Diva Pelosi and the 'little people's money'

Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has morphed herself into a caricature. She is now little more than a cross between Marie Antoinette and Leona Helmsley.

We all read of her diva demands with regards to travel. She is known to have her staff order the military to provide her with free commuter service between Washington and San Francisco on weekends. She likes to take her family and friends on these jaunts as well. All on the taxpayers dime.

Former Speaker, Dennis Hastert used to go to his district as well. He used a small jet.

For Nancy, that would never do. She demands the military provide her with a Boeing 757 with an executive layout. Her staff will call and force the military to have the plane on standby. She may or may not actually show up to use it. As with most members of the Democratic caucus, the mindset is that is not their money. So cost in financial or human capital is of no consequence. Recession be damned!! Such concerns are reserved for the "little people".

The cost for her roundtrip is in excess of $100,000. That is not her problem, so do not bother her with trivial matters.

Meanwhile, our service members are left in a lurch with their own plans on hold. Will she show or won't she? Will she be in a good mood or her typical Leona Helmsley persona arrive?

Apparently the luxurious 757 is not able to keep pace with her expanding ego.

Congress has now ordered three new Gulfstream 550 Executive Series aircraft. These are to be configured for, well, royalty. Fit for a queen. These cost $65 million a piece.

They will allow her to travel nonstop from Washington to Dubai, UAE. Not sure how often it is necessary for her to go that far.

Coming from a woman, who together with the President Obama is on track to spend nearly 4 trillion in one year, this should be no surprise. Did I mention they have to borrow the bulk of what they are irresponsibly spending?

Our nation has never seen the kind of reckless spending. Every so often we put the Democrats back in office. Then we remember why we vote them back out. This group in power are sorely out of touch with us actual Americans.

This a prime example of 'Diva's Gone Wild'.

Democratic corruption continues

We all had the chance to see a level of corruption exposed Thursday, as law enforcement officials in New York & New Jersey swept up 44 corrupt people in an international money laundering scheme.

Many were either politicians or rabbis. The media reported that there were Democrats & Republicans involved. We already knew neither party is exempt from dirt.

What the media left out was there were 43 Democrats & 1 Republican. The difference is that whether or not he is convicted, the Republican party will force their man from office.

The Democrats wil allow their people to continue to serve ,convicted or not. We need look no further than our nations capital to remember Democrat former Mayor Marion Barry smoking crack on TV. serving time in prison,and reelected by the DC Democrats. That would have ended a Republican career.

In Michigan, wife of Democrat, Congressman, John Conyers was indicted for taking bribes for a project she was initially against. She changed her vote when money was offerred. Rep. Conyers himself changed his initial position after his wife was paid. He has not yet been charged with any wrong doing.

Rep. Jefferson D-LA, was found to be taking bribes and had $90,000 in his Capial Hill office refrigerator. The Democratic leadership was silent. Had it been a Republican the Dems would have been up in arms, and the Republican leadership would have forced him out.

We saw Detroits Mayor convicted for lying about a relationship with a staffer and hauled off to jail, vowing to return. Even President Clinton was charged for lying about a relationship with an intern, but the Democrats protected him, even though he had plainly commited prejury in a court of law under oath.

The Democrats continue to fend off scrutiny of the obviously corrupt ACORN, because the organization funnels votes to the party. The Democrats will deny the mountain of evidence against ACORN and feign ignorance of the corruption.

Yes, both parties have some corrupt individuals. However, there is a difference, For Republicans it is a career ending event.

For the Democrats, corruption is a badge of honor.

The Obamacare Doublecross

The Democrats in the House have prepared their version of the healthcare reform bill. It reads like a tax code without the entertaining graphics.

President Obama said there would be a public option or the choice of private insurance. In essence, we could all keep our own doctors and continue on with our current coverage if we liked it.

However, the language in House bill HR 3200, does not support that premise. It all but forces everyone into the public program. If you go to the text of the bill in section/page 16, you will find it there.

We all remember the Democrats stating that it was not correct that there would be rationing, but the provision to set up the advisory panel is spelled out quite clearly. These are the people who will decide if you get treated for an ailment or if you are merely made comfortable while nature takes its course.

Talk about an Orwellian approach to population control and playing God. I guess this will cancel out the Hippocratic oath for doctors.

Below is the text about 'private insurance'. Any readers with experience in Human Resources understands that health insurance is renegotiated each year. As currently written, this will end that. It stops any changes to premiums or coverage, effectively forcing employers into the public system.

16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Obama Healthcare Plan to withhold treatment to Elderly and Chronically Ill

With the appointment of this eugenics styled "science czar" (google him "John Holdren"), it is becoming more & more evident that Obama and his nationalized healthcare proponents are easing the public to accept the practice of withholding life saving measures for the elderly, infirmed, etc.

I find this troubling. The radical left are trying to keep the concept from public exposure until it is too late. They cry 'fear mongering' if we point out the obvious direction this is going.

Don't trust them folks, they are merely trying to distract you with such diversionary claims. They plan to offer exemptions for the government employees, and get this, also for union members! Is that not the height of cynicism? Protect their own and the heck with the rest of us.

Some of this is purposely being introduced in a controlled manner. It reminds me of cooking a frog. If you throw it in a boiling pot of water, he will jump out. However, if you place him in the pot and slowly increase the heat, he will stay and cook.

This is what we are witnessing with this crazy radical left concept.

It will leave a bureaucrat or protocol to make decisions on who is worthy of care and who is to be comforted and allowed to die.

The New York Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

The second these ideas become the norm, government will by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

For the few that watched ABC's special on healthcare, the most important takeaway from it was President Barack Obama's admission that he would go outside the constraints of a nationalized system to get the "very best care" if necessary for his own family.

Obama's response should properly be seen as "a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite."



Dr. Orrin Devinsky, who took part in the televised discussion, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.



The president would not make such a pledge, though he confessed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."



It is time the American voters wake up and recognize this for what it is. A moral disaster in the making.

Obama appoints self avowed communist as 'Green Czar'

A disturbing pattern is emerging to paint the radical agenda and participants of the Obama regime. This pattern of allowing the government to be taken over by the radical left with a communist, and globalist agenda is steeling in.


Voters voted for change , but few envisioned the kind of radical agenda and players taking hold of America today. Obama keeps appointing dubious "czars" as a means of bypassing congressional advise & consent. Obama does not want these thugs to be subjected to the questions that surely would be asked in front of the cameras on Capital Hill.


Our new 'Green Czar" is rooted in a communist, black nationalist past, much like Obama's personal ideology.


Kruschev warned us almost 50 years ago that the communists would bury the US. Americans failed to recognize just how easily this could be done from within our own government when using radical leftist organizations such as ACORN, and a compliant Mainstream Media. Kruschev must be looking up at this very moment, feeling quite vindicated.


The media has chosen not to report on Van Jones 2005 interview about his radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism.


Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told an interviewer that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.”


Jones himself stated in that 2005 interview his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class “justice,” and that he was a “rowdy black nationalist,” and a “communist.”


Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea of what this cynical administration is brining to bear..

'Employee Free Choice Act' is anything but.........

America went to the polls on November 4th. We voted using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.

The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.

Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.

Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot...........just a "friendly" union representative.

The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats now have the votes to pass it in the Senate. They now have a President who will sign it. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.

The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?

Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.

The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.

Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.

The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get this passed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.

WHILE ROME BURNS

Our 'Stimulus Bill' that Obama and Pelosi hoisted on the US. to create jobs is misleading. It will create some jobs, but not necessarily for Americans.

According to the USAToday, Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.

They fault Congress for failing to require that employers certify legal immigration status of workers before hiring by using a Department of Homeland Security program called E-Verify. The program allows employers to check the validity of Social Security numbers provided by new hires. It is available to employers on a voluntary basis. Obama and Pelosi both rebuked the inclusion of the common sense measure.

"They could have deterred this, but they chose not to," said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit seeking to block the requirement, joined by the Associated Builders and Contractors and other business organizations.

So not only will many Americans be passed over for these jobs taken by Illegal Aliens, American tax dollars will pay their salaries.

Not willing to tolerate criticism, the Democrats are dredging up the 'Fairness Doctrine' in an attempt to quelch opposition to their socialist policies. It seems they are not satisfied with merely controlling the print and television media (exception FOX News), they want to silence talk radio. They are gunning for Limbaugh and Hannity. They make no mention of fervent Obama supporters, MSNBC's Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow.

On a more personal front. While Washington and the rest of America's cities burn economically, the recession is not being felt at the White House. The Obama's have been enjoying a fun-filled succession of parties at the White House.

These parties are purely for socializing, with talk of politics discouraged. Sort of reminds me of another First Lady whose first name began with an "M". When told their fellow countrymen were suffering she is said to have replied, "let them eat cake".