Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Nancy Pelosi’ Category

On Earth Day, Obama took Air Force One from Andrews Air Force Base (which is in Maryland) to Des Moines, Iowa and back totaling 2 trips. He also took 4 trips on Marine One.  In addition you can add the motorcade trips from the White house to Andrews Air Force Base, and the trips from Des Moines, Iowa to Newton, Iowa and back.

All totaled according to Mark Knoller, a CBS White House Correspondent, the wonderful anointed King Obama, used 9,116 gallons of fuel on just this one excursion.

I don’t know what jet fuel costs but I’m sure it’s a lot more than the $2.59 that we pay for at the pump in my neck of the woods for plain old regular gasoline.  Doing the math it would set me back $23,610.44!

As Mark says “President Obama could have saved at least 9,116 gallons of fuel by giving his speech at the White House – but no wind turbines are manufacture(d) there.”

***

Fancy Pants Nancy says “I didn’t know about about waterboarding.” Who in their right mind would believe that piece of codswallop. (That’s not a typo – she’s stutters a lot when she lies!)

As Glenn Thrush‘s post points out – “House Minority Leader John Boehner (D-Ohio) criticized Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for backing probes into the use of waterboarding — after failing to raise objections during briefings on its potential use.

“Well, yesterday I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word,” Boehner told reporters at his weekly news availability.

“And I think you’re going to hear more and more about the bigger picture here, that what — the war on terror after 9/11 was done in a bipartisan basis on lots of fronts. And that bigger story will be coming out,” he added.”

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy – Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.

***

I assume that you all remember the big flap about Martha Stewart and her ImClone Stock scandal. She got 5 months in jail for lying to the FBI.  She avoided the loss of some $45,000 by selling her stock before it took a 18% downward hit. $45,000 – chump change.

Now it appears, that Sen. Diane Feinstein (D., Ca.) is embroiled in an expanding controversy over her introduction of legislation to give $25 billion to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp that awarded a highly generous contract to her husband. Feinstein is notably not on any committee with jurisdiction in this area and this legislation was unusual for her. The scandal, once again, shows the calculated decision of Senators to preserve loopholes that allow them to invest or have interests in areas where they legislate and vote. Diane just happens to be the eighth richest person in the congress. Greedy little bitch.

Well, not so little. I wonder if she’s read the report that obese people are causing havoc with our planet.

According to Dr. Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

The article goes on to say:

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

It means an extra BILLION TONNES of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organisation estimates of overweight people.

The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.

The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car — another major cause of carbon emissions.

That’s all folks!

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Is Nancy Pelosi Really This Stupid?

(EIB) – RUSH: Yesterday on Stephanopoulos’ Sunday show, the guest was Nancy Pelosi.  Now, we have three bites here.  The first bite is a montage — it’s comical — a montage of questions that Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi because he knows, Stephanopoulos knows this issue is killing Democrats.  And you’ll hear here, he begs Pelosi to allow a vote.  Question after question after question.  But he never got the answer he wanted.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Why won’t you permit a straight up-or-down vote?  Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote.  Why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling?  Why not let it — let it be debated out and have the vote?  So what exactly are you trying to say?  Why not allow votes?  Why can’t they have a vote?  Just to be clear, you’re saying you will not allow a single up-or-down vote, not going to permit a vote?  Why not allow a vote on the drilling?  Let me move on to another issue.

RUSH:  That’s how many times he asked the question of Nancy Pelosi yesterday on his own Sunday morning show.  Now, here are a couple of bites of Pelosi herself.  I don’t know if you saw this, but this may have been her worst performance on a show like this, out of her league, eyes were just bug-eyed — it was the strangest thing.  She knows that she’s guilty here.  She knows she’s got big problems, but she’s hanging tough.  And I’ll tell you over on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw, John Kerry was nonsensical as well, and poor old Brokaw, he was so upset at the McCain ads that are being run against Obama.  CBS had a cow. The only reason they’re having cows over those ads because those ads are effective, they work.  Exactly right.  Okay, here.  Stephanopoulos says, “If you feel that you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up-or-down vote for drilling?”

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

PELOSI:  What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies.  That’s what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle.  We have a planet to save.  We have an economy to grow.  And we can do that if we keep our — our balance in all of this and not just say, but for drilling in unprotected — in these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.

RUSH:  We have a planet to save.  These people are so full of themselves.  They are going to die of anal poisoning unless they do something quick.  Did you save the planet by leaving town, Ms. Pelosi?  You save the planet by shutting down the Congress?  You save the planet and you have an economy to grow?  What do you know about growing an economy?  Every thing that you are oriented towards here is going to do great damage to the economy.  In a sane political world these people would be the biggest jokes.  None of what they say makes any sense.  It’s either wrong or flat-out lies.  Here’s one more, Stephanopoulos says, “Okay, why not allow votes on all that?  When you came in as speaker you promised in your commitment book a New Direction for America — let me show our viewers — you said bills would generally come to the floor under procedure that allows open full fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives.  If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can’t they have their vote?”

PELOSI:  They — they’ll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and they may get a vote.  You never say never to anything.  You know, you have to — people have their parliamentary options available to them.  But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as speaker of the House and of this 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to save — reverse global warming.  I am not giving the gavel — I’m not giving the gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things, that supports the oil — Big Oil at the cost, at the expense of — of the consumer.

RUSH:  Folks, do you realize what she just said here?  May I translate this for you?  Aside from the, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, they’ll have to use their imagination parliamentary to get a vote, aside from all that, “My flagship issue as speaker has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”  What are the House Republicans wanting to vote on, Madam Speaker?  Drilling domestic oil.  And then she says, “Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reversing global warming.”  So we have idiots, genuine leftist, socialist idiots.  She knows this is the stuff her audience wants to hear.  I go back and forth as to whether she’s really this dumb or not.  Every time I hear her speak I get closer and closer to concluding that she is this dumb, not just trying to speak the words and thoughts that her critics want to hear.

RUSH:  Do you think TIME Magazine would ever do a cover store on Nancy Pelosi where the headline is:  “Is Nancy Pelosi Good for America?” as they did with me?  Do you think they’ll ever do a headline, cover story in TIME Magazine referring to her as a Grinch who stole Christmas?  Do you think they would ever do stories about how she’s stubborn and obstinate and blocking progress, as they do when Republicans stand in the way of what Democrats want?

Read Full Post »

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, “the worst speaker in the history of Congress,” explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.”

Yes, that would explain why the price of oral sex, cigars and Hustler magazine skyrocketed during the Clinton years. Also, I note that Speaker Pelosi is a hotelier … and the price of a hotel room in New York is $1,000 a night! I think she might be onto something.

Is that why a barrel of oil costs mere pennies in all those other countries in the world that are not run by “oilmen”? Wait — it doesn’t cost pennies to them? That’s weird.

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: “President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay’s oil-company interests.” The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I’m not even “an oilman.”

But yes — good point: What a disaster having people in government who haven’t spent their entire lives in politics! That explains everything. A government official with relevant experience or knowledge about an issue is obviously a crisis of gargantuan proportions.

This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of “American Idol.”

Announcing the Democrats’ bold new “plan” on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “is one alternative.” That’s not an energy plan. It’s using what we already have — much like “conservation,” which is also part of the Democrats’ plan.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: “Just eat a little less every day.” Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a “plan.” We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

But there’s more! Pelosi announced that the Democrats also plan to push for “an historic investment in biofuels, efficiency, conservation and the rest.” The “rest” is apparently what she called our “important and essential” investment in alternative energy.

That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.

The proposal to use energy sources that don’t yet produce any energy is like the old New Yorker cartoon with Obama in Muslim garb — no wait, that was a different cartoon. The cartoon is: A scientist has written out his extremely complicated theory on a blackboard and is showing it to another scientist. The theory consists of numbers and characters and takes up the entire blackboard. About two-thirds of the way across, reading left to right, appear the words, “then a miracle happens,” followed by more numbers and characters.

That’s the Democrats’ plan to run cars on biofuels, solar and wind power: Then a miracle happens. The current Democratic mantra on energy is: “We can’t drill our way out of this problem.” Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.

Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill — presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don’t want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.

If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they’d allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.

But they don’t. They don’t want drilling. They don’t want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.

It’s good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we’re fantasizing about “alternative” energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats’ lies.

Read Full Post »

WASHINGTON (TOL) The Democratic presidential contest is now between an unstoppable force and an immovable object.

Hillary Clinton is retrenching behind what her advisers call “a demographic brick wall” in Ohio and Texas – believing that Barack Obama’s recent momentum will be brought to an abrupt halt next month by the blue-collar and Latino voters who have largely backed her elsewhere.

Mr Obama still surges forward, putting his faith in the “fierce urgency of now” helping him to vault over the next big round of elections on March 4, when 444 delegates are at stake, in the same way that he has already defied the laws of political campaigning.

Something, or someone, has to give. And eyes are turning to the party leadership of 796 “super-delegates” to be a referee that stops this fight before it reaches the presidential nomination convention in August.

A senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has suggested that she – along with other “party elders” – will step into the ring if they feel that Democratic hopes of winning back the White House or maintaining control over Congress are being threatened. Ms Pelosi insists that she remains neutral in the race and that her “focus is on reelecting a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives”.

However, her voice would carry great authority among many uncommitted super-delegates on Capitol Hill – and she is said by one of those close to her to be leaning towards Mr Obama. “The party Establishment is not going to turn its back on a candidate who is generating this tremendous excitement and bringing all these new voters into the political process,” an adviser said. Mr Obama’s team is busy pushing the same message, telling members of Congress in districts where he has already won that they would be foolish to alienate their core vote in an election year.

Mrs. Clinton still has the edge among super-delegates, not least because Bill Clinton is calling in all the favours he has done them over the past 16 years. Both candidates know that the Democrats are desperate for a win and are putting increasing emphasis on their competing claims to be best-placed to succeed in November’s general election.

The Clinton campaign regards much of current “Obamentum” as media-fuelled hype and says that the picture will look very different after the elections in Ohio and Texas. Her aides profess not to worry that much about Mr Obama sweeping up the February states, with her spokesman, Howard Wolfson, saying that voters have been balancing each other out all the way through this year’s seesaw contest. “Much is made of the concept of momentum but in this primary season it has been precisely the opposite,” he said, “there is no evidence of a stampede one way or another”.

He gruffly dismisses suggestions that relying on future big-state votes make the Clinton campaign resemble that of Rudy Giuliani, the one-time

Republican front-runner, who skipped early contests to concentrate on Florida – only to see his presidential hopes wilt away. Mr Wolfson told The Times that unlike Mr Giuliani, Mrs Clinton had won California and New York. She had “a long track record” of emerging victorious from elections that had been properly contested, he said, without mentioning that her campaign had effectively ceded many smaller states to Mr Obama .

Ohio is regarded not only as big but also natural Clinton country. It is part of the rustbelt and Mrs Clinton is relying on the blue-collar, lower-income vote, who remember the good old days of her husband’s presidency and trust her on issues such as the economy or national security.

In Texas almost a third of the population is of Hispanic origin, a group that skewed heavily towards her in Nevada and California. Many Latinos also say that they owe loyalty to the Clinton name and want a president on the inside track who can deliver for them – rather than an ethnic minority outsider.

Mr Obama’s strategists acknowledge that Mrs Clinton “unquestionably starts out” with significant advantages but they insist that they will run her close or even win one of these states. His aides say that Latino voters have been more sympathetic to Mr Obama’s bid to become the first black president in states such as Arizona and New Mexico, where they are an established community and not competing with African-Americans for low-paid jobs or housing.

In Ohio he is expected to highlight the Clinton Administration’s record on free trade deals, such as Nafta, that are blamed for the loss of many manufacturing jobs.

Aides point out that not only are both states holding “open contests” – allowing the independents who have backed him before to vote – but that he also now has plenty of time, and pots of money, to campaign hard in both states.

“We have demonstrated repeatedly that once people get to know Barack we can come from way behind to either be competitive or win,” one aide said.

There is a more sinister demographic fact that is causing a collective shudder to pass down the Democratic leadership. Mr Obama is consistently trailing Mrs Clinton among white voters and, in the South, white men.

The Clintons would not dare play such a card, even if they wanted to, particularly after the racially charged ructions of South Carolina last month.

The advisers who sneer privately at the fragility of Mr Obama’s coalition of black people and white “latte liberals”, should remember that it was a similar group that elected Mr Clinton in 1992.

Read Full Post »