Absolute Abuse of Taxpayer Money

WCBSTV has uncovered a story that is beyond belief and it involves the waste of taxpayer money by members of the House of Representatives. It seems there is a loophole that allows them to lease vehicles at the expense of taxpayers and there appears to be no limit as to how much they spend on the lease. Taxpayers also foot the bill for registration, insurance and the GAS. No wonder these chowder heads are not concerned about the price of gasoline. It is not bad enough we have to pay a fortune to fill our vehicles but we also pay to fill theirs.

Charlie Rangel of New York drives a Cadillac DeVille, and taxpayers are charged $774 per month ($9288 a year) to cover the lease.

Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month. And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks’ Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.

Charlie Rangel justified his extravagance by saying that his car is an office and that his constituents appreciate driving in comfort. I wonder how many of them are comfortable enough to have someone else paying for their cars? Rangel’s explanation was absolutely pathetic and it, along with the other members and their expensive leases, shows the contempt members of Congress have for the American public and our hard earned money. If Rangel’s car is paid for by taxpayers and he uses it as an office (his reasoning for havng the car) then it begs the question, has he ever conducted campaign business while in the car? If so, did he violate the Hatch Act?

The story tells of several members who lease much less expensive cars as if we are supposed to hail them as great people looking out for our money. Some people stated that they should all drive cheaper cars.

Wake up people and ask the right questions. Why in hell are they driving cars we pay for? Why are they not paying for their own vehicles just like the rest of us do. This is why these idiots think people are entitled to benefits paid for by others (health care, mortgages, education); because they get extravagant things paid for by us. To top it off, that jackass Rangel is always pushing for tax increases. How dare this maggot waste money and then demand more?

This also points out the hypocrisy of these idiots with regard to the environment. The vehicles mentioned are larger ones that use a lot of fuel. They are not “green” and they leave large carbon footprints. At the same time these jackasses are asking us to conserve they are driving around in gas guzzlers that we pay for.

This is absolutely criminal and everyone of these jackasses should be removed from office immediately. It is high time Americans revolted against this kind of abuse and the attitudes exhibited by people like Charlie Rangel. Perhaps we need to organize and refuse to pay taxes until ALL wasteful spending is eliminated and ALL members of Congress are replaced. They must all resign or they don’t get one stinking cent. We need to throw tea in a harbor and take back this country.

I am at the point where I absolutely hate every stinking one of the members of Congress. They are criminals and they abuse us every chance they get. They waste our money and then take more of it and they do not bat an eye. They come up with excuses as if they are privileged elite and how dare we peons ask them about their abuses. Rangel’s response demonstrates that he is out of touch. It is not like these people don’t make enough money to afford a car. They only work 100 days a year and they get $167,000. They are worthless, ineffective, and smarmy.

I am sure that members from both parties do this but it is worth mentioning that the ones mentioned are all Democrats. You know, the party OF the people…

It is absolutely ironic that the only people who would not have been missed were spared death on 9/11.

Big Dog

Rule Number 1; Bill Clinton Lies

Rule Number 2, If you ever start to believe him refer to Rule Number 1.

Bill Clinton is in Nevada fresh off his defense of a lawsuit designed to disenfranchise voters and the Clinton campaign attempts to screw the union workers of the union that endorsed her opponent, B. Hussein Obama. Today is caucus day and lo and behold Bill Clinton has witnessed voter suppression first hand. He even has Chelsea to back him up because no one would want to call Web Hubbell’s daughter a liar. Here is what Clinton alleges [from The Politico]:

There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. You’ve heard all that. There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me.

Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.

There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying ‘if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.’ So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they’re better than you.

OK, let me be the one to say it, this is BS. Clinton did not witness any such thing and he is lying to try to show there are voter problems so it can cast doubt should Hillary lose. Bill is lying. No, I was not there but he is lying. He would have us believe that a union representative is so stupid that he would say such a thing in Clinton’s presence knowing that Clinton is looking for any reason to cry foul. Bill would have us believe that a union is forcing its employees to all vote for one person or they will be punished despite the fact that the employees can just ask for the day off. Bill would also have us believe that there was a huge crowd of people saying they would defy the union. If the union is as Bill describes it, why would the employees say anything? Wouldn’t they just be quiet and vote how they wished?

Clinton is a pathological liar and he is lying about this whole episode. What amazes me is that he is taking the leadership of a union to task based solely on the fact that it did not endorse Hillary. If they had endorsed Hillary, Bill Clinton would not have personally “witnessed” any of this. He is making it up now to make the union leadership appear to be goons. I wonder why he would do this after all the years that the unions supported him and his wife as well as the rest of the Democrats. Why is Bill now indicating that union leadership is nothing more than a bunch of thugs? He has not called the leaders of the unions that back Hillary thugs and for that matter, neither has Senator Obama. Obama has not called any of the union workers or leadership names or accused them of wrong doing regardless of whom they have endorsed. The Clinton campaign, particularly Bill, is the only entity to cast the unions in a bad light.

This is what happens when you do not play ball the Clinton way. You cross this crime family and they have it out for you. You don’t endorse them or if you disagree with them they are ready to chew you up and spit you out. They are a well oiled mean machine that knows how to use the politics of destruction against anyone who does not march in lock-step to the Clinton cadence. This is why there are so many people who speak on the condition of anonymity when they discuss Hillary. These people are afraid of repercussions from the Clinton Crime Family with Billy the “Don” in the lead and Queen Hillary “the Destroyer” on the warpath. People in politics know how the Clintons can destroy a career and how they can cast doubts about anything anyone does.

Bill Clinton is a liar. I would be happy to inform him of this to his face and let him know that I call BS on him and his lies. Maybe the MSM and the people who are in a love fest with these idiots will not do it but I have no problem. Bill Clinton is a confirmed liar who has proven he will say and do anything to win and to stay out of trouble. He lied to the nation and he lied under oath. He has made a lifelong habit of lying and he cannot be trusted.

Bill, you are a liar. Hillary is Satan.

Big Dog

ADDENDUM:
This should pretty much shut the mouths of the idiots at Kos who say Republicans always cry about voter fraud. Bill Clinton is crying about it FROM HIS OWN PARTY.

One other question, how would Bill feel if the union bosses refused to let workers vote in the Republican Caucus?

Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 12-12-2007

Sample8


Kevin Jaques: U.S. response to 9/11 should conform to sharia law

Dr. Kevin Jaques is one of the Three Mosqueteers. Of the three academics who are helping architect Paul Murdoch to plant a terrorist memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site, Jaques was most central to the Park Service’s fraudulent internal investigation.

He has also left a revealing paper trail. Shortly after 9/11, Indiana University School of Law sponsored a forum on the likely legal fallout from the attacks: consequences for immigration law, civil rights, etcetera. As the university’s resident expert on Islamic (sharia) law, Jaques was invited to say something about our looming engagement with the Islamic world and their systems of law.

He chose to write a prescriptive article, urging the United States to frame its response in conformity with traditional sharia requirements:

In formulating an American response to the acts of terror, it is necessary to define them according to the provisions of Islamic law.

Whitewashing sharia

Jaques makes the basic arguments for submission that any anti-war multiculturalist might make. He offers an appeasement pitch:

If the United States wishes to approach the fight against terrorism to limit future revivalist terror groups from forming and attacking American citizens and interests, it will be necessary to craft a response that conforms to the realities of Islamic law.

And he offers a when-in-Rome pitch:

Muslim religious leaders think of the world in legal terms and will react to U.S. policies according to how these policies conflict or adhere to Islamic legal principles.

Of course we should avoid gratuitous offense, when in Rome (just as we should practice it as a pastime at home). But should we really submit to sharia law?

Nowhere does Jaques even acknowledge that world-wide submission to sharia law is the ultimate goal of the 9/11 terrorists. That is a pretty glaring omission for someone who is advocating adherence to sharia law, but Jaques does more than just elide the point. He actively misleads, going to great lengths to pretend that the terrorists reject the whole idea of sharia law:

[R]evivalist movements around the Islamic world are articulating new and exciting systems of legal interpretation that, in real terms, are similar to traditional legal norms. Only the violent fringe—approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of Muslims worldwide—would disparage any discussion of Islamic law as being reflective of the kinds of non-Islamic ideas that they claim have contaminated Islam since the very first centuries of Islamic history.

Talk about a whitewash! To paint sharia as benign, Jaques pretends that the “violent fringe” is opposed to it, and this is no offhand comment. The whole first third of Jaques’ discussion is spent setting up this punch line.

Read the rest of this entry »