28 Jun 2012

Pelosi So Happy About ObamaCare She Nabbed 20% Of New Waivers for Her District

By |June 28th, 2012|The Blog|2 Comments|

Nothing says you support a program like taking 20 percent of the most recent “Get Out Of ObamaCare Free Cards.”

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

If the White House Health Care Tax is so awesome, why is anyone trying to get out of it?

It’s almost as if businesses are going to be hurt by it.

Crazy talk.

21 Jun 2012

Pelosi: Justice for Brian Terry Isn’t As Important As Jobs

By |June 21st, 2012|The Blog|2 Comments|

This morning the buzz about former Speaker Nancy Pelosi revolves around her statement that she could have arrested Karl Rove at any time. But if you dig deeper into the story, you come across a quote that shows just how heartless this woman really is:

Pelosi also criticized Republicans pushing for justice for Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — as House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings has on numerous occasions — as “just strictly political.”

“It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans,” Pelosi said. “We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”

Read it again.

“We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”

Republicans are spending time doing this because Brian Terry was someone’s son. Brian Terry was someone’s brother.

13 Oct 2011

Dems Double Down on Crazy, Raise Funds Off “The Let Women Die” Act

By |October 13th, 2011|The Blog|1 Comment|

Earlier I wrote about the outrageous rhetoric and hypocrisy coming out of Rep. Nancy Pelosi regarding the Protect Life Act.

Rather than back slowly away from her, the Dems have decided to take her rhetoric and raise money off it:

“…when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor of health care providers … it’s just appalling,” — Nancy Pelosi

Duane –

We have to act fast.

House Republicans are set to vote today on a bill that would go even farther than Republicans’ previous efforts to restrict women’s access to reproductive health care.

This GOP bill would allow emergency rooms to refuse women life-saving healthcare. Pundits are calling it the “Let Women Die” act.

We must act immediately to call out the right-wing Republicans behind this assault on women. We’ve set a goal of raising $100,000 for the DCCC Women’s Health Rapid Response Fund so we can hold these Republicans accountable.

No shame.

13 Oct 2011

Pelosi: Republicans Want Women to “Die on the Floor”

By |October 13th, 2011|The Blog|1 Comment|

Former (thankfully) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi turned the rhetoric up to eleven when she accused Republicans of wanting “women can die on the floor” when they voted to reinstate “conscience protections for pro-life medical workers who don’t want to be involved in abortions.”

From LifeNews:

“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

GREAT SCOTT!

What are these dastardly Republicans up to now?

They are making sure that Federal money spent in ObamaCare doens’t go towards abortions. Also, it says that if health care providers don’t want to participate in abortions, they don’t have to.

Yep. That’s about it:

H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, makes it clear that no funds authorized or appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. It specifies that individual people or state or local governments must purchase a separate elective abortion rider or insurance coverage that includes elective abortion but only as long as that is done with private funds and not monies authorized by Obamacare.

Also:

The pro-life measure also ensures that state laws “protecting conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or establishing procedural requirements on abortion” are not abrogated by Obamacare. It also makes it so any state or local governments receiving funding under Obamacare may not subject any health care entity to discrimination or require any health plan to subject any entity to discrimination on the basis that it refuses to undergo abortion training, refuses to require abortion training, refuses to perform or pay for abortions, or refuses to provide abortion referrals.

So, a bill that says federal tax dollars won’t pay for abortions or force people to participate in them equates to letting women die on the floor. And it totally escapes her that if the bill failed, the money would be used to cut babies up while the are in the womb.

If women were to be left to die on the floor with no medical attention required, it’s still better than being ripped from the womb prematurely and wheeled to a nearby linen closet to asphyxiate. But then, what kind of monster would vote against providing medical attention to babies born in botched abortions?

Tu quoque, you say. Not so.

While Obama expressly stood in the way of a bill that would provide medical attention to babies born during an abortion, this bill doesn’t prevent a woman from receiving medical attention. Nancy can take her concern for a figment of her imagination and apply it to the babies left to die in the laundry.

4 Aug 2011

Pelosi Tells ThinkProgress Republicans Want to Destroy Government

By |August 4th, 2011|The Blog|4 Comments|

The worst Speaker in the history of worst Speakers told ThinkProgress and other online leftists that the boogeyman was coming and he was after the government:

Pelosi said the programs under attack include “education, clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety” and more. Pelosi concluded, “You name it, they’re there to diminish it, destroy it.”

The leftist nitwits in that room must have looked especially sub-moronic if Pelosi thought she could sell them that line.

According to her, cutting a trillion dollars of increased spending out of ten trillion dollars, over a span of ten years is an attempt to destroy the government.

How many mouth breathing, Che t-shirt wearing, skinny jeans clad Leninists do you think were in that room just nodding and tapping away at their keyboards?

The deal increases the debt by $7 trillion, yet she sells the line that Republicans want to kill government.

The fact is, I don’t want to kill government. You and I pretty much need government. But, and this is a big but, we don’t need everything this government is doing. And furthermore, we can’t afford everything this government is doing.

Do we need a Department of Education? Will children go without a proper education if suddenly Arne Duncan found himself without a job?

No.

Can we afford to continue funding Medicare and Medicaid like we are? Not even remotely, but the left refuses to accept any changes to the current situation. Heaven forbid we create a system that does not tether the people’s lives to a massive federal government.

This government could use a slimming down. But destroy it? No thanks.

The problem I see in this video is Pelosi and the hive minded keyboard jockeys in that room cannot fathom the idea of a person living a good life without a powerful central government taking care of them from cradle to grave. That mentality is what creates the opportunity for Pelosi, and others like her, statists, communists, socialists, whatever, to say things like “Republicans want to destroy the government,” and not be called out on it.

No one in that room pushed back. Because they believe it. They see the slightest minimization of government as dangerous.

That’s the scary part.

8 Oct 2010

Pelosi Invents Perpetual Economic Engine Which Collapses Under Scrutiny

By |October 8th, 2010|The Blog|3 Comments|

Speaker Nancy Pelosi doubled down on her assertion that food stamps actually boost the nation’s economy, acting as a stimulus of sorts:

At a press conference in her home town of San Francisco, Pelosi explained that the program’s multiplier effect –the amount of money generated in the local economy as the result of the subsidy– far exceeds the nearly $60 billion spent this year by the federal government and is a sure-fire way to stimulate the economy. For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture cites an even higher figure of $1.84.

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.

So, according to the Federal government, if you take money out of the hands of the people that earn it, and turn it into food stamps, you are actually doing more to boost the economy than letting the citizens keep their loot.

It’s like a perpetual motion device.  Money is taken from the taxpayer and turned into food stamps, which are given to the user.  The user then spends the food stamps which create near double what they are worth, increasing the income of the store owner, which is then looted for a dollar, which is turned into food stamps…

This system is incredible!

However, there is an aspect of this equation that they have not discussed, and one I think is rather relevant.

What does it cost to create the food stamp?  Here’s what I mean.

If you give an American $10 in food stamps, it has to take more than $10 to create them.  There is the initial $10 in taxes needed to cover the cost of the stamps.  But there has to be additional costs.  What does it cost to manufacture them?  What does it cost to distribute them?  What does it cost to pay the government employee to sign people up for them?  What does it cost to pay for the building where the government employee works?  What does the maintenance cost for that building?

I’m sure there are other costs.  But I think you get my point.

It has to cost more than $1.84 per dollar to run this slave manufacturing system.  How many of my dollars are removed from the economy so that Democrats like Nancy Pelosi can add more and more Americans to the government dole, and then brag about how much of a stimulus it is to the economy.

I guarantee it’s a bigger drain than it is a boost.

Hat Tip:  Stop the ACLU

1 Jul 2010

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Create Jobs – Me: Oh, Really?

By |July 1st, 2010|The Blog|2 Comments|

Nancy Pelosi is trying to use logic.

It’s so cute when liberals do this.

According to the Speaker, we need to keep sending out those unemployment checks in order to create more jobs.

No, really. That’s what she said:

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension

against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

It injects demand into the economy,” Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

Pelosi said the aid has the “double benefit” of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a “job creator” on the side.

Let’s dissect her logic for a second.

  • Person A loses his job and starts getting unemployment checks.
  • The money is then spent at a store.
  • The store can then turn a profit because money is coming in.
  • The profit results in an expansion of the business and the creation of more jobs.

That’s how it works, huh? Okay, let’s use it, but in a different manner.

  • Person B has a job but has to pay FICA and income taxes.
  • Person B has less money to spend at local stores.
  • The store makes less money than it could.
  • The store can’t expand.
  • Person A gets laid off.

If providing money to individuals results in job creation, then doesn’t it follow that confiscating money results in job loss?

Perhaps there wouldn’t be such a need for unemployment benefits if the federal government didn’t have such a large appetite.

16 Jun 2010

Swamp Essentially Drained, Pelosi Looks to Water Down Ethics Office

By |June 16th, 2010|The Blog|0 Comments|

Democrats are looking to water down the amount of power an office created to look into ethical violations has:

Susan Crabtree of The Hill newspaper reports on a meeting late in May between members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Speaker Pelosi. The Speaker heard a litany of complaints about the OCE’s aggressiveness and its public release of documents that reflected badly on the reputations of members. Both Ms. Pelosi and House Whip Jim Clyburn indicated sympathy with the complaints, agreeing that the ethics office’s operations had resulted in unintended consequences.

Shortly after the meeting, Ohio Democrat Marcia Fudge and 19 other members of the Congressional Black Caucus introduced legislation to reduce the office’s powers to investigate wrongdoing. No one expects the legislation to go anywhere, but it may be a stalking horse for an attempt to change the House’s rules late this year should Democrats retain control after November.

Allow me to inject a little perspective into the story. Despite the fact they created this office two years ago, and despite the fact Pelosi pledged to drain the swamp of corruption, she has not punished anyone for ethical violations since making that pledge:

In that time, allegations of sexual misconduct and financial impropriety have been lodged against lawmakers. The most serious rebuke in the past year: a “letter of qualified admonition” to Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., after the Senate ethics panel concluded he misled lawmakers and inappropriately offered to raise campaign funds for then-governor Rod Blagojevich as Burris sought the Senate appointment. “Three years later, it’s the same old, same old,” said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The most rank example of this has to be Rep. Charlie Rangel:

Rep. John Carter (R-Mars) wrote a resolution that would have removed Rep. Charlie Rangel from his position. Rather than remove him, the Democrats “voted 246 to 153 to refer the resolution to the Ethics Committee,” allowing him to remain head of the committee that writes federal tax law, even though he has several flagrant tax violations.   

Examples? Oh, there are plenty:

1) failure to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House,silly republicans.jpg

2) failure to disclose at least $650,000 in assets he had previously failed to list on his House financial disclosure forms,

3) failure to disclose to the IRS or on his financial disclosure forms $75,000 in rental income for a beach villa in the Dominican Republic,

4) violation of state laws by claiming three primary residences and broke municipal laws by maintaining four rent-controlled apartments,

5) violation of House rules by using congressional letterhead to solicit donations for an education center bearing his name at City College of New York, and

6) delinquency in paying his property taxes on two New Jersey parcels and failure to report the sale of a $1.3 million brownstone.

When Pelosiclaimed to have a transparent Congress, I guess she meant it would be clear to see how corrupt it was. I was thinking she meant something different.

They also found nothing wrong with William Jefferson, and left him in his post:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has dropped her demand that Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., resign from the powerful House Way & Means Committee – in exchange for a promise from the Congressional Black Caucus that they won’t campaign against her in advance of this fall’s critical mid-term elections.

He’s now serving time for bribery.

It’s possible the Democrats will lose control of the House in November. Now, a few months before that, they are trying to neuter the Office of Congressional Ethics.

That’s hard to swallow as being just a coincidence.

2 Jun 2010

Nancy Pelosi Governs By The Word?

By |June 2nd, 2010|The Blog|10 Comments|

Pelosi Disclaimer.jpg

Nancy Pelosi told a bunch of Catholics recently that she must form public policy “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, “The Word made Flesh.”

This is the woman who voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.

She thinks you’re stupid:

At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

Who asks what someone’s favorite word is? Have you ever asked anyone what their favorite word is?

Again, she thinks you are not only stupid enough to think the Bible guides her decision making, but that someone asked her what her favorite word is?

And that Word,” Pelosi said, “is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

I wanna be there when she has to explain why she thought it was ok for a baby to be pulled out of a woman’s body feet first until just the head was left inside, and then have a pair of scissors opened up inside the baby’s skull and have the brains sucked out with a vacuum. When He returns, how is she going to explain that one according to the Gospel?

19 May 2010

I’m Gonna Quit My Job and Become a Dancer!

By |May 19th, 2010|The Blog|0 Comments|

I’m quitting my job.

You see, I’ve never really been that into what I do. I mean, it pays the bills, but is that what it’s all about. Paying the bills?

No.

I wanna dance.

So I’ve decided to quit my job and let someone else take care of me and my family.

You.

At least, that’s what Speaker Nancy Pelosi says I should do:


My goodness.

This is one of the best examples of what liberals see the American dream as. A nation of looters living off the backs of the producers.

Let’s compare some political philosophies for a minute.

First, Nancy Pelosi, member of the Party of Thomas Jefferson:

We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.

Second, Thomas Jefferson:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

I keep trying to tell my older Democrat relatives that the party they have touted all these years has been co-opted by far left socialists. That the positions they hold are rebuked by the current batch of liberal leftists.

If this doesn’t explain how far left their party has become, I don’t know what will.

And no, I’m not quitting my job to dance. That’s crazy talk.

Hat Tip: Hot Air