Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	1/7/2010 10:03:38 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi on health care reform bill: 'There has never been a more open process for any legislation.' By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer beltway-confidential 01/05/10 5:50 PM EST Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has finally responded to C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb's letter imploring Congress to live up to their transparency promises by televising health care reform negotiations. From The Hill: <<< C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation. But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process. "There has never been a more open process for any legislation," Pelosi said at a press conference. >>> Never been a more open process?! It's no secret that Pelosi and Democratic leaders are desperate to pass health care reform, but do they really think delusional lies are the best way to win over the public? washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	1/7/2010 12:57:11 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Touché Michael Ramirez Cartoon Investor's Business Daily investors.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	1/11/2010 4:59:21 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Three years after promising "most ethical congress ever" not one lawmaker punished under Democratic ethics rules By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer beltway-confidential 01/11/10 1:44 PM EST Shortly after Democrats took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 mid-term elections, Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously made big promises about congressional corruption. "The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," she said. Well, three years later, Democrats have yet to punish a single member of Congress for ethical violations. USA Today reports: <<< Nearly three years after Congress approved sweeping ethics rules to "drain the swamp," as incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, no member of Congress has been punished for wrongdoing. In that time, allegations of sexual misconduct and financial impropriety have been lodged against lawmakers. The most serious rebuke in the past year: a "letter of qualified admonition" to Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., after the Senate ethics panel concluded he misled lawmakers and inappropriately offered to raise campaign funds for then-governor Rod Blagojevich as Burris sought the Senate appointment. "Three years later, it's the same old, same old," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. >>> washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	2/2/2010 7:54:20 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi's Last Hurrah By Jane Jamison American Thinker San Francisco's congresswoman of 23 years, the daughter of a Baltimore mayor, has a sense of self-entitlement and extravagance unimagined by most public servants and ordinary folk. Her indulgences charged to American taxpayers are now documented and damning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has spent or authorized spending at least $3.2 million on trips, hotels, food, high-priced liquor, and military jet rides in the past two years. Pelosi spent at least $1.1 million of taxpayer funds ushering a delegation of at least 106 people to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (the "global warming" conference where nothing was decided). The entourage stayed two nights. According to CBS News, <<< For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That's $2,200 a day... Total hotel, meeting rooms and "a couple" of $1,000-a-night hospitality suites topped $400,000. Fifty-nine House and Senate staff flew commercial during the Copenhagen rush. They paid government rates -- $5-10,000 each -- totaling $408,064. Add three military jets -- $168,351 just for flight time -- and the bill tops $1.1 million dollars -- not including all the Obama administration officials who attended: well over 60. >>> Speaker Pelosi would not comment about the expenses to CBS News. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Malibu) was also on the trip, but he says he "did not know" what expenses were incurred. Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has just released a report on Speaker Pelosi's extravagant use of government aircraft: <<< According to the documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker's military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period - $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. * Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international CODEL is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House Speaker's family. * One CODEL traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, "to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders" included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine. * According to a "Memo for Record" from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, "CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc." * The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to "view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina." The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46. Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. >>> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rated #8 of Washington's ten most corrupt politicians for 2009. House Speaker Pelosi is one of the fifteen richest members of Congress, with a net worth between $33 million and $95 million. (So why does she charge us for her family's Grey Goose martinis on Air Force three? Nancy can afford to BYOB.) There is a moral "disconnect" in the Pelosi family vineyard business. From Investors.com, 2006: <<< As Peter Schweizer notes in his best-selling expose of liberal hypocrisy, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)," part of the fortune of this defender of the working man is a Napa Valley vineyard worth $25 million that she owns with her husband. The vineyard produces expensive grapes for high-end wines. Napa grapes bring up to $4,000 a ton compared with $300 a ton for, say, San Joaquin grapes. But Pelosi, winner of the 2003 Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers, hires only nonunion workers and sells these grapes to nonunion wineries. Schweizer places Pelosi in a chapter titled "Workers of the World Unite Somewhere Else." UFW members need not apply at the Pelosi family vineyards. >>> With the above facts in mind, Pelosi voted against the Fence Act of 2006 to build a fence along the American-Mexican border, against requiring ID cards for illegal aliens, against electronic data-keeping of illegal aliens, and for driver's licenses for illegal aliens. CIA "You Lie": Speaker Pelosi was indignant at so-called "torture" of Iraq war detainees by waterboarding. When the CIA produced memos showing that she attended briefings and gave consent before the interrogation tactics were used, Pelosi publicly claimed that President Bush and the CIA lied. The CIA's displeasure at Pelosi's self-interested slander has caused months of rumors that Steny Hoyer will replace Pelosi as Speaker of the House next year, if she is reelected and if the Democrats still have a majority. Her leadership is privately questioned by her own party. Pelosi's Poll Pallor Rasmussen Reports Poll: <<< Just 35% of voters nationwide share a favorable opinion of Pelosi, though that is the highest level measured since last May. Fifty-seven percent (57%) view Pelosi unfavorably, down from 63% in December. >>> Field Poll California, January 27, 2010: <<< Two-thirds of voters here (66%) disapprove of Congress' overall job performance, while only 24% approve. By a three to one margin (69% to 23%) Californians disapprove of the way Congress has addressed the health care issue. Voters also have a more negative than positive view of the job that California Democrat Nancy Pelosi is doing as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Currently, 46% disapprove of her performance while 39% approve. >>> Madame Speaker bullies on. It's not clear if she doesn't care or is just oblivious to the fact that 57% of American voters think that passing nothing would be better than passing the current health care bill. Pelosi told the San Francisco Chronicle that health care would be passed one way or the other: <<< We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit. >>> From The Less-Significant-But-Still-Very-Weird Department: Code Purple. Seated behind President Obama at his State of the Union address, House Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden were "color-coordinated." Pelosi had a lavender jacket; Biden had a purple-striped tie. Mrs. Obama wore purple. With al-Qaeda terrorists trying to blow up airplanes over American cities with underwear bombs, 10% national unemployment, and a ballooning deficit, why in the world would the second and third in line behind the president have time to think about wearing "matching outfits"? If Nancy Pelosi were a Republican, she would have been hounded from office on the basis of any of the above. The tail-wagging national media have rarely and barely nipped at any of these Achilles' heels, but that may change soon with the release of the Pelosi expense reports. Nancy Pelosi's home state now has an unemployment rate of 12.5 %. It has just been announced the state budget, already $21 billion in the red, will likely be out of money by April. Aren't the bluebloods of San Francisco beginning to get at least a teeny twinge of embarrassment from their congresswoman's elitist ramblings and rants? How many sandwiches could be purchased for the homeless people on Market Street in downtown San Francisco with what Pelosi spends boozing on her cross-country flights? Since the national health care plan is ostensibly to help those same poor, elderly, and "little people" that Democrats are supposedly serving, don't any of Pelosi's liberal friends find this luxurious lollapalooza at public expense unseemly and elitist? Nancy Pelosi's effectiveness and credibility are irreparably harmed due to her own deeds and words. She can't blame Bush. There surely is a liberal "lieutenant" or two in San Francisco to take over the "reign" and run for Pelosi's seat. We can't afford Nancy anymore. Whenever she retires from the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi will be entitled to her congressional salary and gold-plated health benefits for life, despite the fact she is a multi-millionaire and can certainly afford to fund herself and a small town. Even so, Nancy Pelosi will be far less expensive for U.S. taxpayers as a retired congresswoman than she is when she is on duty. Jane Jamison is publisher of the conservative news/commentary blog, UNCOVERAGE.net. americanthinker.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	2/21/2010 10:04:01 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

From an e-mail: Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science. The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	2/24/2010 9:58:00 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Hat tip to jlallen: Newly Released Documents Show That Nancy Pelosi Lied About Waterboarding (Video) Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 7:01 PM Jim Hoft On April 23, 2009, the Far Left Speaker denied she was told that waterboarding or other “illegal” interrogation methods were being used on terrorist detainees. She lied. YouTube video Today Speaker Pelosi stood by her lie. She said she was never told that waterboarding was being used on terrorist detainees even though newly released documents prove again that she knew about the agency’s use of harsh interrogation practices on captured terrorists. >> New docs show Pelosi briefed on interrogations **** Hayden, in his 2007 statement for the Senate Select Committee, said as the CIA began implementing the interrogation program in 2002 "the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the speaker, and the minority leader of the House, and the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees were fully briefed on the interrogation procedures." << FOX News reported: <<< Prodded by the release of dozens of declassified CIA documents, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reasserted her longstanding position about what she knew regarding the agency’s use of harsh interrogation practices. “I have never been briefed by the CIA or anyone else on the subject of those interrogations, to the extent that they were being used,” the California Democrat told reporters Tuesday. “We were only briefed that there were lawyers in the Justice Department that thought they were legal, period.” The comments marked Pelosi’s first foray into the controversy in nine months that pitted the top House Democrat against the nation’s premier spy agency. Responding to a lawsuit filed by Amnesty International and two other human rights watchdog groups, the CIA released several dozen documents detailing how the CIA handled suspected terrorism suspects and briefed lawmakers about it. The documents show Pelosi was briefed about “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah” on April 24, 2002, just weeks after the top Al Qaeda suspect was captured in Pakistan. Previously, Pelosi asserted the 2002 briefing covered only “interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future.” Last May, Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to her and other lawmakers about enhanced interrogation techniques used by the agency on terrorism suspects known as high-value detainees. Waterboarding, a simulated form of drowning, is one of the tactics interrogators used to coax information out of the suspects. Its use drew severe criticism because the United States has abstained from it in past conflicts. Last year, Pelosi said she was only briefed once on the advanced interrogation methods, in September 2002. At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She said in May 2009 that CIA briefers told her that “the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal,” and added that waterboarding “was not being employed.” CIA records show that during the September 2002 briefing, Pelosi and others were given “a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed” on Zubaydah. >>> ABC reported last year that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002. gatewaypundit.firstthings.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	2/26/2010 10:07:50 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi losing grip on the House? by Ed Morrissey February 26, 2010 Democrats in the House appear to have started falling apart following a year of frustration and lost opportunities. Jonathan Allen reports on three events that would have taxed leadership had they happened individually. Coming as they did all on one day, the Politico reporter wonders whether Nancy Pelosi has lost her grip on her divided caucus, and whether the House will get any work done this year: <<< Shortly after dinnertime, New York Democrat Charlie Rangel emerged from his private hideaway after news broke that he would be admonished by the House ethics committee. Yet reporters in the Capitol rushed right past Rangel to ask House Democratic leaders about a critical intelligence bill that had just been pulled over a torture provision. The language had been inserted in defiance of leadership by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). At the same time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slated to meet with leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus to try to salvage a routine, $15 billion jobs bill that turned into a piñata for progressives, the moderate Blue Dog Coalition and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Any of these three issues – a floundering jobs bill, a hastily scotched intelligence authorization or an ethics committee admonishment of the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee – would qualify as mid-level crises. Together, these incidents illustrated a chamber in a mini-meltdown near week’s end. >>> Ironically, that jobs bill became a piñata for progressives because Harry Reid refused to proceed with the more expensive bipartisan bill concocted by Max Baucus and Charles Grassley. As I wrote yesterday, the relatively paltry $15 billion bill doesn’t have enough in it to stimulate much of anything except more bureaucracy. House Democrats were expecting a bill 20 times the size of what the Senate passed, especially the progressives, who griped about Porkulus only because it didn’t get stuffed with enough spending the first time. On the intel bill, no one seems sure how it wound up with the objectionable language on criminalizing harsh interrogations. Jane Harman, who used to be the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee until Pelosi unceremoniously tossed her off for her own political reasons, called the Jim McDermott language a “mystery.” It was no mystery; progressives had demanded action along those lines, and Pelosi either let them run wild or didn’t know what was happening. Either way, it doesn’t make for a picture of skilled leadership. Part of Pelosi’s problem, though, is that progressives have become irate at Senate Democrats who won’t pass bills radical enough for them. They have been told to pipe down all year, and after losing the public option on health care, they’re angry. The CBC is almost entirely comprised of progressives, so their action on the jobs bill is just a subset of the opposition to the Reid approach. Pelosi has fanned that discontent rather than sooth it, again for her own political purposes, but she may be about to reap the consequences of both her agenda and her management style. Even if Democrats survive the midterms, they may be realizing that Pelosi simply has to go, and someone with better people skills should take her place. hotair.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/1/2010 12:27:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi: We are the most ethical Congress By: David Freddoso Online Opinion Editor 02/26/10 3:03 PM EST I didn't know that The Hill has a funny-page section: <<<Asked at a press conference about her promise to run the most ethical Congress in the wake of new findings that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) broke House rules, Pelosi interjected, "We are." But Pelosi dodged on whether she would discipline Rangel, who helms the powerful Ways and Means Committee. >>> Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/1/2010 3:01:52 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Quote of the day – Nancy Pelosi edition By Bruce McQuain on Nancy Pelosi QandO How desperate is this bit of pretzel logic? <<< “But let me say this,” Pelosi continues, “The bill can be bipartisan, even though the votes might not be bipartisan, because they [Republicans] have made their imprint on this.” >>> By George, Queen Nancy will make this bill bipartisan even if she has to redefine bipartisan. Does that now make the GOP the party of “yes” since they supposedly imprinted themselves on that “bipartisan” bill? No? Who’s confused? ~McQ qando.net

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/2/2010 7:10:57 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Nancy Pelosi Lies, Again By Mark Noonan on Obamacare Makes me wonder just how long it has been since someone advised her of the difference between truth and lies: <<< House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted on Friday that the Senate health care bill does not allow tax-funding of abortion, and added that she had spoken with “Catholic bishops” about the issue. However, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told CNSNews.com that anyone who had spoken to the bishops about the legislation should know that it does fund abortion and that the bishops oppose the bill. >>> Dishonesty, thy name is Nancy. Who is she trying to impress? The folks back home? I doubt that pleasing Catholics is high on the San Francisco agenda. I can only guess that she’s hoping to limit Catholic voter defections in November – as the Church has gotten ever more forthright on the moral duties of politicians who claim to be Catholic, it has become ever harder for such politicians to try and split the moral difference. The days of Ted Kennedy getting away with it for decades are over. In addition to that, I do wonder why liberals are so determined to insert at least some sort of abortion funding in to ObamaCare? Is the bill not quite unpopular enough? I know the abortion industry lavishes money on the Democrats, but is pleasing them worth angering political moderates who are opposed to federal funding for abortion? Or, is it that they are just insane? So convinced that they deserve their power and can’t lose it that they just don’t care? I guess time will tell on that. blogsforvictory.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/5/2010 4:22:13 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Nancy Pelosi Gets Angry, Calls Pro-Life Democrats Liars By: John McCormack Weekly Standard 03/04/10 3:32 PM EST No, she doesn't say it directly, but Bart Stupak has said he and a dozen other Democrats who voted yes the first time will vote no on the Senate health care bill because it provides taxpayer-funding for abortion. Today, at a press conference, Pelosi contradicted the factual claims made by Stupak and said there is no federal funding of abortion in the bill. Politico reports: <<< Speaker Nancy Pelosi got exasperated when asked at her weekly news conference about the unwillingness of some Democrats – including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) – to support the health bill because of abortion language. “Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, more eager than ever to stay on message as her legacy becomes increasingly tied to what happens in the next few weeks. The speaker had just talked about areas of disagreement between the House and Senate bills that are being worked on as leaders iron out legislative language for a comprehensive package that Congress can pass. But she omitted abortion. “I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion),” she said, when asked a follow-up question about Stupak. “Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill.” >>> Speaker Pelosi is not telling the truth. The Hyde amendment--the "law of the land" banning federal funding for abortion in other programs--was left out of the Senate health care bill. The Senate bill includes three different provisions to spend taxpayer money on abortions. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/9/2010 6:17:41 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi wins Quote Of The Day By Don Surber YouTube video Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco on the health care bill: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” This reminds me of another character from Sledge Hammer — the star of the TV show of the same name from the late 1980s. His favorite line: “Trust me. I know what I’m doing.” The transcript of Mrs Pelosi’s speech today is here. The pertinent part: <<< “You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.” >>> Too bad she is not a character in some TV sitcom because about now I would love to switch channels. blogs.dailymail.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/11/2010 12:42:03 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns The Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON -- Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew of concerns about the behavior of former Rep. Eric Massa months earlier than Pelosi previously acknowledged, a senior Democratic leadership aide said Wednesday. In October, Massa's chief of staff told Pelosi's office the then-congressman was living in a townhouse with some of his congressional aides and that he had used "strong" language that made them feel uncomfortable, the leadership aide said. The Massa aide, Joe Racalto, also voiced concern "about the way Massa runs the office" and added he had asked the congressman to move out of the townhouse, the aide said. Last week, Pelosi indicated her staff had learned of concerns about Massa only in February, when more detailed allegations of sexual harassment were brought to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.). In what has become an embarrassing distraction for the Democratic majority, Massa resigned from Congress Monday. He initially cited health concerns, before accusing Democratic leaders of pushing him out of Congress for his opposition to the health-care overhaul. He later backed off that assertion. Massa couldn't be reached for comment on Wednesday. The House ethics committee had been investigating allegations against Massa of sexual harassment, which congressional officials say involved inappropriate touching of more than one male staffer. The new details about the involvement of Pelosi's office will likely fuel questions about when the House leadership learned of the allegations and whether they could have investigated the matter earlier. Massa's top aide approached the Speaker's office in October in part because of publicity created by a story in the Evening Tribune, a local New York newspaper, which noted that Massa lived in a Capitol Hill townhouse with five of his staffers. Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal foxnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/11/2010 2:07:56 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

House GOP Calls for Pelosi Investigation Robert Costa The Corner House Republicans are seeking a formal House Ethics Committee investigation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). This afternoon, GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) offered a privileged resolution on the House floor, raising numerous questions about how Pelosi and her staff handled ethical allegations concerning former Rep. Eric Massa (D., N.Y.). Here is the resolution: H. Resolution ______ RESOLUTION Raising a question of the privileges of the House. Whereas, on March 8, 2010, Representative Eric Massa resigned from the House; Whereas, numerous newspapers and other media organizations reported in the days before and after Mr. Massa’s resignation that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was investigating allegations that Mr. Massa sexually harassed Members of his congressional staff; Whereas, on March 3, 2010, Majority Leader Hoyer’s office issued a statement saying, “The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa’s staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer’s staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer’s staff immediately informed him of what they had been told”; Whereas, on Thursday, March 4, Roll Call newspaper reported, “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she only learned Wednesday of misconduct allegations against freshman Rep. Eric Massa, though her staff had learned of it earlier and decided against briefing her. ‘There had been a rumor, but just that ,’ Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference. ‘A one-, two-, three-person rumor that had been reported to Mr. Hoyer’s office and reported to my staff which they did not report to me because you know what? This is rumor city. There are rumors.’”; Whereas, on March 11, 2010, The Washington Post reported, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office was notified in October by then-Rep. Eric Massa’s top aide [Joe Racalto] of concerns about the New York Democrat’s behavior”; Whereas, on March 11, 2010, Politico newspaper reported, “Democratic insiders say Pelosi’s office took no action after Racalto expressed his concerns about his then-boss in October”; Whereas, on March 9, 2010, The Corning Leader newspaper reported, “Hoyer said last week he told Massa to inform the House Ethics Committee of the charges within 48 hours. ‘Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me, never, not once, not a word,’ Massa said Sunday. ‘This is a lie. It is a blatant false statement.’”; Whereas, numerous confusing and conflicting media reports that House Democratic leaders knew about, and may have failed to handle appropriately, allegations that Rep. Massa was sexually harassing his own employees have raised serious and legitimate questions about what Speaker Pelosi as well as other Democratic leaders and their respective staffs were told, and what those individuals did with the information in their possession; Whereas, the aforementioned media accounts have held the House up to public ridicule; Whereas, the possibility that House Democratic leaders may have failed to immediately confront Rep. Massa about allegations of sexual harassment may have exposed employees and interns of Rep. Massa to continued harassment; Whereas, clause one of Rule XXXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, titled “Code of Conduct,” states “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House”; Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is charged under House Rules with enforcing the Code of Conduct; Therefore, be it RESOLVED, (1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is directed to investigate fully, pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) of House Rule XI, which House Democratic leaders and members of their respective staffs had knowledge prior to March 3, 2010 of the aforementioned allegations concerning Mr. Massa, and what actions each leader and staffer having any such knowledge took after learning of the allegations; (2) Within ten days following adoption of this resolution, and pursuant to Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rule 19, the committee shall establish an Investigative Subcommittee in the aforementioned matter, or report to the House no later than the final day of that period the reasons for its failure to do so; (3) All Members and staff are instructed to cooperate fully in the committee’s investigation and to preserve all records, electronic or otherwise, that may bear on the subject of this investigation; (4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall immediately take all steps necessary to secure and prevent the alteration or deletion of any e-mails, text messages, voicemails and other electronic records resident on House equipment that have been sent or received by the Members and staff who are the subjects of the investigation authorized under this resolution until advised by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that it has no need of any portion of said records; and, (5) The Committee shall issue a final report of its findings and recommendations in this matter no later than June 30, 2010. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/16/2010 12:58:01 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi's Promises Chuck Asay from Creators Syndicate creators.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/16/2010 3:06:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi's Perfidy Michael Ramirez from Creators Syndicate creators.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/18/2010 7:10:50 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Economists blast Pelosi's health-care job creation claims By: Chris Stirewalt Political Editor 03/17/10 7:03 PM EDT A group of more than 100 free-market and conservative economists will send a letter to President Obama and Democratic leaders on Thursday decrying the claim from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the president's health summit that passage of Obamacare "will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately." The letter, with signatories including Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Kevin Hassett and Alan Meltzer, asks the president to lay the plan aside and to start work immediately on a new plan that will reduce health care costs. The letter is below: Dear President Obama and Congress: As early as this week, the House of Representatives will vote on the Senate-passed health care bill as well as a reconciliation package making changes to the bill. While Speaker Pelosi asserts that health care reform will create four million jobs, we disagree. In our view, the health care bill contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages, and limit future job creation. New Taxes. The bill raises taxes by almost $500 billion over ten years. A significant portion of these tax increases will fall on small business owners, reducing capital and limiting economic growth and hiring. New and Increased Medicare Taxes. An increase in the Medicare payroll tax included in the bill will affect small businesses employing millions of Americans. Over time, higher payroll taxes will decrease wages for these employees. And a new Medicare tax on investment income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains proposed by President Obama and likely included in the bill will threaten jobs and decrease economic growth. Employer Mandate The bill will impose a tax of $2,000 per employee on employers with more than 50 employees that do not provide health insurance. The bill will also tax employers that offer health coverage deemed “unaffordable” by the government. These new taxes on employers will reduce employment or be passed on to workers in the form of lower wages or reduced hours. In addition to constricting economic growth and reducing employment, the health care bill will increase spending on health care and will increase the cost of health coverage. The new and higher taxes on America’s small businesses and workers included in the bill are detrimental to job creation and economic growth, especially now given the fragile state of the economy. The Congress should instead enact a health care bill that will reduce spending on health care, reduce the cost of health coverage for every American, and that does not harm the economy or cost jobs. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/19/2010 2:29:02 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

GOP Doctor to Pelosi: 'Arrogant. Ignorant. Incompetent.' By: Daniel Foster The Corner During a press conference held by eleven Congressional GOP doctors today, Rep. Paul Broun (R., Ga.) had harsh words for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) <<< “I have three simple questions Ms Pelosi,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. “Are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions, bald faced lies to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want and is going to be absolutely worse for their healthcare?” >>> We'll know the answer by Sunday. .

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	3/31/2010 2:13:35 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Nancy Pelosi’s economics for dummies By: Fred Barnes Weekly Standard 03/30/10 5:04 PM EDT Y?ou probably missed it. But a new school of economics was unveiled last week shortly after health care reform passed the House of Representatives. Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped to the podium in the House chamber and said the legislation will “unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power” and create millions of jobs. “Our economy needs something new, a jolt,” she said. And she and her Democratic colleagues had just delivered it. Pelosi, author of the new departure in economic thinking, said we should now “imagine a society and an economy where a person could change jobs without losing health insurance, where they could be self-employed or start a small business.” With health care reform, “their entrepreneurial spirit will be unleashed.” That’s not the half of it. While insuring 32 million more people, making insurance “more affordable for the middle class,” producing “a healthier America through prevention, through wellness and innovation,” and a whole lot more—in addition to all that, the legislation creates “4 million jobs in the life of the bill and [does] all that by saving the taxpayer $1.3 trillion.” The proper response if you believe Pelosi even a little bit is, “Thank you, Nancy!” or perhaps simply, “Wow!” But restrain yourself. Pelosi has a gift for economic lunacy. This wouldn’t be especially worrisome, except Pelosi is second in line to the presidency and would be prime minister if we had a parliamentary system. So far as I know, Pelosi is the first person in the universe to regard the lack of portability of health insurance as a deathblow to entrepreneurship. This idea is, to put it mildly, farfetched. Is there evidence that budding entrepreneurs have been deterred by the fear of losing health insurance for a spell? Don’t bet on it. Are future Michael Dells or Ted Turners or Pierre Omidyars suppressing their entrepreneurial juices because their doctor visits aren’t covered? Please. Pelosi, as is the habit of Democrats, cited an uncheckable and probably imaginary case. “If they had a child with diabetes who was bipolar??…??they would be job-locked,” she insisted. Maybe so. But a job-locked entrepreneur? It’s surely overkill to revolutionize our entire health care system for the sake of that rare bird. Besides, there’s COBRA, the federal law that permits an employee who quits to stay insured for months. The prospect of 4 million new jobs as a result of health care reform is also fanciful. It’s based on a study by two economists sponsored by the Center for American Progress (CAP), an advocacy group for liberal Democratic legislation. The study claims the reform legislation will modernize the health care system, generate administrative savings, slow the growth in insurance premiums, and allow businesses to hire between 250,000 and 400,000 employees a year for a decade. On the basis of this, Pelosi acts as if 4 million new jobs are a slam dunk. She actually appears to believe it. The problem is the assumption about savings. Any savings from modernization are likely to be more than offset by medical breakthroughs that balloon the cost of care. The Beacon Hill Institute in Boston, using a less rosy scenario than CAP, reached the more realistic conclusion that health care reform will destroy 120,000 to 700,000 jobs over the next 10 years. The CAP study echoes one of Obama’s cherished claims. Since his days as a presidential candidate, he’s been insisting reform will “bend” health spending downward. But this is more than a stretch. It’s a dream. History tells a different story. When free or subsidized health care is offered by the government (Medicare, Medicaid), the cost far exceeds initial (and later) projections. This has been the case for state as well as federal programs. Indeed, it’s a worldwide phenomenon. The one exception is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which uniquely relies on free market competition. Pelosi, true to form, wants to replace that competition with price controls. Pelosi is a faithful believer in the notion you can defy the laws of economic gravity and get more for less, once government steps in. Logic suggests otherwise. Health insurers will be forced to offer more benefits, including free preventive care, no annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and insurance for those with preexisting conditions. That’s just for starters. New taxes will be imposed on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers. A package of new benefits and tax hikes is hardly a recipe for cheaper premiums and lower overall health care costs. Companies have already begun to figure out that their cost of doing business will rise, which means they won’t be hiring. Layoffs are more likely. Medtronic, which makes medical implements, said it might have to cut 1,000 jobs. It’s not only what businesses will pay for health insurance that is bound to increase. They’ll lose a tax break for providing drug coverage for retirees. And they’ll pay a higher Medicare tax for each employee. There is one potential cost-cutting measure in the health reform legislation. High-cost, “Cadillac” insurance plans will face a 40 percent tax, which is certain to kill such plans and trim insurance costs. But wait a minute. Pelosi didn’t like that tax. Four days after the reform bill passed, the Senate and House passed a second measure, dubbed “reconciliation.” Among other things, it delayed the 40 percent tax until 2018, a pretty good indication that the tax will never be levied. Pelosi was in a joyful mood when reconciliation sailed through the House. It boosted health care spending, increased regulation, raised doctors’ fees, and added new taxes. Nonetheless, she asserted: “With this legislation in place, families will have access to even more affordable care” [emphasis added]. Her perverse school of economics had been vindicated again. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	4/26/2010 10:43:37 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

What's curious about the left's current obsession with Timothy McVeigh is that it proves that -- despite a frantic search for 15 years -- liberals have come across no better evidence of burgeoning "right-wing extremist" violence than a drug-taking, self-described "agnostic" who was thrown out of the Michigan Militia and who proclaimed, "Science is my religion." WOULDN'T A MINI SERIES ON ATTILA THE HUN EXPLAIN NANCY PELOSI? Ann Coulter April 21, 2010 Rachel Maddow's MSNBC special on Timothy McVeigh this past Monday night did not come a moment too soon. As Maddow explained in the introduction to her show: "Nine years after his execution, we are left worrying that Timothy McVeigh's voice from the grave echoes in the new rising tide of American anti-government extremism." After months of hysterically warning viewers that cheerful, well-dressed tea partiers carrying "I Can See November From My House" signs could suddenly erupt into wanton violence, MSNBC finally had proof: Timothy McVeigh. How about a special on the KGB to help us understand what makes Henry Waxman tick? We're just trying to seek answers ... On her April 14 show, Maddow gave a "War of the Worlds" report on gun rights activists whom she claimed were planning tributes to Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. "On the anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh," she said, "there will be two marches on Washington." After reminding viewers that McVeigh was "an anti-government extremist with ties to the militia movement" (his only "ties" being that he tried to join the Michigan Militia, but was rejected) Maddow said one of the groups, the Second Amendment March, had "been holding armed rallies at state capitols from Kentucky to Montana to Virginia -- anti-government marches and rallies at which participants are encouraged to wear and display their guns." So if I have this straight, the pro-Second Amendment marchers were both armed ... AND displaying guns! Having received an "A plus" from the Department of Redundancy Department, a deadly earnest Maddow continued: "Also on the occasion of the Oklahoma City bombing anniversary," there would be an Open Carry rally. Participants, she said, "are being encouraged to bring guns" (you know, just like the guns Timothy McVeigh used to shoot up the federal building in Oklahoma City). True, April 19 is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It's also the anniversary of Lexington and Concord. Once upon a time, the skirmish that sparked the Revolutionary War was a date that every schoolchild knew. When British soldiers moved to seize the gunpowder and arms of voluntary militias, armed citizens defended themselves, firing upon the British in "the shot heard 'round the world" -- as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it in his "Concord Hymn." Hmmm, I wonder if the gun rights activists chose April 19 for their rallies because it was the anniversary of Lexington and Concord -- or because it was the anniversary of Oklahoma City? Unless the organizers of the Second Amendment March and the Open Carry rally specifically told Rachel, "Oh no, we picked April 19 to honor the bombing in Oklahoma City -- gosh, we had no idea it was date of Lexington and Concord!", I'm pretty sure they picked April 19 because that was the day armed patriots defended themselves from British troops. Maddow's idiotic attempt to ascribe the date of the gun rights marches to Oklahoma City rather than Lexington and Concord is so Olbermanic that -- to paraphrase Truman Capote -- it is now apparent that you lose a point of your IQ for every day you spend at MSNBC. We have enough U.S. history by now that there's not a day on the calendar that isn't the anniversary of something. In fact, the very day that Maddow was attacking gun rights groups on her show -- April 14 -- was the 235th anniversary of the founding of the first anti-slavery society in America! It is also the anniversary of an anti-war actor's murder of a crusading, anti-slavery Republican president. (In addition -- like I have to tell any of you -- it was National Restless Leg Syndrome Awareness Day, but I don't think that had anything to do with Rachel's report.) Oh sure, Rachel may claim that she had no idea what April 14 was the anniversary of, and that the date of her attack on our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms was just a coincidence. But given the long and ugly history of gun control laws in America being used to keep guns out of the hands of free blacks, it was a shockingly insensitive date for Maddow to engage in such extremist anti-gun rhetoric. What's curious about the left's current obsession with Timothy McVeigh is that it proves that -- despite a frantic search for 15 years -- liberals have come across no better evidence of burgeoning "right-wing extremist" violence than a drug-taking, self-described "agnostic" who was thrown out of the Michigan Militia and who proclaimed, "Science is my religion." That sounds more like Bill Maher than Rush Limbaugh. .

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	4/29/2010 3:21:49 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi Earmarks Pa. House Seat for Murtha Staffer By Scott Ott on Tim Burns ScrappleFace News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher. (2010-04-29) — A former staffer of the late Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, today announced that despite his neck-and-neck race with Republican Tim Burns, he will win the May 18th special election because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already earmarked the seat for him. “My experience working with Jack Murtha prepares me not only to serve in his seat,” said Democrat candidate Mark Critz, “but to actually secure it without a literal up-or-down vote, in the same way that Jack and his colleagues channeled millions in federal funding to their districts for decades.” Mr. Critz emphasized that the earmarking of the House seat was not for his own benefit, but like Mr. Murtha, his mentor, he was “securing it for family, friends and, at least indirectly, for other incidental residents of the 12th district.” To voters concerned that a former Murtha insider might represent business as usual, the culture of insider dealing, and runaway federal spending, Mr. Critz said, “Nancy Pelosi has assured me she would do all in her magnificent power to keep Congress ethical and fiscally responsible.” “In any case,” Mr. Critz added, “my Congressional seat is already earmarked, so the people of the 12th district can’t be blamed if things go wrong.” .

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	5/15/2010 4:36:55 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi wants to cut congressional travel perks for everyone but her By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 05/14/10 1:48 PM EDT The proposed reforms area step in the right direction -- for everyone but Nancy Pelosi: <<< House leaders are revamping the rules for lawmakers and aides who travel overseas on official government business, forbidding them to fly in business class on shorter trips, use taxpayer funds to buy gifts or pocket unspent cash, among other changes. The new travel rules, proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, also strengthen accountability and oversight for taxpayer-funded trips. But the rules don't require lawmakers to disclose some of the biggest costs of such trips, including travel by military plane, which can double or triple the total costs. >>> Funny that Pelosi didn't require disclosure of the cost of military travel. Is that because Pelosi flys around on military aircraft at a cost to the taxpayer of over a million dollars a year? Or that she's been improperly using the Air Force to chauffeur her grandkids around? While you're at it, be sure and read this Wall Street Journal article from last year on the outrageous cost of congressional travel. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	6/2/2010 9:32:19 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi blames Bush administration for BP oil spill. By: Joel S. Gehrke Jr. Special to the Examiner 05/29/10 7:38 AM EDT Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blamed the Bush administration for any lack of oversight leading up to the Gulf oil spill. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is blameless. From Talk Radio News Service: <<< “Many of the people appointed in the Bush administration are still burrowed in the agencies that are supposed to oversee the [oil] industry,” Pelosi said when asked if Democrats could have prevented or mitigated the crisis by keeping a closer watch on the industry. Added the Speaker, “the cozy relationships between the Bush administration’s agency leadership and the industry is clear…I’ve heard no complaints from my members about the way the president has handled it,” Pelosi stated. >>> On Friday, the Washington Examiner requested that Speaker Pelosi’s office release the list of Bush appointees to whom she was referring. We’ll let you know when we hear back. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	6/14/2010 10:09:58 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Pelosi's Crooked Catholicism By William Sullivan American Thinker Few would have guessed it, but Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become quite the outspoken Catholic. In last month's Catholic Community Conference in Washington, she testified that amnesty for illegal aliens would be a "manifestation of our living the Gospels," and that our legislative paths should be paved by the concepts found in the word of God. Specifically, she alluded to the scriptural reference of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of "the Word made flesh." But Pelosi's legislative record does not suggest there is any truth to this spiritual proclamation. She has actually been one of the biggest obstacles to the passing of legislation supported by Christian doctrine, and it takes only a brief glance at Pelosi's history to deduce that this speech was just lip service to a group of people that would find such notions agreeable. There have been many occasions on which Pelosi has failed to protect Christian values when she has had the ability to do so. Take, for example, an incident in September 2007, where the Concerned Women of America organization petitioned elected officials to take the city of San Francisco to task for their offensive advertisement for the Folsom Street Fair. The city had agreed to use taxpayer dollars to promote an advertised corruption of Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper, with Jesus Christ replaced by a shirtless man surrounded by homosexual sadomasochists. Furthermore, there was photographic evidence from past years to prove that San Francisco police sat idly by during the event while young children watched public displays of sex and debauchery. The group implored that Pelosi address the offensive use of taxpayer funds and that she ensure that public lewdness laws would be enforced during the event. How did devout Madam Pelosi respond to the taxpayers' moral concerns about such public depravity and offensiveness? Her press secretary released the statement, "As a Catholic, the speaker is confident that Christianity has not been harmed." In what interpretation of the scripture could Madam Pelosi possibly find it acceptable to portray Jesus Christ as an alleged homosexual that would condone or engage in deviant sex with other men? Practicing Christians of even the most liberal dispositions would agree that such representations of Christ are sacrilegious. And in what sect of Christianity is it harmless to subject children to the viewing of wanton sexual acts? Certainly not in Catholicism, and human decency alone dictates that this is vile and immoral. But rather than protecting basic Christian values, Pelosi used her religion as a shield, granting herself immunity from condemnation by employing the preface "as a Catholic." Her press secretary's response suggests to her Christian constituents that if they are offended by public sexual acts or the defamation of images of Jesus Christ, then they should just relax. If there was anything to be offended about from a Christian point of view, Pelosi would know about it, because she's Catholic. In this way, Pelosi avoided upsetting her homosexual constituency and simply ignored the assault upon Christianity by feigning devotion to Catholicism. Despicably as Pelosi handled this, some of her past actions warrant far worse than a simple rebuke from American Catholics for not protecting Christian values. Many would argue that she deserves outright condemnation for her direct attacks upon the faith's most fundamental principles. So antithetical to the Christian faith are these attacks that not even proclamations of adherence to Catholicism can vindicate the Speaker. There is an unmistakable message in the Bible that unborn children in the womb represent human life in the eyes of God, belonging to Him. In Psalms 139, we find this to be markedly so. <<< Certainly you [God] made my mind and heart; You wove me together in my mother's womb. I will give You thanks because Your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; My bones were not hidden from You When I was made in secret. >>> If the scripture is truly Pelosi's moral litmus test for implementing social policy, as she has claimed, how on Earth could she be such a staunch advocate of abortion practices? There is no lucid interpretation of these verses that could be woven into an argument that a Christian God would condone the act of abortion. Yet in the face of this incontrovertible truth of the scripture, Pelosi has made deliberate efforts to make acceptable the act of destroying life in the womb. She has supported the expansion of abortion and has shown refusal to support a ban on the practice of infanticide. She has even suggested that contraception and abortion be preferred methods of stemming the welfare and education cost created by the poorer classes. Pelosi's hypocrisy on this matter borders on wickedness and evil. She wages war against what the scripture deems to be God's innocent children while declaring that she feels it is her duty to pursue public policies in keeping to the word of God. Nancy Pelosi's legislative record does not indicate that she follows any established religious doctrine, but rather, it seems that she has shaped a loose construction of personal and religious beliefs to meet the needs of an ideology of liberalism and self-satisfaction. And despite the fact that she disavows many parts of the faith that she doesn't like, she still calls herself a Catholic, which she hopes will lend her some sort of moral credibility to the Christian community. But most Americans see through her lies and rhetoric. And therefore, we simply denounce Pelosi's invocation of God and Christianity as false, and we condemn her as the hypocrite that she is. William Sullivan's blog can be found at politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com. .

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	6/15/2010 11:17:00 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Pelosi's New District Office Costs $18,736 a Month FOXNews.com Published June 14, 2010 San Francisco is a high-rent city. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. The House Speaker's district office in the new federal building in San Francisco costs a whopping $18,736 a month -- the highest rental paid by any member of the House -- or, more precisely, the highest rental paid by taxpayers on behalf of a member of the House. The rental price was reported by Roll Call on Monday. The Democratic congresswoman moved last fall from her old office in the Burton Federal Building, which she occupied for 20 years, to a "greener" space in the city's new federal building -- a move and a high price that her spokesman, Drew Hammill, says was amply justified. Hammill cited the new building's increased security measures and the new office's larger size as reasons for the move -- and the expense. "The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size," he told FoxNews.com. "As speaker, the security needs are different," he said. "The new San Francisco Federal Building offers enhanced security features, which were a major factor in the decision to move offices." The new office, he said, also is "more centrally located," provides easier access for constituents "via public transportation," and the building consumes "less than half the power of a standard office tower, saving taxpayer funds on utility costs." </b> Pelosi's constituency hasn't significantly expanded in size, but her San Francisco staff has increased to a size that requires a larger space for files and storage, he said -- though he did not provide a precise number. The difference in office size is approximately 1,000 square feet, he said. Roll Call reported Monday that Pelosi's new office space costs almost double that of the next-highest rental office held by a House member. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., reportedly pays just under $10,600 a month for his office in New York's Soho neighborhood. The newspaper, which cites a database produced by the Sunlight Foundation, also reports that other lawmakers, like Democratic Reps. Stephen Lynch of Boston and Diane Watson of Los Angeles, pay exorbitant rental fees for their offices -- $9,000 to $10,000 a month. Click here to read more in this story from Rollcall.com. .

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	10/15/2010 4:36:20 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

New documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show Pelosi took 85 trips on military aircraft By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 10/14/10 11:34 AM EDT Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and members of her family and staff took 85 tax-paid trips on military aircraft between March 2, 2009, and June 7, 2010, according to new documents uncovered by Judicial Watch. Pelosi's daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons were on the June 20, 2009, flight from Andrews AFB to San Francisco where Pelosi resides, according to the documents. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took a grandson on a flight from Andrews to Travis AFB, north of San Francisco. Judicial Watch obtained the documents as a result of a January 25, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Previous documents received by the non-profit watchdog group revealed that Pelosi's travel "cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol," according to Judicial Watch. "For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine." “Pelosi’s abusive use of military aircraft demonstrates a shocking lack of regard for the American taxpayer and the men and women who serve in the U.S. Air Force. Speaker Pelosi may have a frequent flyer record for taxpayer-financed luxury jet travel,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. For more from Judicial Watch, go here. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (32417)	10/22/2010 7:21:11 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

As vote nears, Pelosi's ratings fall to all-time low By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 10/20/10 7:53 AM EDT A new Gallup poll finds that Nancy Pelosi's favorable rating is 29 percent -- the lowest it has been since Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable view of Pelosi. That two-to-one unfavorable rating is a stark contrast to the two-to-one favorable rating Pelosi had when she took the Speaker's chair in January 2007. Back then, 44 percent of those surveyed by Gallup had a favorable impression of Pelosi, while 22 percent had an unfavorable impression of her. Breaking Pelosi's ratings down by party, just 21 percent of independents have a favorable impression of her, while 58 percent have an unfavorable impression of her. Among Republicans, she is at eight percent favorable, 86 percent unfavorable, and among Democrats, she is at 62 percent favorable, 22 percent unfavorable. One might expect Pelosi's favorable rating to have risen among Democrats in recent weeks and months, as the midterm elections approach and partisan positions harden. But Pelosi is down five points among Democrats since May, when she had a 67 percent favorable rating. Among independents, she is down 11 points since May. Pelosi's ratings are approaching the lows reached by former Speaker Newt Gingrich in his most unpopular days. In April 1997, Gingrich had a 24 percent favorable rating and a 62 percent unfavorable rating. If present trends continue, Pelosi is headed in that direction. Reading the new ratings, and with voting less than two weeks away, Republicans are sure to conclude that keeping up the attack on Pelosi is a smart political strategy. As for Democrats -- well, a number of House Democrats have already abandoned the Speaker, and the new numbers suggest other Democrats will be tempted to do so, as well. "Pelosi's image has gone from bad to worse in recent months, with independents, in particular, growing more critical of her," Gallup concludes. "Her resulting 2-to-1 negative to positive image presents a challenge for congressional Democrats as they try to convince voters to send them back to Washington for another term. While President Obama may be of some benefit on the campaign trail in terms of firing up the Democratic base to turn out, Pelosi's subdued favorability among Democrats and highly negative image among independents suggest she is a far riskier person for Democratic candidates to be associated with -- something Republicans who are using her in ads against their opponents have already concluded." Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com