegedly using money from the Chinese army, gave more than $500,000 in soft money, ostensibly used for `party-building efforts,' to the Democrats.

The Justice Department and Congress are investigating how a technical report on the explosion of a Chinese missile in 1996--a report that could help China assess the reliability of its missile arsenal--found its way into the hands of the Chinese.

That report was prepared by employees of Loral, Hughes Electronics and other firms.

In a statement issued May 18, Loral said that `Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. . . . was not personally involved in any aspect of this matter. No political favors or benefits of any kind were requested or extended, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever.'

The firm also declared that: `Allegations of a connection between the launch failure and a subsequent presidential authorization for use of Chinese launch services for another [Loral] satellite to China are without foundation.'

Nonetheless, Justice Department and congressional investigators are sure to scrutinize the chronology of gifts and decisions.

The time line does not prove any cause-and-effect relationship between donations and decisions. It does give investigators a basis for their criminal inquiry.

April 24, 1995: Loral chairman Schwartz gives $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

June 30, 1995: Schwartz gives $20,000 to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which provide support for Democratic Senate candidates.

Aug. 30, 1995: Schwartz gives $75,000 to DNC.

Sept. 30, 1995: Schwartz gives $20,500 to DSCC.

Oct. 9, 1995: Secretary of State Warren Christopher decides satellites should remain a military munitions item.

Nov. 29, 1995: Schwartz gives $100,000 to DNC.

Nov. 29, 1995: A Chinese government agency writes Loral, asking for help in getting an upgrade for its dual-use imaging technology, exports of which are prohibited under U.S. sanctions.

Jan. 26, 1996: Loral is sold to Lockheed for $9 billion.


CLINTON APPROVES LAUNCH
Feb. 6, 1996: Clinton approves the launch of four communications satellites on Chinese rockets.

Feb. 6, 1996: Wang Jun of CITIC, owners of percentages in Chinese satellite companies, visits the White House for coffee and dines with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Feb. 8, 1996: The White House and Commerce Department begin to talk about the satellite export issue again.

Feb. 14, 1996: A Chinese rocket carrying Loral Intelsat satellite explodes, destroying a Chinese village.

Feb. 15, 1996: Schwartz gives $15,000 to DSCC.

Feb. 15, 1996: The State Department gets an urgent request from the White House to speed up the process of switching the satellite licensing to the Commerce Department.

Feb. 29, 1996: Schwartz gives $50,000 to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which bankrolls Democratic House candidates.

March 8, 1996: China launches missiles.

March 14, 1996: Clinton decides to move the satellite licensing function to the Commerce Department.

March 15, 1996: Loral President J.A. Lindfelt writes Commerce to say the export of a dual-use technology, known as synthetic aperture radar, is being held up by the Defense, State and Commerce departments.

April 1996: Schwartz announces the formation of Loral Space and Communications.

April 24, 1996: Schwartz gives $50,000 to DSCC.

June 10, 1996: Schwartz gives $100,000 to DNC.

July 22, 1996: Liu Chao-Ying of China Aerospace meets Clinton with Johnny Chung.

July 31, 1996: Schwartz gives $5,000 to DSCC.


INFLUX OF CHINESE MONEY
August 1996: Chung accounts show an influx of $300,000 from Liu Chao-Ying.

Aug. 18, 1996: Chung gives $20,000 to DNC to attend Clinton's birthday party.

Aug. 28, 1996: Chung gives $15,000 to DNC at Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Sept. 16, 1996: Schwartz gives $30,000 to DSCC.

Sept. 20, 1996: Schwartz gives $20,000 to DSCC.

Oct. 16, 1996: Schwartz gives $10,000 to DSCC.

Oct. 18, 1996: Schwartz gives $70,000 to DNC.

Oct. 24, 1996: Schwartz gives $5,000 to DSCC.

Nov. 5, 1996: New guidelines on Commerce licensing of satellites are published.

Nov. 5, 1996: Clinton is elected to his second term as president.

Oct., 1997: A federal investigation of Loral begins.

Feb. 12, 1998: As Clinton ponders whether to sign another waiver allowing launch of a Loral satellite aboard a Chinese missile, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger sends him a memo saying the Justice Department `has cautioned that a national interest waiver in this case could have a significant adverse impact on any prosecution [of Loral] that might take place based on a pending investigation of export violation.'

But Berger adds that `the advantages of this project outweigh the risk,' and `it is inappropriate to penalize [Loral] before they have even been charged with any crime.'

Feb. 18, 1998: Clinton signs a waiver allowing Loral satellite to be lifted into orbit by the Chinese.
Click to expand...

Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat.
The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation hardened chip sets to China. The specialized chips are necessary for fighting a nuclear war

U.S. intelligence sources stated that the newly released documents illustrate the extent to which the Clinton White House placed trade – and trade with China specifically – above national security.

"In all likelihood we will be glowing in the dark before we discover the true extent of the Clinton decade of betrayal," stated Rick Fisher, Asian Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

Funny how you just don't hear much about this kind of stuff going on the last seven or so years...wonder why?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #35
IRS figures rank the Gores' 1997 level far below the average for households in their income bracket. Among households reporting income of $100,000 to $200,000 in 1995, the last year for which information is available, charitable contributions averaged $3,377.
Click to expand...

Also hearing the Pompous Ass Al Gore "buys" carbon credits to offset his $30,000 use of energy at the Castle.Funny thing though,the Pompous Ass,Al Gore buys these credits from a company which he founded and owns.....so when he buys offsets from his own company he actually is boosting revenues of his own company :lol: this guys cool...

Former Vice President Al Gore shakes hands with a woman after signing a copy of his book An Inconvenient Truth for her, in Philadelphia last month.




By Peter Schweizer

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.
Click to expand...
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #36
Clinton by most accounts is a pretty amiable guy but I don't see him getting out at a habitat for humanity and swinging a hammer like Jimmy and Roslyn Carter do.
Click to expand...

I'd be real amiable too if I had some little pudgette under my desk smoking my White Owl.... ;)
 
Garfield1966 said:
I guess if you think that seeing through that smoke screen is being clairvoyant then I guess I can. Cool, I have a hidden talent.
Click to expand...

Thats not a smoke screen your seeing thru, that window in your belly from which you view the world is just fogged up. ;)

hidden talent?...is that what you call your articulating pelvis?
 
Getting back to the name of this thread ( Al Gore, an Inconvenient Truth ) Let me offer a few words as a life-long Democrat.

Actually for me, Al Gore turned out to be a convenient reality during that 2000 election. He was my wake up call to something I had been sensing for a long time but hadn't really faced up to.

Like the obedient-minded dem that I thought I was, I was all set to line up behind Mr. Gore despite all of the muffled noises coming from behind the Clinton curtain ( " breathe Monica, don't choke"). But then I actually started to listen carefully to what Mr. Gore and our party was saying. It turned out that they had nothing of substance to say or offer the American people.

Now I agree that both political parties are full of crapola and that politics in general has completely disconnected from We the People. But the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites out there as a party of blame and obstruction which hasn't stepped forward with a single idea of substance in many years.

So yeah, I voted for B43 . . . twice! And you know what? I stand by that vote, especially every time that I turn on the news and listen to the shrieking of democrats who have the audacity to claim that they think for the common man and woman while at the same time doing all they can to trip up the Executive. It's no more than a vendetta against a man, Mr. Bush whom they hate. But it's not patriotic to say " I support our troops but not the President" -- it's plain and simple bad behavior ( and disingenuous politics ).

Can't say that I'm proud to be associated with this sort of left wing bolshevism cloaking itself in liberal polemics claiming to fight for the good of mankind.

OK, I took a back road, but now back to the climate idea.

So good ole Al makes a movie on global warming and wins a Oscar or whatever from his back-patting Hollywood cohorts. Stand that movie next to the UN report on global warming in which scientists state that they are "extremely confident" that their data and solutions hit the climate paradigm on the head.

Science is about certitude, not reasonable confidence. Politics however is indeed about appearing confident even when you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground ( thanks Al ). Amazing how the two have melded into one great big carnival of soothsayers once again telling all of us what we should do.

Since this site is an aviation forum, how many folks would hop on a plane if the pilot says they're reasonably confident that we'll make it to our destination? Aviation and science depend upon certitude, not wishful thinking. And this climate debate must necessarily be based upon cold hard fact if politicians are to ever begin to truly tackle the problem.

Barry
 
jerseyfinn said:
Getting back to the name of this thread ( Al Gore, an Inconvenient Truth ) Let me offer a few words as a life-long Democrat.

Actually for me, Al Gore turned out to be a convenient reality during that 2000 election. He was my wake up call to something I had been sensing for a long time but hadn't really faced up to.

the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites out there as a party of blame and obstruction which hasn't stepped forward with a single idea of substance in many years.

But it's not patriotic to say " I support our troops but not the President" -- it's plain and simple bad behavior ( and disingenuous politics ).

Can't say that I'm proud to be associated with this sort of left wing bolshevism cloaking itself in liberal polemics claiming to fight for the good of mankind.

Barry
Click to expand...

A lib who finally woke up :up:

Hey Gar, still seeing smoke? :lol:
 
jerseyfinn said:
Getting back to the name of this thread ( Al Gore, an Inconvenient Truth ) Let me offer a few words as a life-long Democrat.

Actually for me, Al Gore turned out to be a convenient reality during that 2000 election. He was my wake up call to something I had been sensing for a long time but hadn't really faced up to.

Like the obedient-minded dem that I thought I was, I was all set to line up behind Mr. Gore despite all of the muffled noises coming from behind the Clinton curtain ( " breathe Monica, don't choke"). But then I actually started to listen carefully to what Mr. Gore and our party was saying. It turned out that they had nothing of substance to say or offer the American people.

Now I agree that both political parties are full of crapola and that politics in general has completely disconnected from We the People. But the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites out there as a party of blame and obstruction which hasn't stepped forward with a single idea of substance in many years.

So yeah, I voted for B43 . . . twice! And you know what? I stand by that vote, especially every time that I turn on the news and listen to the shrieking of democrats who have the audacity to claim that they think for the common man and woman while at the same time doing all they can to trip up the Executive. It's no more than a vendetta against a man, Mr. Bush whom they hate. But it's not patriotic to say " I support our troops but not the President" -- it's plain and simple bad behavior ( and disingenuous politics ).

Can't say that I'm proud to be associated with this sort of left wing bolshevism cloaking itself in liberal polemics claiming to fight for the good of mankind.

OK, I took a back road, but now back to the climate idea.

So good ole Al makes a movie on global warming and wins a Oscar or whatever from his back-patting Hollywood cohorts. Stand that movie next to the UN report on global warming in which scientists state that they are "extremely confident" that their data and solutions hit the climate paradigm on the head.

Science is about certitude, not reasonable confidence. Politics however is indeed about appearing confident even when you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground ( thanks Al ). Amazing how the two have melded into one great big carnival of soothsayers once again telling all of us what we should do.

Since this site is an aviation forum, how many folks would hop on a plane if the pilot says they're reasonably confident that we'll make it to our destination? Aviation and science depend upon certitude, not wishful thinking. And this climate debate must necessarily be based upon cold hard fact if politicians are to ever begin to truly tackle the problem.

Barry
Click to expand...

Good post!!! :up:
Welcome to the IAP!

B) UT
 
. . . A lib who finally woke up . . .

Oh I've been awake for a long time ( I think it's partly due to a bed-wetting problem :( ).

Difference is that a republican would tell me to go out and buy some Depends ( with my own money and not taxpayer funds) whilst the dems would classify me under the disability act and I'd be allowed to piss in anybody's bed I want because it takes a village and my self esteem is more important than my neighbor's dry sheets.

Barry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

delldude
Al Gore saving the planet again
Replies
9
Views
1K
KCFlyer
KCFlyer
J
Al set to pick up his Nobel Prize
2 3 4
Replies
50
Views
7K
delldude
delldude
E
European Polution Law
8 9 10
Replies
135
Views
15K
southwind
southwind
FlyDCJets
Stop Oil Speculation Now: Urge Your Senators to Finish the Job
Replies
0
Views
900
FlyDCJets
FlyDCJets
A
US Rep Oberstar Introduces US Airline Aid Bill
Replies
3
Views
1K
Bob Owens
B

Latest posts

Back
Top