Piling On Pelosi
May 15, 2009 Political
The Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, issued a letter to his people indicating that the CIA had been honest with Congress and that they should not let the noise interfere with their job of keeping America safe. In other words, this Obama appointee called Pelosi a liar.
That’s right. Panetta said the CIA told the truth to Congress even though Pelosi said that the CIA lied. Looks like Pelosi has ticked off a lot of spies who are fighting back against allegations made for political purposes.
Pelosi is in deep and many Democrats are moving away from her so as not to be associated with her and her ever changing story about what she knew and when.
The Republicans are all over this and Congressman Steve King (R-IA) has called for Pelosi to resign as Speaker. The hits just keep on coming for the clueless Pelosi.
As of now there are no Democrats publicly calling for her to step down but I am sure there are plenty who want her to. Many did not support her being selected as Speaker and those who did are now seeing why it was a bad idea.
If this keeps going (and there is no reason to think it will not) then there will be more calls for her resignation. Pelosi is a black eye for the Democrats and for Congress in general. The media are going after this story which in and of itself is unusual. Once they turn against a Democrat the end cannot be far behind.
If we are lucky she will resign and then be voted out of office.
What a disgrace.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: CIA, leon panetta, lies, memo, nancy pelosi
Pelosi Supports Tibet, but not our Troops
Mar 22, 2008 Political
Nancy Pelosi and a Congressional delegation visited Tibet to offer support in wake of the continuing crackdown by China. Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese for protesting. Pelosi gave her support and thus the support of the US to the Dalai Lama:
While standing next to the Dalai Lama, she denounced “China’s oppression of people in Tibet.”
“If freedom loving people don’t speak out against China’s oppression of people in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out against any oppressed people.” ABC
Notice here that Pelosi did not tell the Dalai Lama that he and his people should retreat. She did not tell them that they should cease fighting against oppression and she did not tell them to give in to the terror of the Chinese. She even offered support in the struggle and said we will have lost our moral authority if we don’t speak out.
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who does not believe that we should be offering support to the Iraqis and has no ideals about moral authority when discussing leaving them at the mercy of the bad guys who are just waiting for the US to leave a weak Iraq in place so they can swoop in and take over. This is the Nancy Pelosi who has not said that our troops need to continue to fight on and she certainly has not offered her “support” to them by letting them finish their job.
Perhaps it would be nice if Speaker Pelosi spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan meeting with our troops and telling them she supports them and is with the Iraqi people in their struggles. Maybe she could indicate that we will have lost our moral authority if we fail to support the troops in the mission of ending the war by winning it.
When donkeys fly…
Additional source:
My Way News
Tags: dalai lama, moral authority, nancy pelosi, support
No Hablas No Problem
Nov 19, 2007 Political
To a rational person it only makes sense to require workers to speak the native tongue of the country in which they work. This is not to say that people who do temporary work in other countries should have to learn the native language, that is what interpreters are for. However, when a person moves into a country and decides that he will live and work there then that person has an obligation to learn the language of the country in which he lives. If anyone does not want to learn the language then no employer should be required to hire that person. That is, unless you are an employer in the United States and your elected leaders pander to groups of people, many of whom are here ILLEGALLY, that vote overwhelmingly for a particular party.
Nancy Pelosi has threatened to block an amendment to a bill that would protect employers from lawsuits if they refused to hire someone who does not speak English. This all came about because some Hispanic Democrats threatened to vote against a patch that would fix the Alternative Minimum Tax for a year, a move that would prevent millions of wage earners from being taxed as if they were millionaires. In other words, the Hispanic Democrats are willing to hurt wage earners in favor of helping people who pay little in taxes, would probably never be affected by the AMT and who refuse to learn English. I thought that members of Congress represented this country and not people who, in large part, do not belong here. The main antagonist is Representative Charles Gonzalez of Texas, a man who probably swan across the Rio to get here. Gonzalez said “If it is not relevant [speaking English on the job], it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin.”
Just how is this discriminatory and who gave Congress the right to tell a private employer what qualifications he is allowed to set for employees? I understand that they may legislate against discrimination for race, creed, age and a number of other things but if an employer requires English then it is none of Congresses’ business. The fact that the Hispanics would screw the rest of the country in order to force Employers to bow down to the wishes of non English speaking people is wrong.
How did these people get the job? If the employer does not speak Spanish (or any other language) is he required to get an interpreter so he can communicate? Should we force the employer to learn a new language or should we force the person who wants the job to learn a new one? It seems like an easy choice to me but to Pelosi and her amigos in the Congress it is not as obvious. Someone should tell Gonzalez to take his sorry rear back across the Rio and run for office there since he is more concerned with that way of life than the American way.
I have lived in or visited several foreign countries and I made the effort to learn enough of the language to communicate my needs. I did not expect them to learn my language because that would not be appropriate. I would not expect them to hire me for a job there if I could not communicate with their customers. As for the issue of telling people they have to speak English to each other while on the job, the issue of free speech does not apply. An employer in private industry may tell employees what they are and are not allowed to discuss and in what language they must do it.
It is important to remember that the employer is the boss and may set job requirements including dress codes, uniforms, hair styles, body piercings, tattoos and LANGUAGE. The Congress has no business getting involved and they certainly do not belong holding up legislation in an effort to blackmail other members of Congress, especially legislation that is designed to keep people from paying taxes they were never meant to pay.
I wonder if Gonzalez would support me if I went to a Spanish speaking establishment (whose customers all spoke Spanish) and I was refused a job because I do not speak that language?
The Democrats have been an absolute failure as the majority and Nancy Pelosi is no leader at all. She cannot even whip a bunch of malcontents from the Hispanic group into shape. If she knew what she was doing this would not be an issue but then again…
If she knew what she was doing she would be a Republican.
I wonder what Ron Paul would do if he was running the place?
Source:
WSJ Opinion Journal
Tags: alternative minimum tax, antagonist, charles gonzalez, Congress, Democrats, hispanic democrats, nancy pelosi, native language, pander, private employer, ron paul, speaking english
Why Don’t They Just Outlaw Cigarettes?
Nov 10, 2007 Political
Only in government could we find people who will tax an unhealthy product in order to support health care. By taxing an unhealthy item, like cigarettes, to pay for health care the government is saying that it approves of the item because it brings in revenue. However, the tax is regressive and might force people to quit using tobacco products. That is great, you say? Well, yes, if the intent is to get people to quit smoking but what happens when revenue from tobacco decreases because people quit? The government runs out of money or falls short in funding a program that it has established and committed money to. That revenue shortfall will need to be made up and it will come from the taxpayer, even those who do not use tobacco.
The idea behind taxing tobacco is that tobacco users are not as healthy as non users so they should pay for the increased cost of health care. Theoretically, if people quit they will begin to get healthier so there would be no need to continue with the high health care costs. However, the government has chosen to use the tobacco tax to fund health care for children so those needy kids will not go away even if the revenue source dwindles. Therein lies one of the many problems. If tobacco users are not as healthy one would assume that the tax would pay for their care but it does not. Even if the tobacco users all quit using the product the government would have a need for the revenue. Government never removes a tax it has imposed. It just shifts the burden to other sources. The US Congress is looking at increasing the federal tobacco tax to $1.00 per pack of cigarettes. The Maryland Governor wants to increase tobacco tax for the same reasons as the feds. If all taxes take effect the cost would be $3.00 a pack in Maryland just in tax. Since the less affluent are more likely to be smokers, seems to me the less affluent will shoulder the burden for the programs paid for with tobacco tax.
Nancy Pelosi has already banned smoking in part of their office complex (but members may still smoke in their offices which is a completely different rule than for all other government employees). Now they will stop selling cigarettes in the stores located in the buildings which seems stupid when the goal is to raise money.
The government does not want people to stop using tobacco regardless of what they say because this would dry up a source of income. They play with things, they make it hard, they tax the hell out of it but they do not make it illegal. If it is so bad why not just make it illegal and be done with it? All kinds of other drugs are illegal so why not tobacco? Follow the money.
Interestingly, Congress has not raised alcohol taxes under the guise that alcohol users are less healthy than the general public. Do you suppose that is because many more elected officials use booze than tobacco? I wonder if they are allowed to drink in their offices as well. That might explain some of the behavior we see from them.
They will never raise the tax on booze as long as Ted Kennedy is in office. He would have a stroke right on the Senate floor. Hmmm, come to think of it an alcohol tax might be a good thing.
Congress needs to stop playing games and either leave tobacco users alone or make the substance illegal and put an end to all the charades. As for me, I don’t care about the tax on tobacco but I am concerned with the unintended consequences of decreased revenue when people quit. We don’t need to pay more in taxes regardless of what the Democrats say.
Source:
My Way News
Others with similar items:
Stop the ACLU, Nuke’s, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, The World According to Carl, Grizzly Groundswell, The Pink Flamingo, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: cigarettes, health care costs, maryland governor, nancy pelosi, needy kids, quit smoking, support health care, tobacco tax, us congress