Tag Archives: Pelosi

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

Government Mathematics 101a

No wonder our kids need remedial reading and math upon entering college in many states and also why we are number 47 in the world in math.

The way the government works, a number is not from another world but another dimension (insert the “Twilight Zone” theme here.) Just amazing!

Nancy Pelosi says, “Every dollar we spend on unemployment puts two dollars in the system.” Really? In what universe? Under government math, if Susie has 3 pieces of cake and Johnny only has 1 there is an obvious inequity. The fact that Susie’s daddy is a banker and Johnny’s daddy is a cab driver obviously means that Johnny hasn’t had the same opportunities as Susie. This means we need to find Frankie because he always has 4 pieces of cake. He’s looking a little chunky so we need to save him from himself and give one of his pieces to Johnny. Then we need to take one from Suzie and give it to Johnny as well. Now Johnny won’t feel bad because based on government math, everyone has been equalized. Confused? I am writing it and I’m confused.

But this is government math!

They want us to believe that over 92 million people have left the work force. They will tell you it’s because many have retired, some are on disability, and other moronic excuses. We need to create 200,000+ jobs a month to maintain a level of economic misery that’s tolerable. Last month we created 73,000 jobs. Most were temporary jobs, go figure, Christmas, holidays, and all that. But, 535,000 people left the work force bringing that number to over 91 million. Wait a minute, what?

Did a million people leave the planet, die off, hit the lottery, crawl under a rock? Will they be needing government help? Can anyone explain this to me?

Government math is the only way this works. The same guys who say more taxes will create more jobs. Yup, that logic means, taking money out of the pocket of employers will give them more money to hire people.

Only with government math will raising minimum wage to $15.00 per hour create more jobs and stimulate the economy. In most cases, it would double the total payroll for a company. And the government thinks that will compel employers to hire more employees because people will have more money to spend and they will need extra staff for the increased spending. HUH! That’s government math

Participation rate (the number of people who are able to work but, for whatever reason, do not) is the worst it’s been since 1978. Mr. Obama, this is your mission accomplished moment. This does not include people on disability or those retired on government pensions.

People, there are approximately 350 million American citizens in the U.S. (and an unknown number of other human inhabitants.) Let’s make it easy and round the numbers, because I don’t have enough fingers or toes to count on. To start with, take 100 million away for those that have left the workforce. Next, figure that at least 75 million of the 350 million Americans have at least 1 child who doesn’t contribute to the tax rolls. That puts us at around 175 million tax-paying Americans. That means companies (employers) are paying for over 175 million people receiving government aid. It CAN’T WORK!

And to add insult to injury, CNBC now reports that, according to the government, there are ONLY approximately 155 million employed people. Hello!!! Some of those 155 million employed are only part-time workers! (there is a 20 million people chasm between my numbers and theirs, but hey is government math)  People, we are closer to a 25-30% unemployment rate. Even the government’s real rate, as shown in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows it closer to 13.2 %. So not only can’t they add (or calculate percentages), but they couldn’t find the truth in a bag marked “Truth” if you put both their hands on it!

Let’s break it down to smaller numbers for illustration. Say there are 20 people on your street and you have all vowed to take care of each other in every way, communal living. Say 10 people decide that they really don’t want to work. They want to hang out and raise their families, work on their homes, cars, or maybe start a new career. That means the other 10 have to provide for the whole group of 20. They may need to cut back on food, get rid of a car to save on insurance, use less electricity, buy less clothes, and make other adjustments. WHY? Well, if you’re using government math (and logic,) everyone has to share. No one should go without food, shelter, cable, or cellular service. And no one should be forced to work until they decide to and even then only at a job they are satisfied with.

Come-on! Does this make sense to anyone?

Government math has gifted us with a “real” unemployment rate of over 25%, a $17 trillion deficient (and climbing), and one of the worst education systems in the world (you can’t just throw money at it to fix it).

People, wake up or we’re going to lose our country!

The Fomentation of a Government Shut Down

Well, it is upon us, the dreaded government shutdown. And yet the Earth still spins, the water still runs, the electric is on and Harry Reid is still tossing verbal grenades at anyone who dares represent an opposing view to the lock-step Progressive agenda. Imagine that! Our daily lives didn’t come to a grinding, catastrophic halt because the big government nanny state was sidelined by the fruits of their own discontent. In fact, to paraphrase an often heard chant at any Leftist-leaning protest march, “This is what not spending looks like!”

Truth be told, if our nation would have stayed true to our Founding Documents, the crisis that delivered unto us this dastardly government shutdown would never had existed. Indeed, if we would have executed government with fidelity to the Constitution, to governmental process and to the legislated laws instead of capitulating to the Progressive’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America (a transformation launched at the turn of the 20th Century), World War II veterans wouldn’t have had to push aside hastily erected barriers meant to shut down the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, Tuesday simply to experience the memorial erected in their honor.

I mention a lack of fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law because had two specific established protocols – Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution and The Budget Control Act of 1974 – been honored, not only would the environment in Washington, DC, been devoid of gridlock, but regular order would have mandated the annual delivery of appropriations to the various departments and agencies.

When our Framers crafted the US Constitution they included Article I, Section 3, which reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” (Emphasis added)

Where the members of the House of Representatives were to serve as the “voice of the people,” the Senate was supposed to act as the protector of States’ Rights. The check-and-balance between the co-equal branches of government was to have a check-and-balance within the Legislative Branch to assure that both the voice of the people and the rights of the States were balanced in any legislation that would emanate from that branch of government. By constructing this internal check-and-balance, the Framers enshrined the power to both force compromise with the Executive Branch and protect the rights of the minority (Read: States’ Rights) in the Legislative Branch.

But with the Progressive Era’s 1912-1913 achievement of the 17th Amendment, that check-and-balance, along with the protection of States’ Rights was obliterated, and a gigantic move toward a centralization of government power at the Federal level was achieved.

The 17th Amendment reads, in part,

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” (Emphasis added.)

So, by effectively transforming the US Senate from a protector of States’ Rights to a redundant chamber catering to the voice of the people, Progressives created two chambers vulnerable to political faction; two competing political entities that could gridlock because their tasks were the same – their authorities derived from the same source.

Today, had the 17th Amendment not existed, the US House of Representatives would have advanced their bill to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Senate – given that 38 States have indicated they do not support the ACA – would have concurred, sending a Continuing Resolution to fund the whole of government but defunding the ACA to President Obama. The President would have almost certainly vetoed the legislation which, by virtue of the Senates’ loyalty to their respective State Legislatures, would have been overturned by the whole of the Legislative Branch. Of course, this is predicated on the ACA ever having had become law in the first place, which, under the original intent of the US Constitution, would be questionable.

Additionally, had the United States Senate, under the disingenuous and corrupt political hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), not insisted on existing in defiance of a federal law – The Budget Control Act of 1974, the entire Continuing Resolution process wouldn’t have taken place.

The Budget Control Act of 1974 mandates that,

“…Congress pass two annual budget resolutions (it later was decreased to one) and set timetables for finishing budget work. The budget resolution specifies spending levels in broad areas and may direct congressional committees to find ways to save money. Initially the date for completing the budget resolution was May 15, but later the deadline was changed to April 15.

“It’s a deadline Congress seldom has met. Since 1974, Congress has only succeeded in meeting its statutory deadline for passing a budget resolution six times. Sometimes it’s months late. Sometimes, as in Fiscal 2011, Congress doesn’t pass a budget resolution at all.

“Another section of the Budget Act of 1974 states that Congress cannot consider any annual appropriations bills until it adopts an overall budget blueprint…In Fiscal 2011 there should have been 12 appropriations bills.”

So, had Senate Majority Leader Reid actually adhered to the law by advancing a budget resolution to be reconciled, this “showdown” might never have come to pass. But, because there are automatic increases built into each annual budget to account for inflation, etc., it was to the benefit of the spendthrifts in Congress to refuse to advance – or even negotiate – a budget resolution. By using a Continuing Resolution they didn’t have to cut any spending in the face of repeated requests from President Obama to raise the debt ceiling even as the citizenry – and the elected GOP – screamed for fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mr. Reid had an underhanded and completely partisan reason for not following the law. We should have come to understand that the Progressives of the 21st Century are vicious, win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burners when then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), dismissed the idea of legitimately legislating the ACA by saying,

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”

And we should have known that 21st Century Progressives would scald their own Mothers to submission to advance their cause when we were subjected to the over-the-top and venomous assaults they made on duly elected officials who dared to disagree with their political agenda:

“It is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the TEA Party, the anarchists of the country…” – Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV)

“Obama will not – he cannot – negotiate with a roving band of anarchists who say, ‘Build our oil pipeline or the troops don’t get paid.’” – Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Favreau

“I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“These people have come unhinged.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (P-FL)

“I believe it’s terrorism…This is an attempt to destroy all we know of the republican form of government in this country.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” – Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser

“I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up…” – Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)

I could go on but you get the picture.

The bottom line here is this. Progressives will do anything and say anything; they will lie, cheat and steal, to achieve their goals; their agendas. They will alter the Constitution, create new behemoth entitlement programs, spend, raise taxes and amass debt from which there is no return, in any and all efforts to advance their nanny-state, centralized government vision for our country. And if those who believe in Constitutional law, States’ Rights, individualism, personal responsibility the free market and liberty don’t take a stand – now…well, it will all be over very, very soon…at the hands of the Progressives’ ideological death panel.

Of course, these are just the ravings of an “unhinged, roving legislative arsonist touting an insane terrorist policy, a bomb strapped to my chest,” don’t you know…

National Journal: Republicans Exuding Schadenfreude on Economy

What Do You Think?

A curious column in the National Journal alleges that Republicans are practicing “schadenfreude” on the recent economic news.  That being the May jobs reports which only produced 69,00 jobs that took the unemployment rate to 8.2%.  Is it schadenfreude or that Americans have lived with high unemployment for over 38 months?  Alexandra Jaffe thinks otherwise using what Eric Fehrnstrom said on ABC’s This Week last Sunday to expose Republicans for their alleged enjoyment at the dismal economic news.

Part of the problem with Obama’s leadership on the economy, Fehrnstrom argued, is that it’s been nonexistent – a “deficit of leadership,” he said. This president came into office without any prior experience running anything,” Fehrnstrom said on ABC’sThis Week. “He never even ran a corner store. And I think it shows in the way that he’s handling the economy. It’s a classic line of attack, and raises the question of whether Republicans are committing schadenfreude — joy at the misfortune of others. A 2008 study by several University of Kentucky psychologists concluded that politics “is prime territory” for such feelings, and that in several experiments they conducted found that Republicans who strongly identified with their party were especially likely to report schadenfreude as a result of poor economic news.

So one study and several experiments details irrefutable proof, that Republicans are likely to exude schadenfreude on bad economic news?  Where’s the other study? Better yet, does Ms. Jaffe even detail how consumer confidence has dropped again this month as a consequence of the dismal jobs report.  The nation’s economic recovery is grossly anemic and calls for change upon hearing such news, especially in politics, is not an unusual event.  As the column continues, we see the narrative Ms. Jaffe is trying to make, with Republicans being “obstructionist” and how Democrats have bills on the table that would create jobs if congress moves on the issue.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod made his feelings clear about the issue on CBS’ Face the Nation: “Instead of high-fiving each other on days when there is bad news, they should stop sitting on their hands and work on some of these answers.”

Republicans were, in fact, in lockstep against Obama on the issue of news that the economy had only produced a disappointing 69,000 new jobs in May, sending the unemployment rate up to 8.2 percent. Romney adviser Ed Gillespie joined Fehrnstrom in noting Obama’s lack of leadership on Fox News Sunday as well, accusing him of constantly campaigning and fundraising while failing to lead on “taxmageddon and the sequestration.”

Deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter highlighted Congress’ inactivity as well on This Week, chastising the legislative branch for failing to pass a number of Obama’s proposals that she said would create “a million jobs.”

“So there are a million jobs sitting on that table in Congress right now that they could — they could move on.  They need to get off their hands and stop rooting for failure,” she said.

In actual fact, this congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation aimed at cutting the debt, curbing our deficit, and creating jobs.  All of these proposals have been blocked by the Democratic controlled senate.  If Mr. Axelrod and Ms. Cutter want to see action, I highly suggest they call Sen. Harry Reid’s office at their earliest possible convenience.  However, it was only until Republicans retook the House and canceled the Obama credit card did congress become “hostile.”  Before that, during the Pelosi’s Speakership, Congress passed most of the Obama domestic agenda.  Obamacare was the signature achievement in the president’s first term.  In addition, Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Cash for Caulkers, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were all passed.

Furthermore, let’s revisit where Mr. Obama had a chance to create jobs back in the spring with the Keystone Pipeline.  A project that would have created 20,000 new jobs in the United States.  However, the Chamber of Commerce estimates that the pipeline could possibly create 250,000 permanent jobs if it were approved.  However, the Obama administration delayed it last January, but made it “a priority” when gas prices soared last spring. Can you smell the cynicism?  We have $5 trillion in dew debt, our third consecutive trillion dollar deficit, and high unemployment.  This is not schadenfreude Ms. Jaffe.  It is a call for change.  With only 31% of Americans feel the country is heading in the right direction, it shows that it’s not only Republicans who are souring on President Obama.  There is a growing consensus in this country, especially with Republicans,  who are simply saying “no thanks” to the Obama agenda.

As Eric Fehrnstrom stated on ABC’s This Week:

FEHRNSTROM: Well, I agree with Stephanie, first, that this president is not adding jobs fast enough. And I think for anybody who is urgently waiting for improvement in the economy, last week was not a good week. And it’s not just the devastatingly weak jobs report we got on Friday. It was also the revision in GDP downward for the first quarter. It’s a drop in consumer confidence. It was an increase in unemployment claims.

And it’s not that we don’t think that this president is trying. I think he is. It’s just that his policies are not working. And, by the way, George, not just the policies…

This is not schadenfreude Ms. Jaffe.  It’s politics.

 

Uh-Oh, Nancy Pelosi Caught In A Lie




In the “Uh-Oh” department, Deirdre Walsh and Pam Benson reported at CNN in 2009 what Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said: “We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” Paul Kane, at the The Washington Post, reported that Pelosi claimed she was never briefed on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EIT). Pelosi said, “Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening.”

Even PolitiFact weighed in what Pelosi claimed, declaring her claim to be false.

But now we find that Pelosi did, indeed, receive a briefing about EITs. Marc A. Thiessen, writing at “WPOpinions,” a Washington Post web page, reported, “… former CIA counterterrorism chief Jose Rodriguez provides new evidence that Rep. Nancy Pelosi lied when she declared she had not been briefed about the use of waterboarding.”

Thiessen continues, “In his new book, Hard Measures, Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubayda were described in detail.”

Rodriguez, in his book, says that her claim that she [Pelosi] was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, “is untrue.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi, “We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah. We held back nothing.”

Pelosi did not object to waterboaring being used. “So Pelosi was another member of Congress reinventing the truth. What’s the big deal?” asks Rodriguez. He then explains, “…the message they [the Obama administration and Congress] are sending to the men and women of the intelligence community who to this day are being asked to undertake dangerous and sometimes controversial actions on behalf of their government. They are told that the administration and Congress ‘have their back.’ You will forgive CIA officers if they are not filled with confidence.”

If Rodriguez is right, it means that Pelosi stood up in a news conference and lied to the American people.

In the House of Representatives Order Code RL31382, “Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives,” there is this passage: “…the House has the right to discipline those who breach its privileges or decorum, or who damage its integrity or reputation, even to the extent of expelling from Congress a duly-elected Member.” (page CRS-2)

If, in fact, Pelosi repeatedly lied to the American public, does she not “…breach its privileges or decorum…” of the House, as well as “…damage its integrity or reputation…?” Further, why should we believe ANYTHING she says?

For much more information about this situation, see Guy Benson‘s article at Townhall.

But that’s just my opinion.

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

Sandra Fluke And The Three Thousand Dollar Lie

First and foremost, before I’m accused of slander, let me say that I “feel” like Miss Fluke is being dishonest with us.  I might even “believe” that she’s lied.  But what I’m going to officially say is that I think she’s testified before Congress with questionable facts.  Highly questionable facts… in fact.  Let me explain.

The “lie” (or questionable fact) happens at around the 2:12 mark of the video below.  She says that contraception, without insurance, can cost a woman “over $3000 during law school”.  Let me tell y’all something, folks.  Either she’s lying, or her friends are too stupid to be enrolled in Law School.  Now that’s a pretty nasty claim for me to make, so let me back it up.

I used a run-of-the-mill map application to locate Georgetown University (her school) on a map.  I then searched for pharmacies within close proximity to Georgetown.  I then called the first one that I saw and asked how much a month’s supply of Ortho Tri-Cyclen costs WITHOUT insurance.  The name brand was surprisingly pricey.  I was quoted a cost of just under 45 bucks.  That would equal about half of the amount Sandra Fluke told Congress it would cost.  I started to think that maybe she deserved some benefit of the doubt.  But then the pharmacist offered me another option (SANS INSURANCE).

I was told that if I paid $20 for the pharmacy’s club card, I could purchase a month’s supply of (generic) Ortho Tri-Cyclen for $12 a month.  And that’s from a pharmacy within walking distance from Georgetown University.  So instead of the proposed $1000 a year that Sandra Fluke told Congress that her friends spend on contraceptives, it was closer to $164 a year.  So instead of $3000+, we are now looking at $492 for three years worth of birth control.  I mean, maybe Miss Fluke is used to Congress accepting bogus budgets, but we should all be offended that she would try to be so dishonest with us.

Sandra Fluke Testifies Before Congress

The story known as “SlutGate” has been gathering more and more steam in the media.  It’s to the point that we spend more time talking about Sandra Fluke than we do about gas prices, national security, or even the unemployment rate.  As of this writing, The Huffington Post has an article on the front page with over 38,000 comments.  Folks, that’s a lot.

So whether you like it or not, this story is here to stay.  Another thing that may be here to stay is the progressive liberals’ new battle cry:  “The War On Women”.

So far, a lot of you may not have bothered to watch Sandra Fluke’s testimony before Congress.  Maybe you’ve relied on whatever analysis you’ve seen on this website, or even the news.

Given the increased gravity this story has been achieving, I would suggest you watch it for yourself.  The video is only 11 minutes long, and as you can see, Miss Fluke’s 15 minutes are not yet up.  So… Get to watching.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

December 27, 2011

Tonight on the Dark Side we’ll talk about New Year’s resolutions and what you hope to see from our government in 2012. Also, is Nancy Pelosi really paying her fair share, or is she still busy being a filthy 1%er?  Plus, we’ll discuss my ongoing Kwanzaa series and why I think Kwanzaa is antithetical to American values.  We’re back! Tune in tonight at 10 p.m. ET, 7 p.m. Pacific  on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

Senior Politi-Rumble: Pelosi vs Gingrich

Much disgruntled and disgraced ex-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-SF-mentally challenged seniors zone) made headlines again last week in a statement attempting to threaten/bully/intimidate current front-running GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Pelosi, she of the, “We must pass this bill to see what’s in it” example of her linguistic-left-wing-lunacy, came out with the following statements this week in a failed attempt to threaten/intimidate/bully Newt Gingrich: 

I like Barney Frank’s quote the best, where he said ‘I never thought I,d live such a good life that I would see Newt Gingrich be the nominee of the Republican party,” Pelosi quipped in an obviously much-rehearsed and preplanned publicity stunt, while speaking to TPM Friday. Talking Points Memo must now rank up there with other top “Leaning towards gossip and full of leftist hate-speech” rag sites such as the completely discredited and debunked Soros-funded propaganda factory outlets, Media Matters and MoveOn.org. You know a website is non-credible when they include such lovely-sounding titles as TPM Muckraker. Just think of them as a cross between The National Inquirer and Roseann Barr.. with a dash of Ed Shultz thrown in there to give them a bigger voice. If you want, you could even be the first to follow TPM’s Leftist Pinko blog. Pretty lonely over there. Any-hoo, let’s get back to the San Fran Queen of Liberal linguistic-lunacy, Nancy Pelosi and her latest TPM-sponsored “muck-rant.” 

Disgraced Ex-Speaker Pelosi and co. signing wall-street bailout bill.

One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich” the very disgraced by the 2010 mid-term election country-wide Liberal drumming that was administered by the tea party- Minority Leader said. “ I know a lot about him. I served on an investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of stuff.”

Dear, dear Nancy, do you think the public actually believes you and three other government grifters were actually locked in a room for a year and actually made to work for a living for once? Fat chance. Here’s a question for Pelosi, since she seems to be so full of pertinent information today regarding Congressional investigations. Why did you and fellow Democrat,  Zoe Lofgren stall out the investigation into your Liberal bed-pal from California, Maxine Waters (D-proven bank bailout fraud zone)? How about a criminal investigation into the recently-revealed felonious insider trading to enrich Congress-critters fraud upon the people? How about term limits in Congress being imposed retroactively so we can throw 71-year-old Congressional hyperbolic-hypocrites like yourself out of office in 2013?  Let’s sit down and have a discussion about about the Maxine Waters House Ethics trial you refused to continue with?

Nancy Pelosi seems to have forgotten she is no longer the Speaker of the House today.  She also seems to refuse to recognize the fact that Newt Gingrich is not going to lie down and take this kind of bullying from the Liberal has-been that stated on election day of 2010 that it looks like all of our polls and “experts” say the numbers point to us [fake Democrats] retaining the majority in the House of Representatives.  Tell us once again, just how did that work out for you, Madame ex-Speaker?  Mr. Gingrich quickly responded to what he believed to be an implicit Pelosi threat, saying any such disclosure of private ethics committee materials would be “a fundamental violation of the rules of the House.” He added: “What she says today should explain a great deal about what happened to the ethics process when Nancy Pelosi was at the helm.” He also called for the House to condemn Pelosi if she were to reveal anything from the ethics probe. Bottom line: Newt Gingrich is receiving massive support from a wide spectrum of voters today, including the Tea Party and independents.  Gingrich is in fact quite knowledgeable about DC political chicanery and Liberal debt-spending gimmickry that is a direct and imposing threat to the far left liberal agenda. We the people now realize just what Pelosi’s stint as Speaker of the House has resulted in and we do not like it one bit.  As Mr. Gingrich stated, America should be thanking Pelosi for the early Christmas gift of showing just how desperate Liberal[ fake democrats] truly are as we head into the sure-to-be-historic 2012 elections. TEA anyone?

Footnote: We the People are sick and tired of supposed ethics probes in Congress that set out to “condemn” or “censor” the corrupto-crats in Congress, yet never, ever result in any actual punishment, jail time, or fines.  We are well aware that it is all nothing more than another dog and pony show, that in the end, is just one corrupt politician protecting another one. We are also well aware that statement’s like Pelosi’s here will be used for electoral attack ads and stealth forms of political blackmail in 2012. We will not be intimidated, nor influenced by it one bit.

Father Government: Federalizing Childcare

Even though she was evicted from her position as Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is still trying to tell us how to run our own houses. Her latest frightful commitment to the American people is that if the Democrats are re-elected in 2012 “we will do to childcare what we did to healthcare.” As if that’s a good thing.

The list of all that could go wrong in a country that provides free childcare is lengthy, but modeling such a program after Obamacare would be even more disastrous. Imagine a world where all parents are mandated to go back to work after having children, where it would be criminal to stay at home and raise your child yourself. Sounds a little like a piece of dystopian literature, doesn’t it?

This is not a new idea for Democrats. In fact, it’s one that began a very long time ago with free government education. K-12 morphed into government-funded pre-K programs, and now has evolved into the government wanting unfettered access to the minds of our children from birth. The Democrats, especially, want to indoctrinate our children to believe that Government is the true parent of all people in this country.

The concept of free “public” (read: government-funded) education for all originates in the famed Marxist document, the Manifesto of the Communist Party. This should raise the first flag. The Manifesto further decries one of its basic tenets as, “Abolition of the family!” Isn’t that precisely what the Democrats are working towards with the latest anti-family idea? On merit, yes, it is a better idea to have an educated population than an uneducated one. As an educator by trade, I cannot dispute that intellectual fact. I challenge the notion, however, that the government should be in charge of it. Competition drives excellence, and government control of anything quells competition.

Practically, free childcare for all does seem to fill a need that exists for all parents. This is where it is likely to gain public support. It’s not easy to make the decision to spend $1,000 a month from a $2,000 paycheck (after federal taxes, of course) for someone to keep our children all day while we work. For many, the financial equation just doesn’t make sense. As a result, many choose to forgo their career for a while and stay home with their children, and they make financial sacrifices until their children are school-aged. Others choose to stay home and raise their young children because they actually want to.

I know it may surprise some on the left, but there are people who have children because they actually planned a two-parent family and want to nourish that family by doing the hard work themselves. They want to work hard to provide for their spouse and children. They want to choose the best pediatricians to treat their babies when they’re sick. They want to save money and build a nest-egg that can be passed on to their children and grandchildren. They want to build a family business, despite the fact that it will require 80-hour work weeks. They want their children involved in the business, so they can teach them sound fiscal principles.

They want the government to get out of their way, so they can do these things that will make their lives meaningful. These family-centric Americans are perfectly willing to accept the personal responsibility for their decisions, even the failure that sometimes comes with autonomy.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the percent of the population that wants Father Government to be their provider. Can’t feed your children? Never fear, Father Government will come to the rescue. Lost your job and tired of looking for a new one? Don’t bother, because you can still have a car, a TV, a cell phone, even a home thanks to Father Government.

Personal responsibility seems to be the antithesis of how government operates. Even big corporations (i.e., General Motors and Solyndra) can now rely on the government to keep them from failing. Failure is ok, people. It builds character. Teach your children this. Teach them that once they reach voting age the only person they should expect to rely on when it comes to feeding, clothing and providing shelter for them is THEM. We need to stop asking what else our country can do for us, and begin recognizing all that we are perfectly capable of doing for ourselves.

Nancy Pelosi Opens Her Mouth – Again

Nancy Pelosi Known For …

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Democrat Party hack, is known for her disastrous tenure as Speaker of the House, flying herself and family at taxpayer expense, defender of the Obamacare bill, and getting Obamacare waivers for companies in her district. She continues to defend the 2009 ARRA (better known as the “stimulus”) even though evidence proves her wrong. (BTW, how can a Catholic continually defend abortion?)

During her watch as Speaker of the House (2007-2011), debt increased $534 trillion and unemployment went from 4.4% to 9.4%. The economy was booming when the Democrats and Pelosi took over Congress in 2007. By the end of their first year in charge, a recession began that many claim to be the worst since the Great Depression.

What She Says the Unemployment Rate Could Have Been

Now she’s at it again.

  • 14.5%– “Without the Recovery Act and accompanying federal interventions, whether from the Fed, or Cash for Clunkers, or other initiatives, the unemployment rate last year at the time of the election would have been fourteen and a half percent, not nine and a half percent.”
  • 15%– House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said at her press briefing Thursday [November 3, 2011] that if the stimulus had not been enacted the unemployment rate would now be 15 percent.
  • 16% – “We prevented the country from falling into a Depression – Democrats took courageous votes to do so. Though some paid a price, they showed real political courage – and those courageous votes prevented the unemployment rate from reaching 16%!”

Update

Rep. Nancy Pelosi claims that without stimulus spending unemployment would be 15 percent, but the Commissioner of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is not familiar with any study that would project that number.

Credibility?

Looking at Nancy Pelosi’s actions, it’s a wonder that she has any credibility left. But she somehow manages to get reelected and keep opening her mouth. And the MSM slavishly reports everything she says. So I guess we are stuck with her.

But that’s just my opinion.

Obama's Latest Plan: Rescuing America From Rich People and Success

Obama in WH Rose Garden announcing plans to save America from money

The President gave another campaign speech disguised as a “deficit reduction plan” Monday morning, this time in the White House Rose Garden.  Perhaps he hoped the the backdrop of thriving foliage would add to the illusion that his “plan” would help the economy thrive and flourish.  Here are some highlights from the campaign speech:

Obama wants $248 Billion to come out of Medicare, 90% of which will come in the form of reducing over-payments to providers.  Did you hear that, America? The administration that  has presided over recent scandals such as Fast & Furious and Solyndra, the administration that spends $3.93 billion a day (consider that a billion seconds=31 years and let that blow your mind) wants to reduce waste and fraud in Medicare? Don’t you feel safer already? I know I do.

Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy don’t pay enough in taxes, you know.  Wealthy people are selfish and evil and ugly.  They steal money from the poor and keep it all in giant vaults that can only be opened with giant keys.  Then they drink expensive champagne made from the tears of women, children and minorities.  It doesn’t matter that according to the IRS‘ own, easily located statistics, the top 50% of earners pay 97% of all income taxes, and the top 1% pay 39%.  Rich people are bad.  Unless their names are Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Buffet, Jobs, Gates, Frank, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Kerry, Heinz-Kerry, Gore, Edwards…..oh, you get the point.

Obama wants to put caps on itemized deductions, close tax “loopholes”, and let the Bush era tax cuts expire on individuals earning $200,000/year and couples earning $250,000/year.  Thank God.  Since most small business owners file as individuals and depend heavily on itemized deductions to stay afloat, this new and fresh idea should effectively kill small business growth; and if there’s anything America needs less of its small business and the jobs they create.  If those businesses are allowed to thrive, they might become big businesses that earn a lot of money.  Then they’ll be rich.  To reiterate, rich people are bad. Its a good thing Obama is here to rescue the average American from…jobs.

Obama wants a “Buffet” tax, named for his favorite rich person, Warren Buffet.  This tax would raise the tax rate on individuals earning over $1 million per year.   Hey, small business owners and folks who have worked very hard to earn a nice salary -Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes!  You should want that too.  But just in case you don’t, here is a plan to force you to pay more taxes.  You’re welcome.

Oh, did you know Warren Buffet has a secretary?  Its true.  Supposedly she pays a higher tax rate than he does.  Unacceptable!  Also unacceptable – giving the secretary a raise so she can move into a different tax bracket.  Let’s not get carried away here, folks!

Obama wants to reform the corporate tax rate while closing more of the dreaded “loopholes” (when is Hollywood going to make a horror movie about loopholes? They sound absolutely terrifying).  In case you were wondering, giving hundreds of millions in stimulus money to bankrupt solar energy companies and other energy providers to help “weatherize” homes, that’s not a loophole.  Its just being neighborly.

If you are feeling concerned that these “proposals” may seem a bit…one-dimensional, have no fear.  President Obama went on to assure Americans that “This is not class warfare, it’s math.”  Phew!  No worries, everyone.  Its all under control.  The same White House that saved and/or created 100 bazillion jobs has done all the math for you: $14,711,883,847,986 in national debt minus stimulus money payouts to cronies and unions= YOU NEED TO GIVE GOVERNMENT MORE OF YOUR MONEY…NOW!  Its a simple formula, really.  Now it is all up the the Republicans in the House to pass this campaign speech right away.