San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

View Detail

San Francisco Goes Schizophrenic

San Francisco Goes Schizophrenic

Even as a conservative wandering in the wasteland of leftist San Francisco, I did realize that not all San Franciscans march in lockstep. I admit I am still addicted to reading the San Francisco Chronicle, despite all my efforts to stave off the craving. In one day, two very contrary things were discussed on the news pages (such as they are). One came from the omnipresent Nancy Pelosi, the other from a grass roots movement

First, Nancy Pelosi made another of her tear-filled speeches at the 25th anniversary celebration of the AIDS quilt. But it is also the 25th anniversary of her first election to the House of Representatives. The speech was aimed far more at the latter than the former. Pelosi continued her endless diatribe about the Republican “war on women.” The rhetoric came after polls showed that the Democrat strategy of conducting gender politics was having some effect, but before a Democratic operative insulted Ann Romney for “never having worked a day in her life.”

Pelosi understands the dilemma of the working woman raising kids. Just ask her nannies, maids and au pairs. She has long been in the forefront of radical feminists who believe that stay-at-home moms spend all their time watching soap operas and taking naps. Women who stay home to rear their children and run their households are a cancer on society, living a life of ease and accomplishing nothing of any importance. Although she has been instrumental in screwing up the economy so badly that most women have to work just to supplement the family’s income, she is indignant that some women have been fortunate enough to be able to choose to stay home with the kids.

Her claim is that [presumptive Republican nominee] George Romney and the Republican Party have alienated millions of American women. The early polls even showed that there was some truth to that, but failed to notice that a united Republican Party could turn that around with a concerted effort to dispel the foolish concept of a Republican war one women. Mitt Romney himself has more female advisors than Obama ever thought of having.

Pelosi then launched into a discussion of how women have been more seriously impacted with unemployment because of the "Republican recession" than men. She then took the lead from Politifact and the New York Times and claimed that Romney’s facts were misleading. Romney pointed out that Obama’s policies have resulted in women comprising 92.3% of the Obama-era unemployed. She and her mainstream media friends admit that the figure is factually accurate. But they say that the fact that more men than women were laid off or terminated at the end of the Bush era makes the facts “accurate but false.” The sound of spin is deafening.

Therefore, something verifiable is “accurate but false.” They prefer the other kind of truth. The New York Times and CBS News headlined the Dan Rather “disclosure” of George Bush’s military record, only to find out the disclosure was faked. Their response, it was “fake but accurate.” Huh? That means that Democrats prefer fake and arguably inaccurate to verifiably accurate but arguably taken out of context. Truth is an elusive concept, but I’ll take verifiable facts over fake documents any day in the week. No wonder so many people wonder if Barack Obama’s birth certificate could be both faked and inaccurate.

Pelosi cited Republican budget proposals as proof that women are under attack in the areas of funding for Medicare, health care and contraception. Obviously, just like the Obamacare bill which she voted for so she could see what’s in it, she is against the Ryan proposals which she hasn’t read either. Her statement is both fake and inaccurate. In fact, it’s an outright lie.

Now, for the other side of the coin. On April 14 (Tax Day Eve), the Tea Party is going to have a major demonstration--in San Francisco. The main body of demonstrators will gather at 1 PM in Justin Herman Plaza. For those unfamiliar with San Francisco, the Plaza is located at the intersection of The Embarcadero and Market Street where the downtown, financial and tourist/commuter districts converge. It is often used for gathering demonstrators together for a march up Market Street to the heart of the retail district at Powell and Market where the famous cable cars turn around across from the largest shopping mall west of Chicago.

Anti-Tea Partiers frequently tell us that the Tea Party movement is losing steam. That is not true, though it has been less visible recently as it gains strength within the Republican Party. This demonstration would tend to prove they are wrong. For the first time, ten separate Bay Area Tea Party groups are banding together for one united activity in the homeland of the progressive enemy. It isn’t exactly Washington crossing the Delaware, but it ain’t bad.

As the Occupy movement watches its numbers dwindle from attrition and arrests, the Tea Party will be entering one of its main San Francisco encampments. Tea Partiers are so conscientious that they may not only clean up after themselves, but also after the filthy Occupiers as well. The City Sanitation Department should give them an award. San Francisco’s KSFO radio station is providing special guest talk radio’s Melanie Morgan, who will encourage the demonstrators to wave their “Nobama 2012” giant fingers (an homage to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's finger-wagging airport confrontation with The One).

The Chron actually reported the planned gathering without the usual editorializing on the news pages. The readers’ online letters to the editor were not nearly as neutral. Views ranged from “Is it the same tea party which destroyed America’s credit rating” to “Major Tea Party rally planned? So what? So there will be maybe 25 teabaggers?” Given its history, the Chronicle will undoubtedly use the same numbers in its report on the demonstration itself as the wishful readers are citing in advance.

One thing you can be sure of, the paper will minimize the numbers and effects to satisfy its leftist bloodlust. “Speaking truth to power” is a liberal phrase which is never applied by liberals to conservatives.

Even as a conservative wandering in the wasteland of leftist San Francisco, I did realize that not all San Franciscans march in lockstep. I admit I am still addicted to reading the San Francisco Chronicle, despite all my efforts to stave off the craving. In one day, two very contrary things were discussed on the news pages (such as they are). One came from the omnipresent Nancy Pelosi, the other from a grass roots movement

First, Nancy Pelosi made another of her tear-filled speeches at the 25th anniversary celebration of the AIDS quilt. But it is also the 25th anniversary of her first election to the House of Representatives. The speech was aimed far more at the latter than the former. Pelosi continued her endless diatribe about the Republican “war on women.” The rhetoric came after polls showed that the Democrat strategy of conducting gender politics was having some effect, but before a Democratic operative insulted Ann Romney for “never having worked a day in her life.”

Pelosi understands the dilemma of the working woman raising kids. Just ask her nannies, maids and au pairs. She has long been in the forefront of radical feminists who believe that stay-at-home moms spend all their time watching soap operas and taking naps. Women who stay home to rear their children and run their households are a cancer on society, living a life of ease and accomplishing nothing of any importance. Although she has been instrumental in screwing up the economy so badly that most women have to work just to supplement the family’s income, she is indignant that some women have been fortunate enough to be able to choose to stay home with the kids.

Her claim is that [presumptive Republican nominee] George Romney and the Republican Party have alienated millions of American women. The early polls even showed that there was some truth to that, but failed to notice that a united Republican Party could turn that around with a concerted effort to dispel the foolish concept of a Republican war one women. Mitt Romney himself has more female advisors than Obama ever thought of having.

Pelosi then launched into a discussion of how women have been more seriously impacted with unemployment because of the "Republican recession" than men. She then took the lead from Politifact and the New York Times and claimed that Romney’s facts were misleading. Romney pointed out that Obama’s policies have resulted in women comprising 92.3% of the Obama-era unemployed. She and her mainstream media friends admit that the figure is factually accurate. But they say that the fact that more men than women were laid off or terminated at the end of the Bush era makes the facts “accurate but false.” The sound of spin is deafening.

Therefore, something verifiable is “accurate but false.” They prefer the other kind of truth. The New York Times and CBS News headlined the Dan Rather “disclosure” of George Bush’s military record, only to find out the disclosure was faked. Their response, it was “fake but accurate.” Huh? That means that Democrats prefer fake and arguably inaccurate to verifiably accurate but arguably taken out of context. Truth is an elusive concept, but I’ll take verifiable facts over fake documents any day in the week. No wonder so many people wonder if Barack Obama’s birth certificate could be both faked and inaccurate.

Pelosi cited Republican budget proposals as proof that women are under attack in the areas of funding for Medicare, health care and contraception. Obviously, just like the Obamacare bill which she voted for so she could see what’s in it, she is against the Ryan proposals which she hasn’t read either. Her statement is both fake and inaccurate. In fact, it’s an outright lie.

Now, for the other side of the coin. On April 14 (Tax Day Eve), the Tea Party is going to have a major demonstration--in San Francisco. The main body of demonstrators will gather at 1 PM in Justin Herman Plaza. For those unfamiliar with San Francisco, the Plaza is located at the intersection of The Embarcadero and Market Street where the downtown, financial and tourist/commuter districts converge. It is often used for gathering demonstrators together for a march up Market Street to the heart of the retail district at Powell and Market where the famous cable cars turn around across from the largest shopping mall west of Chicago.

Anti-Tea Partiers frequently tell us that the Tea Party movement is losing steam. That is not true, though it has been less visible recently as it gains strength within the Republican Party. This demonstration would tend to prove they are wrong. For the first time, ten separate Bay Area Tea Party groups are banding together for one united activity in the homeland of the progressive enemy. It isn’t exactly Washington crossing the Delaware, but it ain’t bad.

As the Occupy movement watches its numbers dwindle from attrition and arrests, the Tea Party will be entering one of its main San Francisco encampments. Tea Partiers are so conscientious that they may not only clean up after themselves, but also after the filthy Occupiers as well. The City Sanitation Department should give them an award. San Francisco’s KSFO radio station is providing special guest talk radio’s Melanie Morgan, who will encourage the demonstrators to wave their “Nobama 2012” giant fingers (an homage to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's finger-wagging airport confrontation with The One).

The Chron actually reported the planned gathering without the usual editorializing on the news pages. The readers’ online letters to the editor were not nearly as neutral. Views ranged from “Is it the same tea party which destroyed America’s credit rating” to “Major Tea Party rally planned? So what? So there will be maybe 25 teabaggers?” Given its history, the Chronicle will undoubtedly use the same numbers in its report on the demonstration itself as the wishful readers are citing in advance.

One thing you can be sure of, the paper will minimize the numbers and effects to satisfy its leftist bloodlust. “Speaking truth to power” is a liberal phrase which is never applied by liberals to conservatives.

San Francisco Goes Schizophrenic

View Detail

Pelosi Loves Judicial Review

Pelosi Loves Judicial Review

We’ve been tossing around the meaning of the questions and answers during oral argument at the Supreme Court in the matter of Obamacare. Some of us are feeling fairly confident that the high court might find the entirety of the law unconstitutional. Others of us feel that the insurance purchase mandate may go, leaving everything else temporarily intact. But whatever the result, we have at least one thing that should allow us to rest a bit easier. Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats will accept the ruling.

Now I gotta tell ya, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, this is a big f-ing deal. San Fran Nan speaks for the Democrats in the House as well as the People’s Republic of San Francisco. She has now put our minds at rest by stating that her team isn’t going to grab pitchforks and torches and head for the Supreme Court building. Thank God, they’re not going to turn the premises into Red Square. And of course I always take Nancy’s word for her respect for the Constitution.

Says the Bay Area genius: “Democrats in the Congress have long believed in judicial review. We respect the third branch of government and the role they play under the Constitution, and that is a role to have the opportunity to review laws passed by Congress. This is part of our constitutional process and we respect it.” Now isn’t that a relief? Of course that made me wonder what she meant by “long believed.” Is she saying there’s a time when Democrats didn’t believe in judicial review? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Oh, well, let’s move on.

I must admit that I find it a bit odd that the leader of a major Congressional party would find it necessary at all to announce that her faction would honor a Supreme Court decision. Isn’t that pretty much what everyone has agreed on since Marbury v. Madison back in 1803? So we’ll have to wait to see what she really means. Considering the “respect” that the Democrats in Congress and have shown for the Constitution during my lifetime, I’m going to sleep with one eye open.

Given that Pelosi (and more recently the attorney arguing in favor of Obamacare at the Supreme Court) stated that the health care law was actually about freedom, is she saying that she has no problem obeying an order that takes freedom away? Yeah, I know. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but when was the last time you had to deal with anyone with a mind smaller than Pelosi’s?

We’ve been tossing around the meaning of the questions and answers during oral argument at the Supreme Court in the matter of Obamacare. Some of us are feeling fairly confident that the high court might find the entirety of the law unconstitutional. Others of us feel that the insurance purchase mandate may go, leaving everything else temporarily intact. But whatever the result, we have at least one thing that should allow us to rest a bit easier. Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats will accept the ruling.

Now I gotta tell ya, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, this is a big f-ing deal. San Fran Nan speaks for the Democrats in the House as well as the People’s Republic of San Francisco. She has now put our minds at rest by stating that her team isn’t going to grab pitchforks and torches and head for the Supreme Court building. Thank God, they’re not going to turn the premises into Red Square. And of course I always take Nancy’s word for her respect for the Constitution.

Says the Bay Area genius: “Democrats in the Congress have long believed in judicial review. We respect the third branch of government and the role they play under the Constitution, and that is a role to have the opportunity to review laws passed by Congress. This is part of our constitutional process and we respect it.” Now isn’t that a relief? Of course that made me wonder what she meant by “long believed.” Is she saying there’s a time when Democrats didn’t believe in judicial review? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Oh, well, let’s move on.

I must admit that I find it a bit odd that the leader of a major Congressional party would find it necessary at all to announce that her faction would honor a Supreme Court decision. Isn’t that pretty much what everyone has agreed on since Marbury v. Madison back in 1803? So we’ll have to wait to see what she really means. Considering the “respect” that the Democrats in Congress and have shown for the Constitution during my lifetime, I’m going to sleep with one eye open.

Given that Pelosi (and more recently the attorney arguing in favor of Obamacare at the Supreme Court) stated that the health care law was actually about freedom, is she saying that she has no problem obeying an order that takes freedom away? Yeah, I know. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but when was the last time you had to deal with anyone with a mind smaller than Pelosi’s?

Pelosi Loves Judicial Review

View Detail

Obamacare Means Freedom!

Obamacare Means Freedom!

You can take the boy out of San Francisco, but you can’t take San Francisco out of the boy. I look forward all week to the weekly e-mail from my former House Representative, Nancy Pelosi. But as good as those e-mails are, they are carefully vetted and edited for maximum appeal to the left. One thing is better—NANCY LIVE! Whenever I need my dose of crazy, I pray that Nancy will show up.

She never disappoints. On Thursday last, San Fran Nan actually outdid her Obamacare speech in which she said that Congress should pass the bill so they could read it. Now that the act has been on the books for two years, good ol’ Nancy topped it with her pithy analysis of just what Obamacare actually means. I know I’m being lazy, but I’m going to let Nancy’s own words comprise the largest part of this post.

You see, Obamacare isn’t about health care at all. It’s about freedom. Freedom to do just about any damn’ thing. Nancy herself finally read the whole megillah and discovered that it truly is the wonder of the 21st century. Death panels aside, Obamacare has taken up the torch of the Founding Fathers because it allows everyone the freedom to quit his or her job and become a photographer, a writer, a musician, or (verbatim) “whatever.”

Ignore the incoherence, just go with the emotion. “This is what our founders had in mind—ever expanding opportunity for people. You want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk.”

Who knew? The Occupy bums would all be titans of industry or playwrights to rival Shakespeare if only they had had Obamacare when they were younger. But their children will be able to fulfill those dreams, all because of the brilliance of a health care act that nobody but Pelosi actually understands. Best of all, Obamacare almost guarantees perfect self-fulfillment for coming generations, since parents can pay for their children’s health insurance until those “children” reach age 26. Nancy should hop on a horse, grab a spear, don a kilt, paint her face blue, and trot around shouting “Freedom!”

Having discovered that brevity is the soul of wit, Nancy goes halfway there by declaring: “How many people in America do you think have a preexisting medical condition? That is, they may have been sick when they were little, or they had cancer and now are cancer free, and isn’t that a celebration? But you always carry that preexisting condition and the discrimination with you—until now. And we cannot let that be rolled back because it affects tens of millions of Americans directly and their families as well, so our whole country.” Whew! I had to listen to that several times before I entirely understood it. Well, maybe I haven’t entirely understood it yet. If I had cancer, but now I’m cancer free, I can write a symphony? Is that it?

Nancy closes by proving that she understands free enterprise from the basics up. Yessir. “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 aspiration, because you will have health care. You won’t have been locked.” I wish English were my native tongue so that I could bask in the brilliance of each nuance in Nancy’s speeches. Uh, wait. English is my native tongue. Help!

Why does this all remind me of a very old joke? Patient: “Doctor, after I have the operation will I be able to play the piano?” Doctor: “Absolutely.” Patient: “That’s odd, I never could before.”

You can take the boy out of San Francisco, but you can’t take San Francisco out of the boy. I look forward all week to the weekly e-mail from my former House Representative, Nancy Pelosi. But as good as those e-mails are, they are carefully vetted and edited for maximum appeal to the left. One thing is better—NANCY LIVE! Whenever I need my dose of crazy, I pray that Nancy will show up.

She never disappoints. On Thursday last, San Fran Nan actually outdid her Obamacare speech in which she said that Congress should pass the bill so they could read it. Now that the act has been on the books for two years, good ol’ Nancy topped it with her pithy analysis of just what Obamacare actually means. I know I’m being lazy, but I’m going to let Nancy’s own words comprise the largest part of this post.

You see, Obamacare isn’t about health care at all. It’s about freedom. Freedom to do just about any damn’ thing. Nancy herself finally read the whole megillah and discovered that it truly is the wonder of the 21st century. Death panels aside, Obamacare has taken up the torch of the Founding Fathers because it allows everyone the freedom to quit his or her job and become a photographer, a writer, a musician, or (verbatim) “whatever.”

Ignore the incoherence, just go with the emotion. “This is what our founders had in mind—ever expanding opportunity for people. You want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk.”

Who knew? The Occupy bums would all be titans of industry or playwrights to rival Shakespeare if only they had had Obamacare when they were younger. But their children will be able to fulfill those dreams, all because of the brilliance of a health care act that nobody but Pelosi actually understands. Best of all, Obamacare almost guarantees perfect self-fulfillment for coming generations, since parents can pay for their children’s health insurance until those “children” reach age 26. Nancy should hop on a horse, grab a spear, don a kilt, paint her face blue, and trot around shouting “Freedom!”

Having discovered that brevity is the soul of wit, Nancy goes halfway there by declaring: “How many people in America do you think have a preexisting medical condition? That is, they may have been sick when they were little, or they had cancer and now are cancer free, and isn’t that a celebration? But you always carry that preexisting condition and the discrimination with you—until now. And we cannot let that be rolled back because it affects tens of millions of Americans directly and their families as well, so our whole country.” Whew! I had to listen to that several times before I entirely understood it. Well, maybe I haven’t entirely understood it yet. If I had cancer, but now I’m cancer free, I can write a symphony? Is that it?

Nancy closes by proving that she understands free enterprise from the basics up. Yessir. “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 aspiration, because you will have health care. You won’t have been locked.” I wish English were my native tongue so that I could bask in the brilliance of each nuance in Nancy’s speeches. Uh, wait. English is my native tongue. Help!

Why does this all remind me of a very old joke? Patient: “Doctor, after I have the operation will I be able to play the piano?” Doctor: “Absolutely.” Patient: “That’s odd, I never could before.”

Obamacare Means Freedom!

View Detail

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

The House Committee which was investigating the Obamacare mandate in relation to religious freedom completed its taking of testimony last week. Nine experts in two sessions (including two invisible women) stated their case. But one flaky witness was excluded. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a special session to listen to what this visible woman had to say.

The Congressional hearings on mandating religious organization participation in birth control and abortifacient insurance wasn't intended to be a discussion of medical procedures. Therefore, the majority voted to exclude testimony about experiences with birth control in order to concentrate on the religious issue. That meant that Pelosi's primary sob-story witness didn't get to pluck the harp strings and derail the actual purpose of the hearings. But San Fran Nan isn't anything if not annoyingly persistent. So Pelosi put on the dog and pony show at the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee instead.

Pelosi trotted out Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke. She hasn't apparently taken the evidence course yet, because Fluke's first sob story was: "Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore." Objection, hearsay! But it's not only hearsay, it's utter nonsense. Then this future Democratic operative testified that "poor women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice as her anonymous fellow student."

She and her fellow student can afford Georgetown Law School, and probably a pretty good bottle of wine to go with dinner. But even if they couldn't, how much truth is there to her boo-hoo testimony? Next to none. There are three federally funded Planned Parenthood clinics near the Georgetown campus, none farther than 3.2 miles from the law school. Checking with Planned Parenthood's website, you find that condoms cost about $1.00 each, and if you can't afford that, you can get them for free.

Says Fluke: "Some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true." Well, the ones who respond that way are those armed with facts instead of sob-stories. In fact, it is true. Planned Parenthood is just one of multiple organizations which run free clinics, particularly in urban centers. Whether federally-funded, funded by private charity, or a combination of both, birth control is readily and cheaply available to the poor as well as to affluent law students who can't get their priorities straight.

Not only did Fluke's testimony entirely sidestep the religious issue, but it was lacking in facts, logic and supporting evidence. But it was a really good story. I've gone through an entire box of Kleenex over it.

I'll be out of town on business for most of the day. But I'd love to see what you think about this reprehensible attempt to replace good government with low drama and the First Amendment with secular mandates. I promise I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get home.

The House Committee which was investigating the Obamacare mandate in relation to religious freedom completed its taking of testimony last week. Nine experts in two sessions (including two invisible women) stated their case. But one flaky witness was excluded. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a special session to listen to what this visible woman had to say.

The Congressional hearings on mandating religious organization participation in birth control and abortifacient insurance wasn't intended to be a discussion of medical procedures. Therefore, the majority voted to exclude testimony about experiences with birth control in order to concentrate on the religious issue. That meant that Pelosi's primary sob-story witness didn't get to pluck the harp strings and derail the actual purpose of the hearings. But San Fran Nan isn't anything if not annoyingly persistent. So Pelosi put on the dog and pony show at the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee instead.

Pelosi trotted out Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke. She hasn't apparently taken the evidence course yet, because Fluke's first sob story was: "Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore." Objection, hearsay! But it's not only hearsay, it's utter nonsense. Then this future Democratic operative testified that "poor women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice as her anonymous fellow student."

She and her fellow student can afford Georgetown Law School, and probably a pretty good bottle of wine to go with dinner. But even if they couldn't, how much truth is there to her boo-hoo testimony? Next to none. There are three federally funded Planned Parenthood clinics near the Georgetown campus, none farther than 3.2 miles from the law school. Checking with Planned Parenthood's website, you find that condoms cost about $1.00 each, and if you can't afford that, you can get them for free.

Says Fluke: "Some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true." Well, the ones who respond that way are those armed with facts instead of sob-stories. In fact, it is true. Planned Parenthood is just one of multiple organizations which run free clinics, particularly in urban centers. Whether federally-funded, funded by private charity, or a combination of both, birth control is readily and cheaply available to the poor as well as to affluent law students who can't get their priorities straight.

Not only did Fluke's testimony entirely sidestep the religious issue, but it was lacking in facts, logic and supporting evidence. But it was a really good story. I've gone through an entire box of Kleenex over it.

I'll be out of town on business for most of the day. But I'd love to see what you think about this reprehensible attempt to replace good government with low drama and the First Amendment with secular mandates. I promise I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get home.

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

View Detail

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

It's Sunday, so I'll be mercifully brief today. On Thursday, the House Committee hearing on religious liberty involved two panels of religious experts, each panel comprised of people discussing why the Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide free birth control and abortifacients should be tossed out. Following the lead of committee member Carolyn Maloney (D-New York), San Fran Nan looked at the panels and asked "where are the women?"

At least she didn't sing "where have all the women gone, long time passing." But there is a small problem with the question. It seems Pelosi and Maloney share the same optometrist. Somehow they couldn't see that Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Laura Champion MD from Calvin College Health Services were both on the panels and both testified. Yessir, they are both bona fide women--ladies, even.

It's not too difficult to figure out that the Democrats want to make this issue about "women's rights," while the actual subject is religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. And by their measure, it would be mighty convenient to attack the panel as unfriendly to women by the lack of women testifying. Men are by biological imperative unable to understand or properly discuss women's rights.

Whined Pelosi: "Where are the women women on that panel? Imagine, they are having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel." That proves that Pelosi is at least partially-blind both literally and metaphorically. She couldn't see the two women panelists, and she couldn't see that the entire committee hearing was about religious freedom, not women's rights.

Never daunted, the botox queen went on to ask the queston: "What is it that men don't understand about women's health, that how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families (well if you're not, you don't need to plan), but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel (emphasis added)." Maybe she's deaf, too.

And if you didn't get the message yet, she said: "I think it's really curiouser and curioser that as we get further into this debate the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on a subject of women's health and purposefully exclude women from the panel." Perhaps she actually did see the women, but has the leftist view that conservative religious women are not really female. Just like black conservatives are not authentically black. So they don't count.

All of the panelists, including the women, were asked if they would risk going to jail for refusing to follow the Obama mandate. Each answered in turn, "I would." But they aren't willing to go to jail over an issue of women's rights. They are willing to go to jail to defend their religious beliefs from government interference. They have a lot of history to go with their bravery, from the Christian martyrs of Rome to the American Founders who considered religious freedom so important that they wrote it into the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it could just be that Pelosi is simply like the theater critic who leaves the show during the intermission and writes a review centering on the finale.

It's Sunday, so I'll be mercifully brief today. On Thursday, the House Committee hearing on religious liberty involved two panels of religious experts, each panel comprised of people discussing why the Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide free birth control and abortifacients should be tossed out. Following the lead of committee member Carolyn Maloney (D-New York), San Fran Nan looked at the panels and asked "where are the women?"

At least she didn't sing "where have all the women gone, long time passing." But there is a small problem with the question. It seems Pelosi and Maloney share the same optometrist. Somehow they couldn't see that Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Laura Champion MD from Calvin College Health Services were both on the panels and both testified. Yessir, they are both bona fide women--ladies, even.

It's not too difficult to figure out that the Democrats want to make this issue about "women's rights," while the actual subject is religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. And by their measure, it would be mighty convenient to attack the panel as unfriendly to women by the lack of women testifying. Men are by biological imperative unable to understand or properly discuss women's rights.

Whined Pelosi: "Where are the women women on that panel? Imagine, they are having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel." That proves that Pelosi is at least partially-blind both literally and metaphorically. She couldn't see the two women panelists, and she couldn't see that the entire committee hearing was about religious freedom, not women's rights.

Never daunted, the botox queen went on to ask the queston: "What is it that men don't understand about women's health, that how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families (well if you're not, you don't need to plan), but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel (emphasis added)." Maybe she's deaf, too.

And if you didn't get the message yet, she said: "I think it's really curiouser and curioser that as we get further into this debate the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on a subject of women's health and purposefully exclude women from the panel." Perhaps she actually did see the women, but has the leftist view that conservative religious women are not really female. Just like black conservatives are not authentically black. So they don't count.

All of the panelists, including the women, were asked if they would risk going to jail for refusing to follow the Obama mandate. Each answered in turn, "I would." But they aren't willing to go to jail over an issue of women's rights. They are willing to go to jail to defend their religious beliefs from government interference. They have a lot of history to go with their bravery, from the Christian martyrs of Rome to the American Founders who considered religious freedom so important that they wrote it into the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it could just be that Pelosi is simply like the theater critic who leaves the show during the intermission and writes a review centering on the finale.

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

View Detail

Her Holiness Holds Forth

Her Holiness Holds Forth

This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. "Good Catholic" Nancy Pelosi has been very busy recently correcting the Papal stance on issues involving faith and morals. In her discussions with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Pelosi has divined that abortion is a good thing, and ought to be paid for by the federal government.

Since her word on faith and morals is both infallible and superior to that of the Pope, she regularly damns opponents to eternal purgatory for exercising the independent thought that abortion might actually be wrong under most circumstances. She reserves some of her best vitriol for those who believe that no public money should be spent on abortion even if lawmakers and courts have decided that a baby doesn't become a human until the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy.

Obamacare, pushed through the House in the middle of the night by Pelosi and the Democrat Curia, left the issue of how private insurers would be treated when it comes to paying for abortion procedures. That brought the public payment and private payment issues for abortions to the forefront. The 2700 page (plus or minus) Obamacare law doesn't expressly require that private insurers cover abortions, but it doesn't leave private insurers the option not to cover them either. That omission didn't deter the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department announced without any quibble that private insurers must cover abortions, birth control devices and medications, and abortifacients (essentially, the "morning after" pill).

This is a direct assault on the "conscience clause" which was instituted in health care legislation starting after the horrendous Roe v. Wade decision and continuing through the Bush administration. The conscience clause exempts doctors, nurses, and hospitals which have deep religious opposition to abortion from having to perform abortions or prescribe birth control medication. The lack of any such conscience clause in the Obamacare bill was not an oversight.

Given the HHS decision and the Obamacare mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it quickly became apparent that insurance companies would have to cover abortion and insurance agents religiously opposed to abortion would have to sell policies covering abortion. Without a conscience clause, opponents of abortion including traditional Catholics and a large number of Evangelicals and old church Protestants would be selling and/or paying for something they deeply despise.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops quickly came forward with a statement that such a mandate offends the conscience of practicing Catholics (with or without the conscience clause) and violates the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Her Primateness Pelosi had spent years trying to squelch the conscience clause in any health care legislation which even tangentially touched on abortion (euphemistically known as "a woman's right to choose"). Until she finally succeeded with Obamacare and the back door HHS rulling, her efforts had gone unrewarded.

In order to clear up the vagueness and ambiguity of the Obamacare bill and to quash the HHS decision, in October of 2011 Republicans proposed HR 358, known as "The Protect Life Act." It is basically a reiteration of the conscience clause, applying it to health care providers and insurance companies specifically facing the Obamacare law. Pelosi jumped to the fore, skewing Catholic doctrine and mocking "the Catholic conscience thing."

The Conference of Bishops had said: "Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty." They further cited the conscience clause inserted into all previous Congressional health care legislation: "Public officials may not require individuals or entities who receive certain public funds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures or to make facilities or personnel available for the performance of such procedures if such performance would be contrary to the individual or entity's religious belief or moral convictions."

If you can't attack the principle, attack the persons advocating the principle. Pelosi is no stranger to that kind of attack. This past Thursday, unable to find any Catholic doctrine to support her views, Pelosi simply called the Conference of Catholic Bishops "lobbyists in Washington DC." So much for the efficacy of Church discipline, doctrine, dogma, and Papal authority. Her Catholicness speaks, and the Bishops should just shut up. In a masterpiece of illogic, bad grammar, and un-Catholic thought, Pelosi said: "I am a devout Catholic. As a devout Catholic (second time, in case you didn't get it the first time), I have great respect for our bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington DC, we have some areas of disagreement."

Pelosi is simply an idiot. I understand Church decisions and Papal authority better than she. And I'm Lutheran. It's OK, even expected, that as a Protestant I will have differences of religious opinion with Papal decisions on faith and morals and am free, perhaps even obligated to dispute those decisions publicly when they offend my personal conscience and reading of scripture. That's not how it's supposed to be under Catholic apostolic succession doctrine. Pelosi is determined to flout the doctrine of her own Church, while at the same time forcing millions of non-Catholics to support abortion with their tax dollars and eventually to buy insurance that covers abortion.

If that's being a devout Catholic, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. "Good Catholic" Nancy Pelosi has been very busy recently correcting the Papal stance on issues involving faith and morals. In her discussions with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Pelosi has divined that abortion is a good thing, and ought to be paid for by the federal government.

Since her word on faith and morals is both infallible and superior to that of the Pope, she regularly damns opponents to eternal purgatory for exercising the independent thought that abortion might actually be wrong under most circumstances. She reserves some of her best vitriol for those who believe that no public money should be spent on abortion even if lawmakers and courts have decided that a baby doesn't become a human until the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy.

Obamacare, pushed through the House in the middle of the night by Pelosi and the Democrat Curia, left the issue of how private insurers would be treated when it comes to paying for abortion procedures. That brought the public payment and private payment issues for abortions to the forefront. The 2700 page (plus or minus) Obamacare law doesn't expressly require that private insurers cover abortions, but it doesn't leave private insurers the option not to cover them either. That omission didn't deter the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department announced without any quibble that private insurers must cover abortions, birth control devices and medications, and abortifacients (essentially, the "morning after" pill).

This is a direct assault on the "conscience clause" which was instituted in health care legislation starting after the horrendous Roe v. Wade decision and continuing through the Bush administration. The conscience clause exempts doctors, nurses, and hospitals which have deep religious opposition to abortion from having to perform abortions or prescribe birth control medication. The lack of any such conscience clause in the Obamacare bill was not an oversight.

Given the HHS decision and the Obamacare mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it quickly became apparent that insurance companies would have to cover abortion and insurance agents religiously opposed to abortion would have to sell policies covering abortion. Without a conscience clause, opponents of abortion including traditional Catholics and a large number of Evangelicals and old church Protestants would be selling and/or paying for something they deeply despise.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops quickly came forward with a statement that such a mandate offends the conscience of practicing Catholics (with or without the conscience clause) and violates the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Her Primateness Pelosi had spent years trying to squelch the conscience clause in any health care legislation which even tangentially touched on abortion (euphemistically known as "a woman's right to choose"). Until she finally succeeded with Obamacare and the back door HHS rulling, her efforts had gone unrewarded.

In order to clear up the vagueness and ambiguity of the Obamacare bill and to quash the HHS decision, in October of 2011 Republicans proposed HR 358, known as "The Protect Life Act." It is basically a reiteration of the conscience clause, applying it to health care providers and insurance companies specifically facing the Obamacare law. Pelosi jumped to the fore, skewing Catholic doctrine and mocking "the Catholic conscience thing."

The Conference of Bishops had said: "Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty." They further cited the conscience clause inserted into all previous Congressional health care legislation: "Public officials may not require individuals or entities who receive certain public funds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures or to make facilities or personnel available for the performance of such procedures if such performance would be contrary to the individual or entity's religious belief or moral convictions."

If you can't attack the principle, attack the persons advocating the principle. Pelosi is no stranger to that kind of attack. This past Thursday, unable to find any Catholic doctrine to support her views, Pelosi simply called the Conference of Catholic Bishops "lobbyists in Washington DC." So much for the efficacy of Church discipline, doctrine, dogma, and Papal authority. Her Catholicness speaks, and the Bishops should just shut up. In a masterpiece of illogic, bad grammar, and un-Catholic thought, Pelosi said: "I am a devout Catholic. As a devout Catholic (second time, in case you didn't get it the first time), I have great respect for our bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington DC, we have some areas of disagreement."

Pelosi is simply an idiot. I understand Church decisions and Papal authority better than she. And I'm Lutheran. It's OK, even expected, that as a Protestant I will have differences of religious opinion with Papal decisions on faith and morals and am free, perhaps even obligated to dispute those decisions publicly when they offend my personal conscience and reading of scripture. That's not how it's supposed to be under Catholic apostolic succession doctrine. Pelosi is determined to flout the doctrine of her own Church, while at the same time forcing millions of non-Catholics to support abortion with their tax dollars and eventually to buy insurance that covers abortion.

If that's being a devout Catholic, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Her Holiness Holds Forth

View Detail

60 Minutes Outs Pelosi

60 Minutes Outs Pelosi

The Democrats are masters of corruption. They talk about hating evil corporations and helping the poor, but it’s all for show: the Democrats use government to enrich themselves. The reason they’ve gotten away with this for so long is the media covers up for them. So why did 60 Minutes just “out” Pelosi?

Here’s the story. In 2008, Nancy Pelosi “somehow” got the chance to buy into (subscribe to) the Visa initial public offering (IPO). For those who don’t know, this is something only insiders get to do. IPOs are almost always limited to company employees, their families, and large companies connected to making the public offering happen, i.e. the investment bank, a few institutional clients, company creditors and lawyers. Pelosi was none of these, yet she got in.

Indeed, Pelosi bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock. She paid $44 per share to buy in. Two days later, the IPO was issued to the public and the stock price soared to $65 per share. Two month later, it was $85 per share. She had almost doubled her money in two months.

So how did Pelosi get into this IPO? Well, it turns out that companies looking to build good will in Congress will sometimes let selected members of Congress in on their IPOs. And why would Visa care about Nancy Pelosi? Because two weeks after Pelosi bought into this IPO, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act was introduced in the House. This bill would have prevented credit card companies like Visa from charging certain fees. How much in fees? The credit card companies took in $48 billion in these fees in 2008 alone.

This bill passed the Judiciary Committee and apparently had broad public support as high as 77% in one poll. Yet, for some strange reason, Pelosi never let this bill get to the House floor for a vote. Imagine that.

And Pelosi wasn’t done there. Another bill, called the Credit Card Interchange Fee Act of 2008, which would have required credit card companies to disclose rates, met the same fate: Pelosi killed it. Instead, she brought to the floor a vote on a similarly named bill which only provided for further study. That's not a bad return on investment for Visa since it cost Visa nothing to let Pelosi ride along on their IPO.

Other IPOs in which Pelosi made money include Gupta (88% profit in two days), Netscape and UUNet (100% profit in one day), Remedy Corp., Opal, Legato Systems, Act Networks, etc. In 2007, Pelosi put $100,000 in an IPO with natural gas company Clean Energy Fuels and $500,000 in an IPO for natural gas company Quest Energy Partners. Then she started pushing natural gas bills in Congress. Tom Brokaw actually asked her if she had made significant personal investments in natural gas companies and if this represented a conflict of interest and she dodged the question.

But this is nothing new for Democrats. In just the last couple years:

● Pelosi got special treatment for donor Kaiser Permanente under ObamaCare.

● Democrat Max Baucus, who made his girlfriend the US Attorney for Montana, apparently made the same kinds of insider trades Pelosi did.

● Democrats Jim Moran, Peter Visclosky, and John Murtha directed $137 million in defense contracts to clients of a lobbyist who funneled more than $380,000 in illegal campaign contributions to them.

● Democrat Chris Dodd, who wrote banking regulation legislation, got sweetheart loans from the banks that would have been effected.

● Pelosi budget supercommittee appointee Xavier Becerra, sent out a fundraising letter to the companies whose programs he could now cut.

● The Congress Black Caucus has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Democrats Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks).

● As a Senator, Democrat Joe Biden, who was basically owned by MBNA worked to make credit card debt harder to discharge in bankruptcy.

● Democrat Obama gave the Treasury to Goldman Sachs and GM to his union friends. His donors at GE had record profits yet paid no taxes. GE also gets waivers from Obama for laws they’ve lobbied for. Of course, Obama also gave thousands of Obamacare waivers to donors.

● It’s getting increasingly obvious Obama steered $535 million in taxpayer dollars to big-time Obama donor ($100k) and “green-jobs” showpiece Solyndra as it was failing.

● Democrat Jon Corzine managed to “lose” $700 million in client money when his new company, MF Global went belly up. . . after donating $500,000 to Obama’s reelection.

Of course, the MSM has long ignored all of this. So why report the Pelosi story now? Could the MSM be about to become honest about exposing Democratic corruption? Or did Pelosi just cross some secret line?

How about this: this information was first uncovered by the Heritage Foundation. They were, in fact, writing a book about it. I suspect 60 Minutes realized this information would reach the public, no matter how hard the MSM tried to ignore it because Pelosi has such a high profile. Rather than let this blow up during the election and hurt all Democrats, 60 Minutes chose to cover this now, during the silly season where little is happening in Washington and the public is preparing for the coming holidays, i.e. 60 Minutes wants to defuse this now.

If I’m wrong, then 60 Minutes will follow up on this and attempt to get Pelosi to disgorge the profits and/or resign from Congress. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

What do you think is going on?

The Democrats are masters of corruption. They talk about hating evil corporations and helping the poor, but it’s all for show: the Democrats use government to enrich themselves. The reason they’ve gotten away with this for so long is the media covers up for them. So why did 60 Minutes just “out” Pelosi?

Here’s the story. In 2008, Nancy Pelosi “somehow” got the chance to buy into (subscribe to) the Visa initial public offering (IPO). For those who don’t know, this is something only insiders get to do. IPOs are almost always limited to company employees, their families, and large companies connected to making the public offering happen, i.e. the investment bank, a few institutional clients, company creditors and lawyers. Pelosi was none of these, yet she got in.

Indeed, Pelosi bought between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock. She paid $44 per share to buy in. Two days later, the IPO was issued to the public and the stock price soared to $65 per share. Two month later, it was $85 per share. She had almost doubled her money in two months.

So how did Pelosi get into this IPO? Well, it turns out that companies looking to build good will in Congress will sometimes let selected members of Congress in on their IPOs. And why would Visa care about Nancy Pelosi? Because two weeks after Pelosi bought into this IPO, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act was introduced in the House. This bill would have prevented credit card companies like Visa from charging certain fees. How much in fees? The credit card companies took in $48 billion in these fees in 2008 alone.

This bill passed the Judiciary Committee and apparently had broad public support as high as 77% in one poll. Yet, for some strange reason, Pelosi never let this bill get to the House floor for a vote. Imagine that.

And Pelosi wasn’t done there. Another bill, called the Credit Card Interchange Fee Act of 2008, which would have required credit card companies to disclose rates, met the same fate: Pelosi killed it. Instead, she brought to the floor a vote on a similarly named bill which only provided for further study. That's not a bad return on investment for Visa since it cost Visa nothing to let Pelosi ride along on their IPO.

Other IPOs in which Pelosi made money include Gupta (88% profit in two days), Netscape and UUNet (100% profit in one day), Remedy Corp., Opal, Legato Systems, Act Networks, etc. In 2007, Pelosi put $100,000 in an IPO with natural gas company Clean Energy Fuels and $500,000 in an IPO for natural gas company Quest Energy Partners. Then she started pushing natural gas bills in Congress. Tom Brokaw actually asked her if she had made significant personal investments in natural gas companies and if this represented a conflict of interest and she dodged the question.

But this is nothing new for Democrats. In just the last couple years:

● Pelosi got special treatment for donor Kaiser Permanente under ObamaCare.

● Democrat Max Baucus, who made his girlfriend the US Attorney for Montana, apparently made the same kinds of insider trades Pelosi did.

● Democrats Jim Moran, Peter Visclosky, and John Murtha directed $137 million in defense contracts to clients of a lobbyist who funneled more than $380,000 in illegal campaign contributions to them.

● Democrat Chris Dodd, who wrote banking regulation legislation, got sweetheart loans from the banks that would have been effected.

● Pelosi budget supercommittee appointee Xavier Becerra, sent out a fundraising letter to the companies whose programs he could now cut.

● The Congress Black Caucus has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Democrats Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks).

● As a Senator, Democrat Joe Biden, who was basically owned by MBNA worked to make credit card debt harder to discharge in bankruptcy.

● Democrat Obama gave the Treasury to Goldman Sachs and GM to his union friends. His donors at GE had record profits yet paid no taxes. GE also gets waivers from Obama for laws they’ve lobbied for. Of course, Obama also gave thousands of Obamacare waivers to donors.

● It’s getting increasingly obvious Obama steered $535 million in taxpayer dollars to big-time Obama donor ($100k) and “green-jobs” showpiece Solyndra as it was failing.

● Democrat Jon Corzine managed to “lose” $700 million in client money when his new company, MF Global went belly up. . . after donating $500,000 to Obama’s reelection.

Of course, the MSM has long ignored all of this. So why report the Pelosi story now? Could the MSM be about to become honest about exposing Democratic corruption? Or did Pelosi just cross some secret line?

How about this: this information was first uncovered by the Heritage Foundation. They were, in fact, writing a book about it. I suspect 60 Minutes realized this information would reach the public, no matter how hard the MSM tried to ignore it because Pelosi has such a high profile. Rather than let this blow up during the election and hurt all Democrats, 60 Minutes chose to cover this now, during the silly season where little is happening in Washington and the public is preparing for the coming holidays, i.e. 60 Minutes wants to defuse this now.

If I’m wrong, then 60 Minutes will follow up on this and attempt to get Pelosi to disgorge the profits and/or resign from Congress. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

What do you think is going on?

60 Minutes Outs Pelosi

View Detail

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

Just a short time before the House took a vote forbidding the use of federal funds to pay for any part of a health plan that covers abortion, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would mean that "women can die on the floor." Fifteen House Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for what the president of NARAL called The Let Women Die Act.

The bill is aimed at one portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Prior law forbade direct use of federal funds for abortion, but Obamacare slipped in provisions which did by the back door what it couldn't do through the front. Rather than pay for the abortion directly, Obamacare allowed abortion to be paid for by insurance plans which accept federal funds. The bill bans that practice.

The bill also covered another problem created by Obamacare. It prevents punitive action against any health care provider who refuses to perform or assist in performing an abortion based on moral or religious objections. It's important to note that as we review the Democratic hysteria over the bill, it doesn't ban abortion, just direct or indirect federal funding of it. Multiple polls have shown that somewhere between 65% and 70% of Americans who may otherwise have divergent views on abortion itself oppose federal funding of abortion in any form.

The Republican position on the bill was that Obamacare contains loopholes galore that allow the use of federal subsidies and stimuli for the purpose of purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. Many of the supporters of the new bill (called the Protect Life Act) clearly believe that Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, but wanted to take an early step in that agenda by eliminating one of the most egregious of Obamacare's flaws. Unlike many of the provisions of Obamacare which are purely economic nostrums or bureaucratic "solutions," this flaw flagrantly allowed federal funding for a medical procedure abhorrent to a substantial number of Americans.

Pelosi went off on a journey of free-association in discussing the bill. "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. It's just appalling. It falls right into their--all, it's a health issue." In other words, if the doctors don't perform a procedure which would terminate a perfectly normal pregnancy, a woman will die on the floor while the doctors stand by and swap golf stories.

Perhaps she doesn't realize that if a woman comes into a Catholic hospital bleeding heavily from a botched abortion performed elsewhere, those Catholic doctors will do everything in their power to save the mother (and the baby, if it still lives). But what can you expect? This is a practicing Catholic woman who lectures the bishops and the Pope on their misinterpretations of the Bible and their incorrectness on Church doctrine.

For a woman her age, Pelosi has amazing lung power. She can string together thoughts in random order and pronounce them without taking a breath. Example: "This is a health care issue and it falls right in with a lot of other initiatives that they [the Republicans] had coming up on the floor (where the women are dying?) about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it--America's families deserve better than this and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity, instead of taking up even an aspect of the president's job bill that could create jobs they're--I can't even describe to you the logic of what is is that they are doing, I just know that you will see a large number of women on the floor today (dying women?) fighting for women's health issues, as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Whew! I'll bet she could blow out a 150 birthday candle cake without taking a second breath.

Pelosi also went on to say "this is not a jobs bill." No, really? "Everybody in America has the creation of jobs as their top priority and what we are doing is wasting time. Every woman in America should be concerned with this assault on women's rights. This is just one aspect of women's health. But it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. It's a waste of time." So if I'm hearing her right, women's health and access to abortion is vitally important, but it's a waste of time because jobs are at stake.

National Right to Life Director Douglass Johnson said: "President Obama won enactment of Obamacare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion. But now the mask is coming off. Obamacare contains multiple provisions designed to authorize federal subsidies for abortion." The Protect Life Act removes those subsidies. But it does not prevent any woman who wants health care insurance with abortion coverage from purchasing it. It just prevents them from purchasing federally-subsidized insurance which provides coverage for abortions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 251-172 (236 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor). There are two hurdles remaining. First, the Senate helmed by Democrat Harry Reid may never even get to vote if Reid uses his parliamentary tricks to keep the vote away from his colleagues. Even if Reid doesn't manage to table the bill, passage in the Senate is far from a sure thing. And in the event that the bill does pass the Senate, there's that final roadblock in the White House.

President Obama will have to do some serious spinning to come up with a reason to veto the bill. But spin he will. He spent months on the political trail obscuring the Obamacare loopholes for abortion because he claims to believe that federal funding should not be used for abortion. He can't veto the bill on that basis, then, without having another lie added to the long list of lies he has told. He might try to do his new "capitalist" thing, and claim that the bill interferes with the right to private contract. Who knows? But it is highly likely that he will veto the bill if it ever gets to his desk.

Just a short time before the House took a vote forbidding the use of federal funds to pay for any part of a health plan that covers abortion, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would mean that "women can die on the floor." Fifteen House Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for what the president of NARAL called The Let Women Die Act.

The bill is aimed at one portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Prior law forbade direct use of federal funds for abortion, but Obamacare slipped in provisions which did by the back door what it couldn't do through the front. Rather than pay for the abortion directly, Obamacare allowed abortion to be paid for by insurance plans which accept federal funds. The bill bans that practice.

The bill also covered another problem created by Obamacare. It prevents punitive action against any health care provider who refuses to perform or assist in performing an abortion based on moral or religious objections. It's important to note that as we review the Democratic hysteria over the bill, it doesn't ban abortion, just direct or indirect federal funding of it. Multiple polls have shown that somewhere between 65% and 70% of Americans who may otherwise have divergent views on abortion itself oppose federal funding of abortion in any form.

The Republican position on the bill was that Obamacare contains loopholes galore that allow the use of federal subsidies and stimuli for the purpose of purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. Many of the supporters of the new bill (called the Protect Life Act) clearly believe that Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, but wanted to take an early step in that agenda by eliminating one of the most egregious of Obamacare's flaws. Unlike many of the provisions of Obamacare which are purely economic nostrums or bureaucratic "solutions," this flaw flagrantly allowed federal funding for a medical procedure abhorrent to a substantial number of Americans.

Pelosi went off on a journey of free-association in discussing the bill. "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. It's just appalling. It falls right into their--all, it's a health issue." In other words, if the doctors don't perform a procedure which would terminate a perfectly normal pregnancy, a woman will die on the floor while the doctors stand by and swap golf stories.

Perhaps she doesn't realize that if a woman comes into a Catholic hospital bleeding heavily from a botched abortion performed elsewhere, those Catholic doctors will do everything in their power to save the mother (and the baby, if it still lives). But what can you expect? This is a practicing Catholic woman who lectures the bishops and the Pope on their misinterpretations of the Bible and their incorrectness on Church doctrine.

For a woman her age, Pelosi has amazing lung power. She can string together thoughts in random order and pronounce them without taking a breath. Example: "This is a health care issue and it falls right in with a lot of other initiatives that they [the Republicans] had coming up on the floor (where the women are dying?) about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it--America's families deserve better than this and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity, instead of taking up even an aspect of the president's job bill that could create jobs they're--I can't even describe to you the logic of what is is that they are doing, I just know that you will see a large number of women on the floor today (dying women?) fighting for women's health issues, as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Whew! I'll bet she could blow out a 150 birthday candle cake without taking a second breath.

Pelosi also went on to say "this is not a jobs bill." No, really? "Everybody in America has the creation of jobs as their top priority and what we are doing is wasting time. Every woman in America should be concerned with this assault on women's rights. This is just one aspect of women's health. But it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. It's a waste of time." So if I'm hearing her right, women's health and access to abortion is vitally important, but it's a waste of time because jobs are at stake.

National Right to Life Director Douglass Johnson said: "President Obama won enactment of Obamacare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion. But now the mask is coming off. Obamacare contains multiple provisions designed to authorize federal subsidies for abortion." The Protect Life Act removes those subsidies. But it does not prevent any woman who wants health care insurance with abortion coverage from purchasing it. It just prevents them from purchasing federally-subsidized insurance which provides coverage for abortions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 251-172 (236 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor). There are two hurdles remaining. First, the Senate helmed by Democrat Harry Reid may never even get to vote if Reid uses his parliamentary tricks to keep the vote away from his colleagues. Even if Reid doesn't manage to table the bill, passage in the Senate is far from a sure thing. And in the event that the bill does pass the Senate, there's that final roadblock in the White House.

President Obama will have to do some serious spinning to come up with a reason to veto the bill. But spin he will. He spent months on the political trail obscuring the Obamacare loopholes for abortion because he claims to believe that federal funding should not be used for abortion. He can't veto the bill on that basis, then, without having another lie added to the long list of lies he has told. He might try to do his new "capitalist" thing, and claim that the bill interferes with the right to private contract. Who knows? But it is highly likely that he will veto the bill if it ever gets to his desk.

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

View Detail

Planned Parenthood A Pelosi Quandary

Planned Parenthood A Pelosi Quandary

It's Sunday, and for once I'm going to do my religious duty and rest. But not before I throw out a topic for you readers to kick around and bring me up to speed on your thinking. We're once again up against a Congressional deadline for passing a budget, or passing a continuing resolution, or shutting down non-vital government functions until one of the previous two is accomplished.

On Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Boehner lost a vote on his proposed continuing resolution (they're not even close on an actual budget). Conservative Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the bill 230 to 195. Whatever one may think of their reasoning and their votes, the basic problem was that the conservatives thought the resolution didn't make enough deep cuts and wanted FEMA disaster funding handled separately. Democrats wanted to keep FEMA in the formula in order to demagogue Republican heartlessness. They also wanted some offsetting new taxes to balance the cuts ("revenue enhancement" in Democrat parlance means "higher taxes").

In fact, there was a more complicated reason for why the Republicans seemed to be susceptible to the claim of being heartless. They actually originally wanted to keep FEMA disaster funding and named the figure of $1.5 billion. But to keep that funding, they wanted an equal cut in funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program. In other words, the Democrats would rather kill funding for FEMA disaster relief than to allow cuts in their precious experimental toy cars program.

Former House Speaker and now very-minority Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday did her usual incoherent discussion of the impasse, blaming recalcitrant Republicans for just about everything except the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Subtly admitting that she simply doesn't like cuts in federal programs that produce Democrat voters and ever-larger deficits, Pelosi said she was opposed to cuts in any programs in order to protect the FEMA disaster funding.

Says San Fran Nan: "Let's hope they're [Republicans] not playing games with us--and now we are getting into games. Why don't we just come back and have another press conference after they say what they're are going to do. Because it's a waste of your time and my time to speculate on the horrors that they could come up with--because we know they are endless and we could be here a long time." Pelosi is much more concerned with what she calls "games" (others call it hardball politics) and news conferences than she is with admitting that cuts have to be made and that the nation can't afford to keep all the Democratic pie-in-the-sky, something-for-nothing programs.

Given her tendency to hyperventilate over any proposal to downsize the federal government giveaway programs, her reaction was not exactly unexpected. Her failure to propose an alternative that the nation could afford was likewise not a surprise. And her incoherence was simply standard Pelosi. But that's not what I'm hoping you will edify me and enlighten me about.

Pelosi was sure that she would advocate against and vote to reject any Republican proposal that funds necessary government functions by cutting Democratic pork and wasteful government programs. She was in a quandary about only one thing (surprisingly). When asked directly if some government programs in a continuing resolution could be funded by de-funding Planned Parenthood, Pelosi said she wouldn't speculate on what she would if that proposal were made.

So there it is. I have no idea why Pelosi would have any hesitation about preserving the funding for the abortion mill that she has so often and strongly supported. I would have expected her to give up all funding for the Defense Department or fetal stem cell research before even considering cutting or de-funding Planned Parenthood. So what do you think? Should she be in a quandary about Planned Parenthood? Is she really in a quandary, or is she simply stalling for time until she can think of an answer favorable to Planned Parenthood? And finally, if everything else could be worked out, do you think Pelosi would fight a continuing resolution solely on the basis of de-funding Planned Parenthood?

It's Sunday, and for once I'm going to do my religious duty and rest. But not before I throw out a topic for you readers to kick around and bring me up to speed on your thinking. We're once again up against a Congressional deadline for passing a budget, or passing a continuing resolution, or shutting down non-vital government functions until one of the previous two is accomplished.

On Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Boehner lost a vote on his proposed continuing resolution (they're not even close on an actual budget). Conservative Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the bill 230 to 195. Whatever one may think of their reasoning and their votes, the basic problem was that the conservatives thought the resolution didn't make enough deep cuts and wanted FEMA disaster funding handled separately. Democrats wanted to keep FEMA in the formula in order to demagogue Republican heartlessness. They also wanted some offsetting new taxes to balance the cuts ("revenue enhancement" in Democrat parlance means "higher taxes").

In fact, there was a more complicated reason for why the Republicans seemed to be susceptible to the claim of being heartless. They actually originally wanted to keep FEMA disaster funding and named the figure of $1.5 billion. But to keep that funding, they wanted an equal cut in funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program. In other words, the Democrats would rather kill funding for FEMA disaster relief than to allow cuts in their precious experimental toy cars program.

Former House Speaker and now very-minority Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday did her usual incoherent discussion of the impasse, blaming recalcitrant Republicans for just about everything except the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Subtly admitting that she simply doesn't like cuts in federal programs that produce Democrat voters and ever-larger deficits, Pelosi said she was opposed to cuts in any programs in order to protect the FEMA disaster funding.

Says San Fran Nan: "Let's hope they're [Republicans] not playing games with us--and now we are getting into games. Why don't we just come back and have another press conference after they say what they're are going to do. Because it's a waste of your time and my time to speculate on the horrors that they could come up with--because we know they are endless and we could be here a long time." Pelosi is much more concerned with what she calls "games" (others call it hardball politics) and news conferences than she is with admitting that cuts have to be made and that the nation can't afford to keep all the Democratic pie-in-the-sky, something-for-nothing programs.

Given her tendency to hyperventilate over any proposal to downsize the federal government giveaway programs, her reaction was not exactly unexpected. Her failure to propose an alternative that the nation could afford was likewise not a surprise. And her incoherence was simply standard Pelosi. But that's not what I'm hoping you will edify me and enlighten me about.

Pelosi was sure that she would advocate against and vote to reject any Republican proposal that funds necessary government functions by cutting Democratic pork and wasteful government programs. She was in a quandary about only one thing (surprisingly). When asked directly if some government programs in a continuing resolution could be funded by de-funding Planned Parenthood, Pelosi said she wouldn't speculate on what she would if that proposal were made.

So there it is. I have no idea why Pelosi would have any hesitation about preserving the funding for the abortion mill that she has so often and strongly supported. I would have expected her to give up all funding for the Defense Department or fetal stem cell research before even considering cutting or de-funding Planned Parenthood. So what do you think? Should she be in a quandary about Planned Parenthood? Is she really in a quandary, or is she simply stalling for time until she can think of an answer favorable to Planned Parenthood? And finally, if everything else could be worked out, do you think Pelosi would fight a continuing resolution solely on the basis of de-funding Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood A Pelosi Quandary

View Detail

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

Surprise surprise, the Democrats are unethical and corrupt. . . just like we figured. Not only was it obscene that Harry “the turd” Reid appointed the Honorless Pat Murray to the new Supercommittee, but Nancy Pelosi’s selection, Xavier Becerra immediately set about trying to profit from being selected to the Supercommittee. Wow, Democrats are shameless.



The Supercommittee, as you may recall, will be charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. This could include actual cuts or the elimination of special-interest-obtained tax deductions. That means thousands of lobbyists will want to get their paws on these Congresscritters and Senators to buy them off so their plundered spoils will continue to come pouring forth from the Treasury.



Apparently, the Democrats are happy to sell themselves to these lobbyists.



Indeed, when the committee names were first announced, Harry Reid’s selection of Washington State Senator Patty Murray seemed the most cynical. She is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That means she is charged with raising money to help Democratic Senators get re-elected in 2012. Giving her a post that will cause lobbyists to fight each other to the death for a place in line to buy her off is so incredibly cynical you wouldn’t think a modern American politician would actually try to get away with doing such a thing -- indeed, this harkens back to the days of the scandals of the 1880s, when politicians were openly bought and sold. But you would be wrong. Reid did it. Nice work Harry, you sh~t. . . oh, and #$%& you Nevada.



But Murray has been a paragon of virtue compared to Pelosi appointee Xavier Becerra (which means “corrupt bastard” in Spanish). Literally within two hours of being appointed, Becerra sent out an invitation to Wall Street lobbyists inviting them to a $1,500 per-ticket event. On the invite, he highlighted his membership on the Supercommittee:

“[Becerra is] not only vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but who also has just been named to the new deficit reduction committee. This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group. This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

In other words, this is your first chance to give me money because I will be deciding the fate of your spoils. This is just shameless. Kenya isn’t this corrupt. Nigeria isn't this corrupt. Chicago isn't this corrupt.



Should we be surprised by this? Hardly. Pelosi is infamous for corruptly giving special treatment to her donors, see e.g. Kaiser Permanente. She is also infamous for trying to pass bills that benefit companies in which she has an ownership stake, like various natural gas bills that would directly help Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE). And of course, she’s not alone in this. Indeed, using their legislative power to corruptly help their donors or enrich themselves is part of being a Democrat. The Congress Black Caucus, for example, has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks), and most Democrats are quite accomplished tools of big business. Chris Dodd was an infamous whore for Countrywide Financial. Obama too has been good at this (GE corruption, giving the treasury to Goldman Sachs, money for GM unions) as was Clinton and just about anyone with a "D" after their names. In fact, they should dump their Donkey mascot and replace it with a backscratcher or a cash machine.



So if you’re a Democrat, it’s time to face reality: your party is the corrupt tool of big business. You stupidly think your party stands for the little guy, but it really only stands on the little guy. You are supporting a party that steals from the poor to give to rich friends. You suck.

Surprise surprise, the Democrats are unethical and corrupt. . . just like we figured. Not only was it obscene that Harry “the turd” Reid appointed the Honorless Pat Murray to the new Supercommittee, but Nancy Pelosi’s selection, Xavier Becerra immediately set about trying to profit from being selected to the Supercommittee. Wow, Democrats are shameless.



The Supercommittee, as you may recall, will be charged with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. This could include actual cuts or the elimination of special-interest-obtained tax deductions. That means thousands of lobbyists will want to get their paws on these Congresscritters and Senators to buy them off so their plundered spoils will continue to come pouring forth from the Treasury.



Apparently, the Democrats are happy to sell themselves to these lobbyists.



Indeed, when the committee names were first announced, Harry Reid’s selection of Washington State Senator Patty Murray seemed the most cynical. She is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That means she is charged with raising money to help Democratic Senators get re-elected in 2012. Giving her a post that will cause lobbyists to fight each other to the death for a place in line to buy her off is so incredibly cynical you wouldn’t think a modern American politician would actually try to get away with doing such a thing -- indeed, this harkens back to the days of the scandals of the 1880s, when politicians were openly bought and sold. But you would be wrong. Reid did it. Nice work Harry, you sh~t. . . oh, and #$%& you Nevada.



But Murray has been a paragon of virtue compared to Pelosi appointee Xavier Becerra (which means “corrupt bastard” in Spanish). Literally within two hours of being appointed, Becerra sent out an invitation to Wall Street lobbyists inviting them to a $1,500 per-ticket event. On the invite, he highlighted his membership on the Supercommittee:

“[Becerra is] not only vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, but who also has just been named to the new deficit reduction committee. This will be Mr. Becerra’s first event since being named to the commission and may be one of the first for any of the twelve members of the group. This event could give all attendees a glimpse into what will most assuredly be the primary topic of discussion between now and the end of the year.”

In other words, this is your first chance to give me money because I will be deciding the fate of your spoils. This is just shameless. Kenya isn’t this corrupt. Nigeria isn't this corrupt. Chicago isn't this corrupt.



Should we be surprised by this? Hardly. Pelosi is infamous for corruptly giving special treatment to her donors, see e.g. Kaiser Permanente. She is also infamous for trying to pass bills that benefit companies in which she has an ownership stake, like various natural gas bills that would directly help Clean Energy Fuels Corp (CLNE). And of course, she’s not alone in this. Indeed, using their legislative power to corruptly help their donors or enrich themselves is part of being a Democrat. The Congress Black Caucus, for example, has been particular good at illegally giving federal money to their friends and family, see e.g. Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson (scholarships to relatives), Charlie Rangel (tax breaks to donors) and Maxine Waters (money to relatives’ banks), and most Democrats are quite accomplished tools of big business. Chris Dodd was an infamous whore for Countrywide Financial. Obama too has been good at this (GE corruption, giving the treasury to Goldman Sachs, money for GM unions) as was Clinton and just about anyone with a "D" after their names. In fact, they should dump their Donkey mascot and replace it with a backscratcher or a cash machine.



So if you’re a Democrat, it’s time to face reality: your party is the corrupt tool of big business. You stupidly think your party stands for the little guy, but it really only stands on the little guy. You are supporting a party that steals from the poor to give to rich friends. You suck.

Democrats Use Supercommittee As Cash Machine

View Detail