By Sarah Palin
Odd. Pelosi sees women as less than equal and thus needing government intervention. Glad girls today know the truth re: women’s strength and equal opportunity. I’m glad my girls know the truth.
By Gary P Jackson
Well, looks like Big Government “progessive” Newt Gingrich has stepped in it again folks. As his fellow traveler Barack Obama would say, he’s “acted stupidly,” with his latest freaky attack on Mitt Romney.
You see, a bit back George Soros made a comment that there was little difference between Mitt and Obama. Now Soros isn’t stupid. He knew exactly how that would play with Conservatives.
Folks like Rush Limbaugh constantly say you can tell who the left fears the most by who the attack the hardest. According to a study done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, Mitt Romney is getting by far the most negative press of the GOP field. Unless there is some sort of unwritten rule that exempts Mitt, or, God forbid, Rush is wrong, it sure looks like the left is more concerned about Mitt than anyone else. You certainly do not see the left attacking Newt Gingrich.
The problem with Newt’s attack is while Soros was running his head to Reuters, it’s hard to find any direct ties between Soros and Romney, though Newt sure would like you to think there is.
There actually IS a direct link between George Soros and Newt Gingrich though.
We all remember this betrayal of Conservatism and the American people by Newt. [one of many]
As you know, this betrayal came at the very time Conservatives were in the battle of their life to save America from the communists in the “green” movement, like Van Jones, who wanted to take away all of your Liberty and Freedom, as well as lift all of the cash out of your wallet, in the name of “saving the planet”. [from a hoax]
And who paid for this ad featuring Nancy and Newt cuddled up together? Why George Soros, of course!
In a press release from the Romney campaign we get this response:
“It is interesting to see the latest attack from Speaker Gingrich and his disintegrating campaign. Unlike Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney never sat next to Nancy Pelosi in an ad funded by George Soros on behalf of Al Gore’s global warming initiative. As recently as 2008, the Soros agenda had no better friend than Newt Gingrich. Nice try, Mr. Speaker.” –Ryan Williams, Romney Campaign Spokesman
Sitting On A Loveseat Together In 2008, Speakers Gingrich And Pelosi Called On America To “Take Action To Address Climate Change.”
PELOSI: “Hi! I’m Nancy Pelosi, life-long Democrat and Speaker of the House.”
GINGRICH: “And I’m Newt Gingrich, life-long Republican, and I used to be Speaker.”
PELOSI: “We don’t always see eye to eye, do we Newt?”
GINGRICH: “No, but we do agree: our country must take action to address climate change.”
PELOSI: “We need cleaner forms of energy, and we need them fast.”
GINGRICH: “If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.”
PELOSI: “Go to WeCanSolveIt.org. Together, we can do this.”
(The We Campaign, YouTube.com, 4/24/08)
Newt And Nancy’s TV Ad Was Launched By Al Gore’s Alliance For Climate Protection. “Former Vice President Al Gore launched a three year, multimillion-dollar advocacy campaign Monday calling for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The Alliance for Climate Protection’s campaign, dubbed ‘We,’ will … educate the public about global warming and urge solutions from elected officials. … Some advertisements will feature bipartisan pairs, such as … Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with former GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich…”
(“Gore Campaign Promotes Environmental Change,” The Associated Press, 4/1/08)
Who Gave The Alliance For Climate Protection $5 Million In 2008? George Soros, Of Course. George Soros’ Open Society Institute gave the Alliance for Climate Protection $5 million in 2008. (Open Society Institute, 2008 IRS Form 990, p. 123 [PDF])
What’s that old saying about glass houses? A lot of Conservatives would rather Mitt Romney not be the front runner in this race. I consider myself among them, but Newt Gingrich is such a hypocrite, his attacks must be answered.
Newt has managed to fool a significant number of people into thinking he’s a [snort] “conservative” and a lot of people think Mitt is somehow as progressive as Obama. The sad fact is, on Romney’s worst day, he’s more Conservative than Newt on his best. Now that ain’t sayin’ much, for sure, but it is what it is.
While Romney was governor of arguably the most backwards, socialist state in the country, he hasn’t spent his entire career standing with the socialists and helping them advance their agenda the way Newt has. Newt talks the talk, but that’s as far as it goes. Not a Conservative bone in his body. Newt’s default setting is Big Government “progressive.”
The reason why Newt’s campaign is in a downward spiral is he is not for real. He’s, in reality, who everyone tries to make Romney out to be. His attacks on Romney ring hollow because whatever he accuses Mitt of, he’s actually done worse. [or wants to do worse]
Health care mandates? Romney thinks their OK for a state. [they aren’t] Newt thinks they are OK for the entire nation [they absolutely aren’t] and has said so consistently for 20 years.
Newt’s latest ad calls Romney a “gun grabber” when, in fact, the NRA praised Romney’s reforms to Massachusetts’ gun laws as a “a breath of fresh air.”
It was Newt Gingrich and his couch buddy Nancy Pelosi who teamed up, while Newt was Speaker, to pass some of the most anti-Second Amendment, anti-American gun laws in our nation‘s history. And he did it after promising the American people there would be NO such gun legislation allowed on his watch. In other words, he lied.
Add in the fact that Newt wants amnesty for illegals, and is a true believer of the global warming hoax, and will most certainly want some sort of cap and tax laws [he’s pushed them before] and you start to understand that it’s Newt who is the closest to Obama, not Mitt.
Now I’m not saying Mitt is the best answer, but one thing’s for sure, Newt Gingrich is most certainly not.
By Gary P Jackson
Rick Santorum is not backing down one bit as he continues to campaign for the Republican nomination for president. Rick has just released a hard hitting ad that gets right to the heart of the matter and makes the case for why he is the conservative alternative in the race:
This is a good ad. It makes the point of who sides with who and it does it well. Though he could have added more examples of all three standing together, like gun grabbing, and “green energy” scams, this should do the trick.
Though he still has a really rough row to hoe, there is good news out there for Rick. The Weekly Standard has this to say about his chances in Missouri:
In Missouri, where the next Republican primary will take place (next Tuesday), a new poll by PPP shows Rick Santorum leading Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points — 45 to 34 percent — while Ron Paul has 13 percent support. Newt Gingrich isn’t on the ballot in Missouri, so the Show Me State offers a prime opening for Santorum to build on his earlier victory in neighboring Iowa.
Perhaps even more encouraging for Santorum are the candidates’ respective favorability ratings among prospective primary voters in the state. Santorum’s net favorability rating is +42 percent (63 percent favorable to 21 percent unfavorable), compared to +10 percent for Romney (46 percent favorable to 36 percent unfavorable). (Paul’s net favorability rating is minus-29 percent — 28 percent favorable to 57 percent unfavorable.)
Santorum has won the last two debates and totally destroyed the myth that Newt Gingrich is some sort of world champion of the world debater. Like Romney, Santorum has shown he has absolutely no problem with going for the jugular if that’s what it takes.
Those who are looking for a serious Conservative alternative need to take a long and hard look at Rick Santorum. Rick is a serious and reliable candidate. He was a serious and reliable Senator.
I know none of these candidates are perfect. Many of us have a different idea of who the perfect candidate would have been. She didn’t run, so we have to look at those who actually are. And frankly, Santorum and even Romney are better than the rest of the pack.
Personally, I’d like to see it come down to Mitt and Rick. Newt Gingrich is a drama queen, and his antics are distracting the campaigns from the real issues. All of the candidates are fighting each other, that’s what primaries are for, but if it comes down to Romney and Santorum, we will likely see more substantive debate and less carnival sideshow.
A good race between Mitt and Rick would make either man a stronger candidate when it comes time to whip Obama.
I haven’t endorsed a candidate, but I sure like the thought of Rick Santorum fighting hard for Conservatism. If you agree, send him a buck or two here.
by Whitney Pitcher
Outside of Chicago, most of Illinois is generally seen as farmland with small to medium sized cities and small towns dotting the landscape. However, although central Illinois is well known for having some of the richest soil in the world, southern Illinois was not always fertile farmland. In fact, many of the early settlers died from malaria due to the mosquito infestation of the swampland that covered nearly a fourth of the state. In the 1800s, settlers to Illinois began to install underground tile drains and ditches to drain the swampland. This allowed them to use the land to begin farming to provide for their families, as the once swampy land was now suitable to be settled.
What does this have to with politics? Everything. When Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker of the House in 2007, she promised to “drain the swamp” and lead the “most honest and open Congress in history”:
One can only think of Governor Palin’s words at her speech in Indianola, Iowa in September when she called out the crony capitalism of the permanent political class:
Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.
The last week or so has provided us more of peek into what Governor Palin has been mentioning over the past several months—that the crony capitalism of Solyndra is only the “tip of the iceberg”. The 60 Minutes segment that aired on Sunday highlighted the crony capitalism and unethical (but frustratingly not illegal) insider trading done by Congresswoman Pelosi and other member of Congress like Congressman Baucus, whom Andrew Breitbart is calling to resign. Governor Palin’s adviser, Peter Schweizer has a book out today entitled Throw Them All Out where he writes in depth about the crony capitalism and unethical dealings of members of both parties. Tony Lee at Human Events has a good review of the book here.
Governor Palin has made fighting corruption and crony capitalism the foundation of her time in public service and the last year and a half as well. Whether it was calling out a fellow city council member nearly twenty years ago for trying to steer business to his company through regulation or highlighting the crony capitalism of the Obama administration and the permanent political class as a whole in recent months, Governor Palin has shined a bright light on the corruption and cronyism that is pervasive in government. With her decision not to seek the presidency at this time, many conservatives and clean government advocates feel a bit lost and rudderless. However, it should be noted that the settlers who arrived in Illinois did not start farming until the swamps were drained. The same could be true of the swamp of Washington D.C. Could this proverbial iceberg bring down the Titanic of crony capitalism? Could this swamp draining allow Governor Palin and/ or other reform minded corruption fighters to cultivate a harvest of clean government in the future? Time will tell, but let us keep vigilant in the meantime. What has become the status quo in Washington, in our state capitals, and in our city halls should not be acceptable. We must hold our leaders to high standards and support those running for office who will be supportive of draining the swamp rather than infesting it.
By Gary P Jackson
With all of the breaking news from the joint CBS/Peter Schweizer exposé more is coming out about Nancy Pelosi’s corrupt dealings.
From Wynton Hall at Breitbart’s Big Government:
Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.
The revelation appears in Throw Them All Out, the new book by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, which was the focus of 60 Minutes on CBS this evening, and which is featured in this week’s issue of Newsweek. [and here]
Schweizer’s investigation of Pelosi and other members of Congress–from both parties–raises a critical question: should it be legal for lawmakers to buy stocks in companies directly affected by their legislative efforts?
In early 2008, Nancy Pelosi and her real estate developer husband, Paul, were given an opportunity to buy into a Visa IPO. It was a nearly impossible feat–one that average citizens almost certainly could never achieve. The vast majority of purchase opportunities went to institutional investors, large mutual funds, or pension funds.
Despite Pelosi’s consistent railing against credit card companies, on March 18, 2008, the Pelosis bought between $1 million and $5 million (politicians do not have to report the exact amounts, only ranges) worth of Visa stock at the IPO price of $44 per share. Two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50% profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share.
How did Nancy Pelosi snag one of the most coveted initial public offerings in history? The facts are still emerging. Yet according to Schweizer, corporations that wish to build congressional allies will sometimes hand-pick members of Congress to receive IPOs. Pelosi received her Visa IPO almost two weeks after a potentially damaging piece of legislation for Visa, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, had been introduced in the House. If passed, the bill would have cut into Visa’s profits substantially by lowering so-called “interchange fees,” the 1% to 3% charge retailers pay Visa when customers use Visa cards for purchases. Interchange fees are a critical source of revenue for the four credit card companies–$48 billion in 2008, to be exact.
If the Credit Card Fair Fee Act had been passed into effect, it would have amended antitrust laws to require credit card companies to enter negotiations with merchants over interchange fees, and it would have given the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission the power to arbitrate if the two sides failed to come to an agreement. For that reason, Visa and the other credit card companies strongly opposed the bill.
The Credit Card Fair Fee Act was exactly the kind of bill one would think then-Speaker Pelosi would have backed. “She had been outspoken about antitrust problems posed by insurance, oil, and pharmaceutical companies,” Schweizer notes, “and she was vocal about the need for controlling interest rates individual banks charged to use their credit cards.”
Read more here.
Nancy Pelosi and all of those involved in this should not only be removed from Congress, but should go to prison for the rest of their lives. What are the odds nothing happens whatsoever.
That’s not all, BTW, back in 2008 the American Thinker had this little jewel:
Pelosi’s ETHA bill and Amgen
Previously, we reported the suspicious timing of Amgen executives making large donations to Speaker Pelosi’s campaign just before she submitted a bill that would likely increase that company’s bottom line. The Early Treatment of HIV Act (ETHA) would expand coverage of a pricey drug, EPOGEN® made by Amgen and used in treating anemia in HIV positive patients. In addition, the drug is marketed as PROCRIT® under license by Johnson & Johnson, a company in which — according to her most recent financial disclosure — she was heavily invested in at the time. J&J sales would increase and likely benefit Amgen (although possibly indirectly) under licensing agreements. CNSnews has investigated and affirmed our initial revelations to a great extent and added to the case.
Medicaid announced it was considering cutbacks in government purchasing of those drugs several months before the Amgen donations were made. Just a few days before Medicaid was set to announce implementation of the rules change, Amgen execs began dumping money into the campaign coffers of Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Speaker Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill, which would reverse some of the Medicaid expenditure reduction within hours of the formal announcement of the Medicaid changes.
In addition, as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi sets the agenda of the House. The House joined the Senate in approving informal resolutions urging Medicaid to cancel the rules change late last year. The effort worked, Medicaid did so and Amgen stocks soared. The House resolution and the separate ETHA bill were both overwhelmingly backed by Democrats. Amgen CEO, and President Kevin Sharer pumped $26,000 into congressional Democrats campaign committees in the weeks before the ETHA bill was submitted and after Medicaid announced it was considering the rules change.
Pelosi received $30,000 from Amgen executives to her campaign and the Democrat campaign committees received $26,000 just prior to the bill submittal. A look at the 2007 donations of Amgen show very little donations at any other time, in 2007 or otherwise.
Subsequent investigation has revealed that another money-maker drug made by Amgen estimated to cost $30,000 per patient in some cases would likely benefit from increased purchasing under ETHA implementation. That drug called Enbrel is used as an inhibitor in cases of severe psoriasis among other conditions. Many HIV patients develop psoriasis and other conditions which are also under medical testing with Enbrel treatment. If approved by the FDA for treatment in HIV associated illness, the expanded market of government purchasing provided by the ETHA bill could be a real windfall for the company.
A PriceWaterhourseCooper study showed that the early treatment of HIV bill could increase coverage to about 30,000 patients in the first year alone. Even if only 1% of the newly covered population receives Enbrel treatment it could increase Amgen sales by millions of dollars.
Read more about this deal here.
This might be a good time to remind readers about all of the money that changed hands between Texas Governor Rick Perry, his staff, and the good folks over at Merck, as well as the half million dollars he got to shill for the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. Corruption lives in both political parties at all levels of government.
It also is a good time to remind readers Newt Gingrich took $300,000 from Freddie Mac in exchange for helping make sure Congress never regulated the industry. An industry that was being raped by it’s top executives, paying themselves millions they never earned, and whose collapse would cause the financial mess we are in now.
As Newt’s corrupt little adventure points out, sometimes corruption doesn’t just put a lot of money in these loser’s pockets, it also causes great harm to America and her people. We’re still trying to recover from the mess caused by Fannie and Freddie. Newt was, as usual on the wrong side. Like the the rest of these corrupt bastards, Newt sold his soul, and the nation, for money.
More on Pelosi’s Amgen deal from CNS News:
Pelosi’s Bill Could Benefit Husband’s Stock Holding
On July 27, 2007, 28 executives of the Thousand Oaks, Calif., pharmaceutical firm Amgen contributed more than $20,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) campaign.
On Aug. 2, Pelosi (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Early Treatment for HIV Act, a bill that could boost Medicaid coverage of HIV-related drugs, including Procrit, which is manufactured by Amgen and marketed by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a firm in which Pelosi’s husband owns at least $250,000 in stock, according to Pelosi’s disclosure forms.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Specifically, the legislation would give states the option to allow patients who are HIV-positive, but do not have AIDS, to qualify for Medicaid coverage earlier in the course of the virus. Currently, Medicaid coverage doesn’t kick in until a patient develops AIDS.
The legislation could also extend to HIV drugs Prezista and Intellence, manufactured by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary. But these two drugs would not always be for early treatment of HIV.
The legislation has more than 50 co-sponsors, including some Republicans. However, considering Pelosi’s potential interest in the legislation, her sponsorship of the bill is questionable, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group.
“An ethical issue pops up as a result of her investment in Johnson & Johnson,” Fitton told Cybercast News Service. “Obviously she should explain whether or not her contributions from Amgen and its executives are influencing her position on the HIV bill in an inappropriate way.”
[ …. ]
In addition to the 28 separate contributions Pelosi received last July from Amgen, seven other contributions were made by executives in the months of July and August, for a total of $30,050 to Pelosi’s re-election campaign. Also, AmgenPAC (political action committee) gave Pelosi’s campaign a total of $10,000 last year.
“Amgen has maintained an employee-funded political action committee which has contributed on a bi-partisan basis to federal and select state candidates,” said Amgen spokeswoman Kelley Davenport in a written response to Cybercast News Service.
“The candidates chosen for these contributions are candidates who are generally supportive of important issues, such as patient access and innovation preservation,” Davenport added.
“Amgen is proud of its record of involvement in the political process and we will continue to be active participants in the federal and state public policy arenas,” the statement continued.
Fitton contends that such a wide range of donations indicates a “coordinated effort to support her on the part of Amgen.”
Fitton would like to see an ethics investigation, but that would require another House member to call for the House Ethics Committee to review the matter.
“It’s not three or four steps removed,” Fitton said. “The drug presumably would be covered under the bill. So will any Democrat or Republican ask for an investigation of this, whether she violated the rules? On the face of it, she seems to be bringing discredit on the House as a result of this apparent conflict of interest.“
Read more here.
This is unacceptable.
All of this shows that the need for serious reform is urgent. Congress, and government in general, has become a sewer filled with crapweasels who have no ethics whatsoever. They don’t even understand the concept of ethics.
Politicians at all levels of government, and in both parties are guilty. Though Congress has exempted itself from many of the laws that make what they do illegal, they are not exempt from the wrath of the people.
2012 is coming. It’s up to everyone to make sure they are well informed, and everyone they know is informed. It’s time to literally clean house and throw all of these bums out in the streets!
We must find men and women of honor. People who can’t be corrupted. Men and women who will write and pass laws that will reform government, remove all temptations for our elected leaders to become corrupt, and severely punish those who do it despite all reform.
If we don’t reform our government in radical ways, America will not survive.
What these corrupt politicians have done, is mighty close to treason, and should be treated as such.
On October 29th, when I sat on a panel during the first ever Grizzly Fest Summit, I spoke about being “disillusioned” with the state of politics and Washington DC prior to learning about Governor Palin in 2007. Disgraced former high-power DC lobbyist Jack Abramoff had a lot to do with that because as the Washington Post described back in 2006 (emphasis):
Former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to cooperate in an investigation into his relationships with members of Congress. Sources familiar with the federal probe have told The Post that half a dozen lawmakers are under scrutiny, along with Hill aides, former business associates and government officials.
Which is one reason I gained admiration for Governor Palin after reading about her record. I wasn’t turning a blind-eye to corruption in DC just because the players involved had R’s next to their names, and neither did she back in her home state. In fact, she risked everything to expose corrupted officials in her own party, which I knew at the time is exactly what it would take to clean up government at every level.
Sunday night, CBS conducted a fascinating interview with Jack Abramoff in which he gave details about how he was able to “influence politicians and their staffers through generous gifts and job offers.” CBS reported that:
As a Republican lobbyist starting in the mid 1990s, he became a master at showering gifts on lawmakers in return for their votes on legislation and tax breaks favorable to his clients. He was so good at it, he took home $20 million a year.
Lesley Stahl opens the interview by getting Abramoff to go into detail about his business leading up to his arrest:
Stahl: Can you quantify how much it costs to corrupt a congressman?
Abramoff: I was actually thinking of writing a book – “The Idiot’s Guide to Buying a Congressman” – as a way to put this all down. First, I think most congressmen don’t feel they’re being bought. Most congressmen, I think, can in their own mind justify the system.
Abramoff: –rationalize it and by the way we wanted as lobbyists for them to feel that way.
Of course they did.
Abramoff then goes on to describe how he spent over $1 million on tickets to sporting events lobbying public officials. Purchasing box seats for them and all of their guests and discussing the fact they didn’t care if it was legal or not.
Then Abramoff discloses what felt was “best way” to get an official to do what he wanted them to do (emphasis):
Abramoff: But the “best way” to get a congressional office to do his bidding – he says – was to offer a staffer a job that could triple his salary.
Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, “You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.” Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.
I think that speaks to how our elected officials operate. If they mindlessly allow their compromised staffers the ability to dictate their actions, they never were who they claimed to be while getting elected. It’s disgraceful.
The interview continues:
Abramoff: At the end of the day most of the people that I encountered who worked on Capitol Hill wanted to come work on K Street, wanted to be lobbyists.
Stahl: You’re telling me this, the genius of figuring out you could own the office by offering a job to the chief of staff, say. I’m having two reactions. One is brilliant. And the other is I’m sick to my stomach.
Abramoff: Right. Evil. Yeah. Terrible.
Stahl: ‘Cause it’s hurting our country.
Abramoff: Shameful. Absolutely. It’s the worst thing that could happen. All parts of the system.
Leslie Stahl also interviewed former congressman Bob Ney for this segment. Ney resigned in 2006 and served 17 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy and making false statements under oath in relation to the Abramoff scandal:
Stahl: Did he own you?
Bob Ney: Oh, I don’t believe Jack Abramoff owned me. But were we involved in the culture of corruption together? Absolutely.
I wanted to be speaker of the House and Jack Abramoff was the beautiful light of day for me to get to the person who I had had some conflicts with, Tom Delay.
But I will still tell you, at that point in time, in order to get a drink at Signatures [“Signatures” was a bar and restaurant owned by Jack Abramoff] you had to shove White House staffers of George Bush the heck away from the bar. And it was packed with people. And there were members. Now that doesn’t mean everybody did everything for Jack. But if you wanna talk about strict interpretation of violation of the– of– of the laws of drink and food, Katey bar the door, she was wide open, two shotguns blarin’.
Abramoff then delivers specifics about how he would help his clients – the people paying him to corrupt officials:
Abramoff: So what we did was we crafted language that was so obscure, so confusing, so uninformative, but so precise to change the U.S. code.
Stahl: Here’s what you tried to get tacked on to this reform bill.
Stahl: “Public law 100-89 is amended by striking section 207 (101 stat. 668, 672).”
Abramoff: Right. Now isn’t that obvious what that means? It was perfect. It was perfect.
Stahl: So that’s what you tried to get inserted?
Stahl: And that was gonna provide for a casino?
Stahl: And who on earth is gonna know that?
Abramoff: No one except the chairmen of the committees.
Stahl: Who stuck it in there?
Stahl: And that’s one of the things you used to do?
Stahl: And it was deliberately written like that?
Abramoff: Precisely. Yes.
Stahl: And that’s done a lot?
Abramoff: Members don’t read the bills.
Abramoff says something that is hard to hear but it’s something that needs to be heard by every taxpayer in this country (emphasis):
Stahl: Was buying favors from lawmakers easy?
Abramoff: I think people are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting a favor. And that’s not the case. The corruption, the bribery, call it, because ultimately that’s what it is. That’s what the whole system is.
Stahl: The whole system’s bribery?
Abramoff: In my view. I’m talking about giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public. At the end of the day, that’s really what bribery is. But it is done everyday and it is still being done. The truth is there were very few members who I could even name or could think of who didn’t at some level participate in that.
The interview ends with Abramoff giving his view of the current state of the systemic corruption in Washington DC and lends some advice about what he feels is the best way to curb it (emphasis):
Stahl: Could you do the same thing today? I’m asking you whether you think the system’s been cleaned up?
Abramoff: Could do the same thing that I? Yeah. No, the system hasn’t been cleaned up at all.
Stahl: At all.
Abramoff: There’s an arrogance on the part of lobbyists, and certainly there was on the part of me and my team, that no matter what they come up we, we’re smarter than they are and we’ll overcome it. We’ll just find another way through. That’s all.
If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself. When you’re done, go home. Washington’s a dangerous place. Don’t hang around.
Abramoff believes that the best way to end this drag on our government is to find a way to prohibit members of Congress and their staffers from working on K Street once their terms are over.
The self-policing of Congress hasn’t worked. Only at times when it’s politically expedient for them to do so, do we hear the hypocrites on one side of the aisle or the other complain about the corruption of the other party. What gets me is that those people like Nancy Pelosi who gained her seat of power by telling the American people that it was time to end the “culture of corruption” when she herself is vastly compromised.
Corruption is not going to go away by simply wishing it would or trusting elected officials in DC to eventually do the right thing. The American people have to take it upon themselves to educate their neighbors and DEMAND that the people we elect to represent us are held accountable once they get to DC. As Abramoff said “If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself.”
It’s up to us to make sure that our elected officials do just that. We need to elect people to serve us who have the same moral backbone that Governor Palin has. People who will not turn a blind-eye to this corruption. People who will serve the public, even if that means being unpopular with their peers.
You can read the entire CBS interview here.
By C.A. Bamford
The Tea Party movement burst upon the American scene in 2009 with such intensity that it frightened many Democrats. Former President Bill Clinton was afraid. We knew he was afraid because he began using phrases like, “right wing extremism”, “inciting violence”, and “espousing racist and radical views” when he talked about the Tea Party. Then, with his “Ahh shucks” down home drawl quavering just the tiniest bit, he invoked the Oklahoma City bombing. But he could offer no specifics to back up his concerns about the peaceful gatherings of ordinary citizens.
Never mind that tea party patriots don’t set off bombs and run away like Timothy McVeigh did. (Perhaps Clinton was confusing them with Sixties radical Bill Ayers, who in his 2001 book Fugitive Days, recounted his life as leader of the Weather Underground, and boasted that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.”) Nor will they ever chose to wear a T-shirt with a picture of Abraham Lincoln and the words, “SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS” (“thus ever to tyrants“) shouted by John Wilkes Booth after his assassination of President Lincoln, as McVeigh did on the morning of the bombing.
No, what they do is work hard, honor the constitution and clean up after themselves. But of course, Bill was scared. And when he’s scared, he tends to get a tad confused about how things really go down. Sometimes, Mr. Clinton, a tea party is just a tea party.
By 2010, as the Tea Party Movement grew to include over 20% of Americans, encompassing all demographics of our population, Clinton decided to moderate his words to fit the times. We could tell he was feeling our pain when he said that he thought the Tea Party movement reflected a feeling by Americans that “they were getting the shaft”. But still, he felt their anger about spending, higher taxes, and the size of government was misplaced. It was, after all, the fault of the banks and Wall Street fat cats…and George Bush.
Another vociferous critic of the Tea Party movement was former House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who had the audacity to try to label it “Astroturf”. Alas, attempting to call the most spontaneous and genuine movement since our early colonial uprising “Astroturf” was quite a stretch even for the former Madam Pelosi, one of the greatest advocates of all things plastic, and she would eventually be laughed out of her House seat largely because of her strident but unsupported claims that the Tea Party movement was created and funded by obese felines and the GOP.
As the Tea Party movement grew and threatened Madam Pelosi’s grand plans, she grew so nervous that on at least one occasion she too became teary-eyed as she shakily confessed her fear of those right wing militia types, like grandmothers, hockey moms, working stiffs, and returning veterans who might become unhinged and do something terrible. Like recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem or carry signs supporting our Constitutional rights.
Some say this fear was the real reason she boasted about her readiness to pole vault over a fence to escape the wrath of these citizens. A courageous and daunting task for one of her advanced age, but do not worry. The former Madam has been pulled so tautly that she would surely bounce upon landing.
By 2010, Madam Pelosi too felt the need to modify her denunciation of Main Street Americans. She was now claiming she had much in common with the Tea Party.
In her February 28, 2010 “This Week” interview with ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas, Pelosi said:
We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as — it just has to stop. And that’s why I’ve fought the special interest, whether it’s on energy, whether it’s on health insurance, whether it’s on pharmaceuticals and the rest.
So, former Madam Pelosi, does that mean you are going to fight to rescind those special Obamacare waivers given to dozens and dozens of high end businesses in your district?
Barack Obama, bless his heart, didn’t know the tea party was out there.
But a year later, the man who occupies the highest and most respected office in our nation, a man reputed to have great intellectual prowess, heard about the tea party. Before you knew it, he was right on top of things. He wasn’t scared as he chuckled condescendingly about “those folks out there waving tea bags.”
Now some may say it is unfair to chastise him for his lack of knowledge of our American history. However, there were no tea bags back in 1773 when our forefathers became fed up with the greed and arrogance of the ruling British elite who mandated that the colonies must purchase only their tea and pay extra for the privilege of doing so.
A group of independent patriots boarded the British ships and dumped boxes of that over-taxed loose tea into Boston Harbor. Although the current liberal elite may know a great deal about tea bags, Mr. President, you just might want to take a closer look at those folks. Those were American flags and copies of our Constitution the Tea Party supporters were waving.
Fortunately, most Americans do understand what the Tea Party really represents. According to Tea Party Patriot and unhyphenated American Lloyd Marcus, the leader of the party and their top candidates for President is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is pretty much on the same page as most of us Tea Party Patriots, said Marcus. Drill Baby Drill, smaller government, and no new taxes.
Read more here.
One must also add to that list her stance on strong defense, securing our borders, transparency and accountability in government, restoring and preserving our constitutional liberties, repealing Obamacare and cutting spending.
What the liberal left fails to understand as, aided and abetted by the main stream media, they bloviate endless nonsense about it, is that the Tea Party is like a forest fire sweeping across the nation. The more hot air they blow on it, the more it spreads.
A classic example is NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, who tried unsuccessfully to play the race card while interviewing Darryl Postell, a black man at a Tea Party rally in Washington DC. She asked if he ever felt uncomfortable being a black man in the midst of “all those white people”.
“No,” he responded, “No. These are my people.” Then without missing a beat, he added,
Well said, Mr. Postell.
And in the distance, one can almost hear the voices of our founding fathers and our fallen heroes, past and present, echoing this praise.
“Well said, Patriot well said.”
By Gary P Jackson
So many phony Conservatives, so little time!
I’ll be honest, I had to read Chuck Roger’s essay in American Thinker a couple times to make sure I understood where he was going with Newt’s latest hair-brain scheme to “Win The Future™.” It’s that crazy.
It seems the establishment GOP’s “smartest guy in the room” has come up with a winner.
Way, way back in 1994, Newt Gingrich complained vigorously about a Democrat-controlled Congress’s fiscal irresponsibility. Representative Gingrich led a successful campaign by Republicans to takeover House and Senate in the 1994 Election. At the core of the Republican game plan was the Contract with America, a key element of which was the Fiscal Responsibility Act, in which Gingrich promised:
A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
That was then. Republicans failed to deliver on most of the Contract’s promises.
This is now. Failure to deliver is the least of Republicans’ worries if Gingrich’s GOP nomination bid gains traction.
“We must stop the irresponsible spending,” Gingrich wrote in an email to supporters. So he is again complaining about Washington’s fiscal madness. But there’s a slimy facet of Newt Gingrich 2011-hypocrisy. Gingrich now makes it clear that he wants to continue to grow federal “investment in science and research.” The man is sounding more and more like just another big-government Republican, a progressive one to boot. Gingrich slams the reduced research subsidies in Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan for being ….
…essentially like saying, I want to save money on your car, [so] we’re not going to change the oil. And for about a year I can get away with it. And then the engine will freeze up and we’ll have to replace your engine. But if I have a CBO that scores oil but doesn’t score engines, I can annually replace the engine for free, because it won’t count as a budget cost.
In this analogy, the federal government keeps the “engine” of scientific research from “freezing up.” But scientific breakthroughs do not depend on government subsidies. Mr. Gingrich has revealed himself to be no more fiscally responsible than the progressive Democrats whom he criticizes for fiscal irresponsibility.
Roger goes on to hammer Gingrich for the stuff conservatives always hammer Gingrich for, namely being a big fat liberal!
Frankly, Newt lost me when he was spooning with Nancy Pelosi on the now infamous couch, shilling for Al Gore’s global warming hoax. And he’s still going down that road today as he shills for the ethanol lobby, which has paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars to push that “green” scam.
In the current-day version of Gingrich, Republicans are saddled with a man who goes out of his way to play nice-nice with progressives. Gingrich is prone to embrace nutty and economically destructive progressive ideas.
Then comes this:
First, irresponsible global warming spending, then irresponsible biofuel spending. Now Gingrich is making a “deliberate, fundamental argument against the entire current [health care] delivery system,” claiming that only government “investment” in research can create a better health care system.
So here we have a formerly great “conservative” pushing colossal government involvement to create a health care system to replace the Obamacare colossus.
Where did Gingrich make his “investment” pitch? Why, at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution, a progressive think tank.
Read more here.
The Republican establishment is always telling us Gingrich is the smartest guy we have in the party. Of course, these same people tell us Mitt Romney is a genius too, and we know what a joke that is.
We are told Newt Gingrich is an “idea man.” OK, I’ll buy into that, but what good is an “idea man” when all of his ideas are ridiculous?
The thing is “idea men,” prized creatures that they are, are mostly worthless.
For every good idea they come up with, they’ll have hundreds that are useless, and in some cases down right dangerous. You know, like creating a Big Government boondoggle to replace another Big Government boondoggle.
Idea men, big thinkers, what ever you want to call them, are dreamers. We need dreamers. They serve a great purpose to society. But the last thing you want is a big thinker, an “idea man” in a leadership position.
You put one of these cats in charge, where no one can stop them from implementing every insane idea that pops in their head, and you have a recipe for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Thinkers, dreamers, “idea men,” geniuses, wonks, whatever you want to call them are not the sort one puts in charge. They are not CEO material, or even middle management. Their place in life is to do what they do. Think up stuff. If they’re lucky, they think up something that is beneficial. Or, if not, they are Newt Gingrich.
It’s time for Americans to wake up and realize that we need real change in Washington, and looking to the same old Republican establishment hacks who got is in this mess in the first place is not the answer.
We need new, fresh leadership, that has no ties to the current mess in DC. Someone who has vast executive experience, and a solid record of accomplishment. A Governor.
“Idea men” are a dime a dozen.
By Gary P Jackson
Timmy and Big Sis sittin’ in a tree …..
As Stacy Drake pointed out to readers a few days ago, potential presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty is yet another Big Government, liberal, establishment “Republican” trying to pass himself off as a principled Conservative.
As Stacy pointed out, not only did Pawlenty fall for the global warming hoax, he fully supported the nonsensical and highly corrupt concept of a cap and tax system. Stacy’s report was an eye-opener, as it spelled out just exactly what sort of Big Government Statist this little known former governor of Minnesota truly is.
Stacy found that besides his ridiculous stance on carbon trading, and “renewable energy” as the savior of all mankind, he was also anything BUT a fiscal Conservative. According to the CATO institute, he was less fiscally responsible than Big Government types like Ed Rendel, former democrat governor of Pennsylvania.
She also discovered Pawlenty was a huge fan of RomneyCare, and especially the government forced individual mandate, a direct assault on Liberty and Freedom, if there ever was one.
Read Stacy’s entire report here.
The video above not only includes information Stacy presented, but testimony from Pawlenty himself. As you see, he’s bought into the global warming hoax hook, line and sinker. Either that, or like Obama, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and George Soros, he was looking to profit from the carbon credit scam too.
From the video’s description.
Two weeks ago State Rep. Joe Atkins (DFL — Inver Grove Heights) invited former Governor Tim Pawlenty to testify against HF 72 (Beard), a bill which calls for a repeal of a greenhouse gas emission reduction law spearheaded by Gov. Pawlenty in 2007. The former Governor did not respond.
In the absence of Governor’s testimony, Atkins played a short video for the House Commerce committee at today’s hearing which included several public comments by Governor Pawlenty’s in support of renewable energy policies which HF 72 would repeal.
“Governor Pawlenty has shown the courage to stand for renewable energy and its job growing potential in Minnesota,” said Atkins. “It seems appropriate for us to get his input before we dismantle legislation he signed that made Minnesota a nation leader in the emerging renewable energy economy.”
**Speech at 2:00 given to Midwest Ag Energy Network Summit, not Great Plains Institute**
Now these are democrats wanting Pawlenty to come back to them and help them further their cause. You see, clearer heads are prevailing, and they want no part of a destructive “climate change” bill. They want to undo the damage Pawlenty’s misguided policies have caused.
Anyone who actually follows the energy debate knows that the so-called “green economy” has been a disaster for the nations that have went that route. Spain, which was touted by the environmental extremists as the “model of the future,” almost destroyed the nation’s entire economy with it’s “green” initiatives.
It’s widely reported that for every “green” job created, at least 2.2 real jobs were lost. And those “green” jobs cost the nation a reported $774,000 for each and every one created. It also caused industries to move from Spain because of incredibly expensive energy costs, a byproduct of “green” living.
Read more here.
Now Pawlenty was out there doing this in 2006, well after it was common knowledge Spain’s little experiment was a disaster, and yet ….
If that’s not enough, in Pawlenty’s own state, “green” energy is a disaster. This report comes from the local National Public Radio affiliate, hardly a right-wing source:
We made a big deal a couple weeks ago about an in-depth analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis throwing cold water on the idea that “green jobs” will drive the new economy.
Among its points the Fed waived off a Minnesota 2020 report claiming that if done right, the wind industry “can create thousands of jobs, [and] revive the economic base of many Minnesota communities hit hard by the recession.”
It doesn’t work that way, Fed writer Ron Wirtz wrote: “As a job creator, wind power doesn’t pack much punch….“
The report goes on to say “wind-turbine maker Suzlon Group is laying off its remaining 110 workers.”
Read more here.
Pawlenty goes on to say that we must get away from “unsustainable” fossil fuels and move toward renewables. Never mind we use less renewables today than we did a half century ago, because they aren’t economically viable.
Last June I wrote: Obama Asks: “If We Can Put A Man On The Moon, Why Can’t We Give Up Oil?” Here’s Why It’s Impossible. Besides laying out the facts on renewables, during our research we found an interesting fact from 2008.
In 2008 Kiplinger’s reported:
… untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
Since 2008, estimates of our recoverable oil and natural gas reserves have increased significantly. Whitney Pitcher recently reported:
Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Those kinds of numbers make even Obama’s deficit numbers seem small!
That’s just from Alaska and the Arctic region only, as Whitney explains, there is much more in the lower 48.
Read her report here.
Leadership is about judgment. It’s about intellectual curiosity. It’s about being able to access facts and make sound, reasonable decisions that benefit your constituents, not harm them.
As governor, Tim Pawlenty fell hook line and sinker for a long discredited hoax, and then championed ideas, laws, and regulations in further service of this known hoax. Laws and regulations that would hurt his state’s economy, as well as the citizens he served. If that’s not enough, he also lusted after his own state run, forcibly mandated “universal health care” plan, along the lines of RomneyCare [an absolute disaster on every level] and ObamaCare.
Does this sound like someone who has judgment or intellectual chops to be the leader of the free world? Sure doesn’t to me.
It does however sound exactly like another phony “Republican” who endorsed Al Gore’s hoax head on, even doing a “public service announcement” in furtherance of a proven lie.
Newt and Nancy sittin’ on a couch ….
Haven’t we had enough “progressives” in government to last us from now, until the end of time?
America, and the world, deserves a hell of a lot better than this.
By Gary P Jackson
It don’t get any nastier than sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi while shilling for Al Gore’s global warming hoax.
People continually claim Newt Gingrich is the “smartest guy in the party” but I don’t see it. Falling for a proven hoax, rather than following proven science is beyond me. Of course, this isn’t the only sign of less than intelligent actions by the former Speaker and soon to be 2012 presidential candidate.
Folks remember Newt being on the wrong side of history in the NY-23 special election back in 2009, where he backed far left DeDe Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman. That was bad enough, but it got worse. He actually doubled down calling the Margret Sanger Award winning leftist a “moderate” and fought against those who tried to school him.
Of course, he stuck his nose in the Tea Party’s business in 2010 when the NAACP started calling them racist, because the couldn’t compete with the Tea Party Americans on ideas. Newt’s brilliant idea was for the Tea Party leaders to sit down with the NAACP’s leader. All this would have done was give NAACP’s claim legitimacy.
Newt is still flirting with a 2012 run, having pushed back his announcement schedule. Well, he can run, but he can’t hide [from his troubling past].