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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nancy Pelosi and a Congressional delegation visited Tibet to offer support in wake of the continuing crackdown by China. Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese for protesting. Pelosi gave her support and thus the support of the US to the Dalai Lama:

While standing next to the Dalai Lama, she denounced “China’s oppression of people in Tibet.”

“If freedom loving people don’t speak out against China’s oppression of people in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out against any oppressed people.” ABC

Notice here that Pelosi did not tell the Dalai Lama that he and his people should retreat. She did not tell them that they should cease fighting against oppression and she did not tell them to give in to the terror of the Chinese. She even offered support in the struggle and said we will have lost our moral authority if we don’t speak out.

This is the same Nancy Pelosi who does not believe that we should be offering support to the Iraqis and has no ideals about moral authority when discussing leaving them at the mercy of the bad guys who are just waiting for the US to leave a weak Iraq in place so they can swoop in and take over. This is the Nancy Pelosi who has not said that our troops need to continue to fight on and she certainly has not offered her “support” to them by letting them finish their job.

Perhaps it would be nice if Speaker Pelosi spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan meeting with our troops and telling them she supports them and is with the Iraqi people in their struggles. Maybe she could indicate that we will have lost our moral authority if we fail to support the troops in the mission of ending the war by winning it.

When donkeys fly…

Additional source:
My Way News

To a rational person it only makes sense to require workers to speak the native tongue of the country in which they work. This is not to say that people who do temporary work in other countries should have to learn the native language, that is what interpreters are for. However, when a person moves into a country and decides that he will live and work there then that person has an obligation to learn the language of the country in which he lives. If anyone does not want to learn the language then no employer should be required to hire that person. That is, unless you are an employer in the United States and your elected leaders pander to groups of people, many of whom are here ILLEGALLY, that vote overwhelmingly for a particular party.

Nancy Pelosi has threatened to block an amendment to a bill that would protect employers from lawsuits if they refused to hire someone who does not speak English. This all came about because some Hispanic Democrats threatened to vote against a patch that would fix the Alternative Minimum Tax for a year, a move that would prevent millions of wage earners from being taxed as if they were millionaires. In other words, the Hispanic Democrats are willing to hurt wage earners in favor of helping people who pay little in taxes, would probably never be affected by the AMT and who refuse to learn English. I thought that members of Congress represented this country and not people who, in large part, do not belong here. The main antagonist is Representative Charles Gonzalez of Texas, a man who probably swan across the Rio to get here. Gonzalez said “If it is not relevant [speaking English on the job], it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin.”

Just how is this discriminatory and who gave Congress the right to tell a private employer what qualifications he is allowed to set for employees? I understand that they may legislate against discrimination for race, creed, age and a number of other things but if an employer requires English then it is none of Congresses’ business. The fact that the Hispanics would screw the rest of the country in order to force Employers to bow down to the wishes of non English speaking people is wrong.

How did these people get the job? If the employer does not speak Spanish (or any other language) is he required to get an interpreter so he can communicate? Should we force the employer to learn a new language or should we force the person who wants the job to learn a new one? It seems like an easy choice to me but to Pelosi and her amigos in the Congress it is not as obvious. Someone should tell Gonzalez to take his sorry rear back across the Rio and run for office there since he is more concerned with that way of life than the American way.

I have lived in or visited several foreign countries and I made the effort to learn enough of the language to communicate my needs. I did not expect them to learn my language because that would not be appropriate. I would not expect them to hire me for a job there if I could not communicate with their customers. As for the issue of telling people they have to speak English to each other while on the job, the issue of free speech does not apply. An employer in private industry may tell employees what they are and are not allowed to discuss and in what language they must do it.

It is important to remember that the employer is the boss and may set job requirements including dress codes, uniforms, hair styles, body piercings, tattoos and LANGUAGE. The Congress has no business getting involved and they certainly do not belong holding up legislation in an effort to blackmail other members of Congress, especially legislation that is designed to keep people from paying taxes they were never meant to pay.

I wonder if Gonzalez would support me if I went to a Spanish speaking establishment (whose customers all spoke Spanish) and I was refused a job because I do not speak that language?

The Democrats have been an absolute failure as the majority and Nancy Pelosi is no leader at all. She cannot even whip a bunch of malcontents from the Hispanic group into shape. If she knew what she was doing this would not be an issue but then again…

If she knew what she was doing she would be a Republican.

I wonder what Ron Paul would do if he was running the place?

Source:
WSJ Opinion Journal

Only in government could we find people who will tax an unhealthy product in order to support health care. By taxing an unhealthy item, like cigarettes, to pay for health care the government is saying that it approves of the item because it brings in revenue. However, the tax is regressive and might force people to quit using tobacco products. That is great, you say? Well, yes, if the intent is to get people to quit smoking but what happens when revenue from tobacco decreases because people quit? The government runs out of money or falls short in funding a program that it has established and committed money to. That revenue shortfall will need to be made up and it will come from the taxpayer, even those who do not use tobacco.

The idea behind taxing tobacco is that tobacco users are not as healthy as non users so they should pay for the increased cost of health care. Theoretically, if people quit they will begin to get healthier so there would be no need to continue with the high health care costs. However, the government has chosen to use the tobacco tax to fund health care for children so those needy kids will not go away even if the revenue source dwindles. Therein lies one of the many problems. If tobacco users are not as healthy one would assume that the tax would pay for their care but it does not. Even if the tobacco users all quit using the product the government would have a need for the revenue. Government never removes a tax it has imposed. It just shifts the burden to other sources. The US Congress is looking at increasing the federal tobacco tax to $1.00 per pack of cigarettes. The Maryland Governor wants to increase tobacco tax for the same reasons as the feds. If all taxes take effect the cost would be $3.00 a pack in Maryland just in tax. Since the less affluent are more likely to be smokers, seems to me the less affluent will shoulder the burden for the programs paid for with tobacco tax.

Nancy Pelosi has already banned smoking in part of their office complex (but members may still smoke in their offices which is a completely different rule than for all other government employees). Now they will stop selling cigarettes in the stores located in the buildings which seems stupid when the goal is to raise money.

The government does not want people to stop using tobacco regardless of what they say because this would dry up a source of income. They play with things, they make it hard, they tax the hell out of it but they do not make it illegal. If it is so bad why not just make it illegal and be done with it? All kinds of other drugs are illegal so why not tobacco? Follow the money.

Interestingly, Congress has not raised alcohol taxes under the guise that alcohol users are less healthy than the general public. Do you suppose that is because many more elected officials use booze than tobacco? I wonder if they are allowed to drink in their offices as well. That might explain some of the behavior we see from them.

They will never raise the tax on booze as long as Ted Kennedy is in office. He would have a stroke right on the Senate floor. Hmmm, come to think of it an alcohol tax might be a good thing.

Congress needs to stop playing games and either leave tobacco users alone or make the substance illegal and put an end to all the charades. As for me, I don’t care about the tax on tobacco but I am concerned with the unintended consequences of decreased revenue when people quit. We don’t need to pay more in taxes regardless of what the Democrats say.

Source:
My Way News

Others with similar items:
Stop the ACLU, Nuke’s, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, The World According to Carl, Grizzly Groundswell, The Pink Flamingo, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.