Big Dogs House

Nancy Pelosi Is A One Percenter

Dec 28, 2011 Political

Nancy Pelosi said she supported the Occupy Wall Street folks and their goals of equality (which really means they want the stuff other people have). She really supports their greed. No surprise here, Pelosi is a greedy person. Her wealth is somewhere around 200 MILLION dollars and she got a lot of that by doing things in Congress that were favorable to her husband’s business and by insider trading. Pelosi used information she received in her official capacity to gain wealth.

While the country focused on Barack Obama, the every day guy who takes his dog to Pet Smart (after flying the creature back from Hawaii for the photo op), and his trip to Hawaii for a vacation (a 4 MILLION dollar vacation) Nancy Pelosi slipped into Hawaii and is staying at a hotel that costs 10 THOUSAND dollars a night.

You read that right, Pelosi is staying at a place that costs as much for two nights as the amount of money people living in poverty make in a year. A week at that place is the yearly salary of many middle class workers.

She is part of the 1% crowd that the Occupy slugs rail against.

I read where someone stated that what she does with her money is her business they just wished she would not act like she actually feels the pain of those who have little. I agree, it is her money and she can spend it how she wants. I too wish she would stop pretending to care for the little guy.

There is no doubt that Pelosi and her husband were wealthy on their own merits (non union businesses they have) but I still have a problem with the way she became super rich. She did it illegally and she should be behind bars.

Pelosi is staying at a place very few can afford so the next time she starts talking about the little guy ask her how her vacation in the 10 grand a night hotel was…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: 1%, 10 grand hotel room, 99%, lies, nancy pelosi, occupy crowd

Pelosi Gets Dumber Each And Every Day

Dec 17, 2011 Political

Did you know that extending unemployment benefits will create jobs? Nancy Pelosi says that extending them would create 600,000 jobs!

“The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said at a briefing on Capitol Hill Real Clear Politics

How will paying people NOT to work create jobs? How will extending the time people can sit home and draw unemployment suddenly create in them a desire to get up and get a job?

How can taking taxpayer money (money we do not have) and paying it to people who are not working create more jobs? The only jobs I see possibly coming out of this are government jobs for people to handle the unemployment claims. Those jobs, if they were created, would cost more taxpayer money we do not have and would certainly NOT get anywhere close to 600,000.

No Nancy, extending unemployment will NOT create any jobs. Not one, not ten, not 600,000. If extending unemployment created that many jobs we would have no unemployment because we have extended those benefits out to more than two years. Those past extensions did NOT create jobs and any new extension will fail just as miserably.

This is typical liberal thinking (though the term thinking is a stretch) and it shows, once again, that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: idiot, lies, mental disorder, moron, nancy pelosi, unemployment

Have An Ethics Problem? Just Scream Racism

Aug 2, 2010 Political

Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters (this Congresswoman is about Socialism – her words, not mine) are in some hot water. Rangel has had 13 charges brought against him after a two year investigation and he faces the possibility of a public trial on his many ethical violations. Waters is under investigation and might have a public trial as well. Both trials would come just prior to the November elections and would hurt the already battered Democrats.

It is important to note that Rangel and Waters wanted the trials. Before we get into it any further, it is important to recognize this. They wanted the trials, they will get them, and now a bunch of people are crying.

You see, Waters and Rangel are black so this must be targeted against them because of their color. The evidence is that several other members have been or are under investigation and they are black. Yep, there is a concerted effort to go after black members of Congress. Never mind the illegal things they have done, they are being targeted not because of their illegal acts but because of their color.

Of course this ignores the fact that plenty of white members of Congress are under investigation or have been investigated. The major difference between them and Rangel and Waters is that they did not want a public trial so they settled the matters against them long before it got to that point. Remember, Rangel and Waters are at this stage in the game because they wanted to have the trials. The most recent white members who have been in trouble resigned from Congress. Rangel and Waters did not reach a settlement and they did not resign. They wanted a public trial.

I guess they figured it would never get that far and by screaming for a public trial they figured people would assume they must be innocent. Now that they are getting their wishes many Democrats are distancing themselves from them and some are asking for Rangel to resign with dignity (this would assume he actually had any).

Rangel is a pimp. He rides around in a big car paid for by taxpayers and he acts like a pimp in the hood. He is a slick mac daddy who thinks that the rules do not apply to him so I doubt he will resign (but the right deal might make it happen).

While he is getting pressure to resign many are looking at things and making claims that blacks in Congress are being treated differently.

There’s a “dual standard, one for most members and one for African-Americans,” said one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, speaking on condition of anonymity. Politico

Oh really? Those poor blacks have a different standard. What a crock of BS. The reality of the situation is that Rangel has been given every benefit of the doubt for the past two years. There is no doubt to sensible people that Rangel broke the law on a number of occasions. He can claim ignorance but he broke the law (what was that about ignorance of the law being no excuse) and he should pay for it regardless of his color. Rangel benefited from his skin color and his party affiliation. Representative Massa resigned quickly after allegations that he sexually harassed male staffers. He was probably worried about what would be made public if they investigated him. He resigned to avoid embarrassment.

Massa is a white Democrat. Is there any doubt that if a Republican (regardless of color) had the baggage that Rangel has or committed the acts that Waters allegedly has that Republican would be investigated quickly, would not get the benefit of the doubt and would be guilty in the court of media opinion? Rangel has had a two year ride while they tried every which way to find a way out. Rangel wanted a trial so they had no choice but to give him one.

Now they are talking a deal. I believe that it would take a Republican on the committee to agree. No Republican should (neither should the Democrats). Rangel wanted this public trial and they should make sure he gets it. Nancy Pelosi promised to drain the swamp so let us have this trial so we can see what is at the bottom of it when it is drained.

I am tired of hearing about some racist motive every time a black person gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. If they committed a crime then it matters not what color they are and it should not matter what party they are from, they should be held accountable for what they did.

The funny thing about this is the quoted item above. There is a standard for Congress and a different one for blacks in Congress. How about there is a different standard for Congress than there is for every other person in this country?

This is absolutely true. If any other person in a private business did the things that these people have done and are doing then they would be in jail. Many people in the private sector are hauled before Congress to be grilled over things they have done that are no different than what members of Congress have done. Sweetheart deals, kickbacks, jobs for family members, affairs with staffers, and who knows how many other infractions Congress members commit only to be excused while they are pointing fingers at others.

To top it all off, Congress investigates itself and the investigation involves the rules for the House or the Senate. It does not matter if they committed a serious crime if it is not in that rule book or if the people in Congress investigating it deem it to be no offense.

You won’t find that kind of system in the real world.

No, none of this has to do with the color of the skin of the people involved. It has everything to do with entrenched politicians who feel they are above the law. It is about people who have been doing this so long they do not think they have to follow the rules.

It is about power corrupting and it is about the need for term limits.

But it damn sure is not about color.

Throw all the bums out in November and start fresh.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: black, cbc, charlie rangel, crime, crime inc, Democrats, drain the swamp, maxine waters, nancy pelosi, phony racism charges

The Constitutional Abuse

Oct 25, 2009 Political

Well, I have looked very carefully at Article one, Section eight, better known as the Interstate Commerce clause, although the enumerated powers delineated therein are more extensive, and specific than the simplistic “title” might suggest. Indeed, there’s quite a bit there, installing and regulating post offices, militias, establishing a uniform set of regulations between states (where this article derives its name) so that states are competitive with one another- a lot in a little space in our Constitution.

But Nancy Pelosi can’t answer a simple question from a reporter on the Constitutionality of Healthcare, specifically the mandate to buy it.

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

directorblue.blogspot.com

Uh, yeah- the liberal’s bolthole when it comes to legislation they want to shove down our throats- to be fair, both parties have used this when it suited them, but to be fair, there’s not much difference these days between the parties themselves- witness Lindsey Graham or John McCain- neither one truly represents more than the squishy middle, where ideals are watered down to virtually nothing, and the status quo is protected, meaning their jobs.

But back to the clueless Pelosi- I have long held that the botox needle went too deep on her, and hit the brainstem, because she couldn’t even begin to enunciate the reasoning behind the mandate. It was up to the aide to try and explain just how the mandate could even be legal. As usual in politics, he was, and is wrong- but at least he tried.

Nan just had the deer in the headlights look- in other words, looked as she normally appears.

Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer.  Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer.  After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority.  It’s not exactly a lengthy document.  How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?

Well, as it turns out, pretty darned difficult.  The interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply because Congress doesn’t allow for interstate commerce in health insurance.  The “general welfare” clause has never applied to individual mandates, which is why neither Leahy or Pelosi will invoke it publicly.  If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless — and by extension, makes the Supreme Court meaningless as well.

themoderatevoice.com

Yes indeed- there is not, nor can there be, a mandate that legally compels me to buy insurance- by their argument,  they could compel me , or anyone else, to do pretty much whatever the government chooses for you or me to do, and that is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

If I do not buy insurance, I am not breaking the “Interstate Commerce” clause, because I am not engaging in commerce, interstate or otherwise. If I self pay my doctor, I am not falling afoul of the clause either- both the doctor and I are in the same state. My purchase or not of insurance doesn’t “promote the general welfare” of anyone- period.

Much of the reasoning that is centered around this healthscare bill is torturous, convoluted and wrong. The politicians who want this bill to pass are destroying the Constitution.

Obama had it right in one respect when he said in a speech, that the Constitution is indeed a “negative” document, in that it tells you what you cannot do with respect to the states, and what the states cannot do with respect to the people.

The Constitution is a “People’s” document, one that was drafted to protect the people, not the politicians.

Perhaps Nan the flounder face should read the Constitution.

At least try, Nan.

Tags: botox of the brain, constitution, nancy pelosi, stupidity

Piling On Pelosi

May 15, 2009 Political

The Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, issued a letter to his people indicating that the CIA had been honest with Congress and that they should not let the noise interfere with their job of keeping America safe. In other words, this Obama appointee called Pelosi a liar.

That’s right. Panetta said the CIA told the truth to Congress even though Pelosi said that the CIA lied. Looks like Pelosi has ticked off a lot of spies who are fighting back against allegations made for political purposes.

Pelosi is in deep and many Democrats are moving away from her so as not to be associated with her and her ever changing story about what she knew and when.

The Republicans are all over this and Congressman Steve King (R-IA) has called for Pelosi to resign as Speaker. The hits just keep on coming for the clueless Pelosi.

As of now there are no Democrats publicly calling for her to step down but I am sure there are plenty who want her to. Many did not support her being selected as Speaker and those who did are now seeing why it was a bad idea.

If this keeps going (and there is no reason to think it will not) then there will be more calls for her resignation. Pelosi is a black eye for the Democrats and for Congress in general. The media are going after this story which in and of itself is unusual. Once they turn against a Democrat the end cannot be far behind.

If we are lucky she will resign and then be voted out of office.

What a disgrace.

Tags: CIA, leon panetta, lies, memo, nancy pelosi