Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

¡Increíble! Nancy Pelosi Celebrates Illegal Incursions

see nancy-pelosi-ghostsOriginally posted at the Clash Daily

Online Cialis Sales Would it be bad manners to ask someone, anyone, to please loosen the skin ponytail Nancy Pelosi has hidden under her perfectly-coifed bob? Loosening it up is imperative, because the rubber band keeping it all in place is so tight that it’s causing the woman’s lips to repeatedly subject all of America to liberal insanity.

Cheapest Generic Zithromax This time, that washer of immigrant children’s feet, Nancy Pelosi, is celebrating Cinco de Mayo. Cinco de Mayo is why the House Minority speaker felt it was necessary to post a touching message in commemoration of Mexico’s special day.

http://2sl.com.au/?clid=zovirax-invisiseal-review&6c1=4d For starters, the woman whose president arms drug cartels, who scorns the Second Amendment, and who has zero problem relinquishing America’s rights and future to a marauding band of interlopers from South of the Border, memorialized the “courage and heroism of a poorly armed Mexican militia that, in 1862, and in defense of their country, their rights, and their future, defeated the imperial French army in the Battle of Puebla.”

watch Push #7 for English, otherwise henceforth, so as not to offend our Mexican brethren, the Battle of Puebla should be referred to as El Día de la Batalla de Puebla.
Meanwhile, after lauding the sovereign nation of Mexico defending itself from invasion, Pelosi shared this: “As we look back on a seminal moment in history, let us also look forward to the best ways we can continue to embrace the diverse heritage and rich history of Latinos in the United States.”

Buy Lopid 600 Wait just a minute! Is Nancy Pelosi actually proposing that Americans should venerate a Mexican militia for defending itself against foreign incursion by calling an illegal incursion upon our nation an “important contribution?”

http://lawrencelussier.com/?geto=Buy-Seroquel-Online-Overnight&1f6=db Why, yes! Yes she is!

Otherwise why would Mrs. Pelosi say, “There is no better way to acknowledge the important contributions to our country of America’s Latino community than by enacting comprehensive immigration reform”?

In other words, in the bizarre liberal world where Nancy Pelosi’s brain resides, granting amnesty to 11 to 30 million illegals would “acknowledge the important contributions to our country” that lawbreakers, primarily from Mexico, have made.

“Important contributions” such as setting a precedent where U.S. immigration law has been permanently neutered; negatively impacting the job availability for competing workers; and weighing down the already overtaxed health care system.

Other “important contributions” include living off the U.S. government’s teat, collecting social security and sending it home, filling up American prisons with murderers, rapists, drug addicts, and child prostitution smugglers, and demanding U.S. citizens be prohibited from wearing patriotic T-shirts on the 5th of May.

And for good measure, there’s also the introduction of barbaric drug cartel practices like revenge beheadings, smuggling pot and methamphetamine in fire extinguishers, transporting third world contagions long-eradicated from the United States, the influx of culturally diverse murderous street gangs in American cities, and building underground tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. that al Qaeda can also make use of someday.

Even so, Nancy Pelosi still believes that “Whether on Cinco de Mayo or on any other day, the time is now for comprehensive immigration reform” because, in spite of the aforementioned list of so-called contributions, she feels that it “honors the values of our country, strengthens our economy, and provides an earned pathway to citizenship.” A pathway that wasn’t earned; it was stolen.

According to skin-pony-tailed Pelosi, “the time is now for House Republicans to emulate the bravery demonstrated in the Battle of Puebla.”
That’s right, “the time is now” to relinquish the desire to fully maintain the rule of law and “recognize the importance of immigrants and family unification,” even if doing so imposes undue pressure upon law-abiding American families.

And last but not least, “the time is now” to fully acquiesce to amnesty insanity by giving Democrats “a vote on a comprehensive bill that reforms our broken immigration system” – and provides a voting base that will keep Nancy Pelosi and the loony left in power indefinitely.

“¡Feliz Cinco de Mayo!”

This Year’s Margaret Sanger Award Goes to Nancy Pelosi

sanger-toomanyabortedOriginally posted at American Thinker

Any woman willing to call late-term abortion “sacred ground” and make false accusations that the opposing political party voting for the Protect Life Act would leave pregnant women “dying on the floor” deserves an award named after someone as demonically-inspired as eugenicist Margaret Sanger, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is that woman.

Pelosi is scheduled to deliver remarks at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s “Stronger Together” Annual Gala in Washington DC Thursday.  The PPFA gala is where abortion activists gather annually over fruit salad and popovers to celebrate the right to dispose of living human beings. 

According to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, “in recognition of her leadership, excellence, and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement over the course of her career,” Nancy Pelosi will be given the Margaret Sanger Award, which Planned Parenthood considers its “highest honor.”

Cecile Richards, who defines baby-killing as healthcare, is the woman who, during a recent interview with Jorge Ramos on the Fusion TV Network, expressed the opinion that the question of when life begins is not relevant to the abortion debate. 

What an honor this will be for Nancy to be recognized as the latest heroine of the abortion mill that slaughtered 327,166 human beings in 2012 alone, and whose annual recognition represents the ideals and values of Margaret Sanger, a self-proclaimed feminist who was ahead of her time as she attempted to contribute to humanity through fostering racial hatred and genocide. 

A committed socialist, Margaret Sanger once said, “My own personal feelings drew me toward the individualist, anarchist philosophy…but it seemed necessary to approach the idea by way of Socialism.”  Sanger said:

This is the great day of social planning. We have come to believe in planning the production and distribution of goods. We plan methods of governing cities, states, and the nation. We plan jobs, and leisure-time activities, and vacations. We plan almost everything, big and little, except families. It can scarcely do any harm and it may do a vast amount of good to engage in thoughtful, planning of our population, a population with a still larger percentage of happy families.

Sound familiar?

An active worker for the Socialist Party, Sanger believed “the more radical the ideas the more conservative you must be in your dress.” Think: community organizer Barack Obama, who, per Saul Alinsky, “dresses his crusades in vestments of morality,” and Nancy Pelosi, who lobbies for abortion rights and then receives communion at St. Vincent de Paul’s in San Francisco.

As a practicing Catholic, Nancy can step right up with pride and accept accolades in the form of an award with a woman’s name on it whose view of the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception was that church doctrine “…enforces subjugation by turning [a] woman into a mere incubator.”

For Margaret Sanger, eugenics was an avenue to improve the human race by discouraging people with genetic defects or undesirable traits, blacks, immigrants and poor people, whom she called “human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning…human beings who never should have been born.”

Now wait just a minute! Does it matter that this year’s Margaret Sanger Award winner is all for granting amnesty to “human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning…human beings who never should have been born?”

Another irony is that Italian-American Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, who believes deporting illegal immigrants is “just wrong,” had grandparents named Maria and Tommaso who immigrated to America from Italy. If Margaret Sanger had had her eugenic way with Maria Foppiani-Petronilla, Mrs. Pelosi wouldn’t be here, let alone receiving an award.

In February 1919 in The Birth Control Review, the prolific Sanger published an article entitledBirth Control and Racial Betterment.” That means, besides Nancy Pelosi, there’s another politician who supports improving the human race through free birth control and an abortion clinic on every corner: our very own mixed-race President Barack Obama, who would probably also be amongst those of the black race Margaret Sanger deemed unfit to be born.

In 1934, Sanger wrote an article entitled “America Needs a Code for Babies: Plea for Equal Distribution of Births.” Mrs. Sanger’s ‘baby code’ said that people with “bad genes,” or dysgenic groups, should be given a choice between sterilization and segregation.  Those who willingly chose sterilization would be rewarded for contributing to a superior race.

In Article 6, Sanger suggested issuing parenthood permits that would be valid for no more than one birth.

One birth! Paul Pelosi subjugated this year’s Margaret Sanger Award winner into agreeing to gestate five children in her incubator.  Then poor Nancy passed through the “vale of death alone” and gave birth to five of Paul’s children without a single Margaret Sanger parenthood permission slip. For those five reasons alone, Nancy Pelosi should be disqualified from receiving any praise from Planned Parenthood. 

Despite being lionized by socialist liberals, Margaret “every child a wanted child” Sanger’s legacy is one of murder, racism, revulsion for the handicapped, intrinsic disgust for the male gender, and a form of twisted radicalism that viewed God-ordained marriage and the miracle of life with contempt.

Sanger met her maker in 1966. At 82 years of age, history’s most famous female eugenicist went the way of the most famous male eugenicist, and all the innocent babies she lobbied to eliminate before her. 

Yet the diabolical activities that she lived and died and ultimately had to answer for have continued to this day, to the extent that almost half a century later the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi view it as a compliment to receive a Planned Parenthood prize in memory of a so-called birth control pioneer.

Margaret Sanger’s pathetic life was committed to curing what she viewed as the “urgent problem” of how to “limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Nancy Pelosi accepting an award associated with the vile woman who inspired Planned Parenthood confirms, at least in this particular case, that mental deficiency really does impact society in a negative way.

Senile: Pelosi’s ♥ Valentine’s Day Message

pelOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

Someone really should suggest to Grandma Pelosi that it’s time to pack up the Tahitian pearls and turn her attention toward choosing a high-end Senior Living complex.

More and more, the minority speaker seems to have a knack for saying the strangest things at the worst possible time. So the only conclusion one can come to is that Nancy is either spinning uncontrollably into a vortex of senile dementia, or someone at the top has given her free rein to articulate all the deepest thoughts of liberalism.

This time, for Valentine’s Day, 73-year-old Nancy, married for half a century to someone who’s second only to Hillary Clinton in the most-patient spouse department, in a Buy Prednisone No Rx NowThis News interview said some surprising things about committing oneself to the sacrament of marriage.

Who would have thought that Nancy, the woman who said that her Catholic faith “compels her to support same sex marriage” and who thanked God for the overturning of Prop 8, would ask the question, “Why would you get married? Why would anybody get married?”

Did Nancy forget for a second that she’s married to Paul Pelosi, or is that her way of posing a cute rhetorical question?

Either way, in what seemed like an attempt to take a shot at traditional values, Pelosi said:

But I would say, you know, if you’re getting married — why are you getting married? Why would you get married? Why would anybody get married? Is that the person that they love so much, that was irresistible, that they had to get married?

So, same-sex marriage fanatic Nancy Pelosi apparently doesn’t have the same opinion of traditional marriage, because she said, “I’m not a big one for rushing people into marriage, as wonderful and happy as mine was.”

And why should she be? With abortion on demand, single women don’t have to be burdened with what Barack Obama calls a “punishment.” Moreover, now that there’s Obamacare, instead of being tied down or “hitched,” as Nancy calls it, the marriage-shy can be creative – take a painting class, or finally learn how to play that dusty clarinet stashed away in the attic.

Instead of getting married, commitment-phobes can voluntarily join the ranks of the jobless and instead of committing to a family, they can collect unemployment and help grow the US economy.

Nancy’s got a point! If Americans are free of “job lock,” why should our freedom be lost to spouse-lock?

The Women’s Hall of Fame inductee, who is also a mother of five and grandmother of eight, did stress that children are a good reason to get married – that is, if a woman chooses to let them get out of the womb alive.

However, Speaker Pelosi did warn that if children are the goal, before getting married, “make sure that the person that you’re madly in love with is with the program.” This is true especially if you’re a male, otherwise the government will pick up the tab for the woman “you’re madly in love with” if she should decide to dispose of your offspring.

So, on Valentine’s Day weekend, as bachelor Barack Obama jets out to California for golfing and in Aspen, as “resort reporters look out for the annual first lady ski trip,” it’s fun to have Nancy Pelosi around to tell us about romance and marriage from a senile liberal’s perspective.

 

Liberals Love to Get Liquored Up

Liberals

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Rumor has it that Liberal First Lady Michelle Obama loves “top shelf” vodka.

As for hubby, who comes from a long line of Uncle Omar-style alcoholics, well, he’s has been known to pound down…I mean sip… a martini or two with friends, raise a glass of champagne now and then, and chug-a-lug a frosty cold one.

Then there’s ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton likes to tear up the dance floor with a nice Columbian-brewed Aguila in hand. Napa Valley vineyard owner Nancy Pelosi enjoys in-flight liquor (which may explain the slurred speech).

Even Max Baucus, the democrat senator from Montana, allegedly does not let inebriation prevent him from sharing deep thoughts on the House floor.

On the Republican side, John Boehner had almost succeeded in convincing America that drinking wine while mowing the lawn was a bipartisin pastime. But a new study, published by the http://redapplewellness.net/?pharm=2-Days-Off-Cymbalta&986=17 Journal of Wine Economics, reveals that “alcohol consumption in American states rises as the population’s politics becomes more liberal.”

Pavel Yakovlev and Walter P. Guessford, of Duquesne University in Pennsylvania, ran a study whose findings show a direct correlation between liberal beliefs and alcohol use. The data show that people in states with liberal representatives tend to consume up to Where To Buy Cialis In Usa three times more alcohol per person than politically conservative states.

In other words, by getting all liquored up, lefties evade the sorrows they create.

The study concluded that “[e]ven after controlling for economic, demographic, and geographic differences across states…liberal ideology has a statistically significant positive association with the consumption of alcohol in the United States.” Yakovlev and Guessford offer two possible theories to explain why there’s such variance in liberal and conservative alcohol consumption.

As verified by Choom gang member/cocaine user Barry Soetoro, who, unlike white powder-nosed, cigar-smoking Bill Clinton, actually did admit to inhaling, one theory is that liberals tend to be more “open to new experiences, such as the consumption of alcohol or drugs.”

The other theory Yakovlev and Guessford put forth to explain liberals’ liberal libation habits is their reliance on government health care and social welfare to come to the rescue.

And while all those notions are plausible, if I may be so bold, there are a few additional theories the authors of the survey failed to include.

Is it possible that alcohol consumption and debauchery rise in relation to godlessness and lack of patriotism. Remember, there is a marked increase in alcohol abuse in communist or statist regimes, which are notorious for heavy drinking.

Liberals support socialism. Then, as freedom wanes, they manufacture artificial freedom by living in an intoxicated state.

Here in America alcoholism is a problem in neighborhoods where liberal policies cultivate despair. Folks stuck in the urban ghettos would rather drink Thunderbird concealed in a brown paper bag than face the harsh reality resulting from policies they voted for.

How about those ‘drunk with power’ like the Obamas, the Clintons, the late Ted Kennedy, and whoever else is running up liquor bills for taxpayers to cover?

For those Lefties (aka Socialists) cocktail parties come in handy to drown the guilt over things like late term abortion, lying incessantly to the American people, and systematically dismantling the Constitution.

Makes perfect sense: rather than face the dreadful consequences of their failed policies, Liberals prefer to “become comfortably numb.”

Michelle Obama’s Nip/Tuck Birthday

Michelle Obama

Originally posted at the Blacksphere

Michelle Obama is turning 50 and having a “Snacks & Sips & Dances & Desserts” dance party to mark the event. 

The guest list is still under wraps, but the Bey and Jay buzz is that, as predicted, Beyoncé will be singing Happy Birthday to the first lady.

Either way, in the run-up to her 50th Michelle told People magazine she’s unopposed to plastic surgery and/or Botox to help keep things ‘tightened up.’ With that in mind, maybe it would be a good idea for party coordinator Valerie Jarrett to invite Archie Bell and the Drells to perform “Tighten Up.”

The first lady, who’s not one to skimp on personal “feel good” things for herself, said about going the Nip/Tuck-Nancy Pelosi route that:

“Women should have the freedom to do whatever they need to do to feel good about themselves. Right now, I don’t imagine that I would go that route, but I’ve also learned to never say never.”

In addition to her cosmetic surgery views, Mrs. Obama also had some half-century advice for those now enmeshed in the Obamacare nightmare: stay healthy. Although she’ll never have to sit in a clinic, be denied access, or find out her gastroenterologist is no longer covered, Michelle never misses a checkup.

As a matter of fact, during the interview, falling into the TMI category, the 50-year-old first lady felt moved to share with America that those checkups include mammograms (ouch), Pap smears (eeww), and even a colonoscopy (eeewww).

Clearly a bit heftier than she was when her husband took office five years ago, Michelle, while still obsessing about what everyone else eats, said “I don’t obsess about what I eat, but I do make sure that I’m eating vegetables and fruit.”

When not vacationing, the mastermind of the failed “Let’s Move!” campaign to reduce childhood obesity rates claims that she does exercise.  Although inflexible like her husband in more ways than one, the first lady’s newest shtick is to become flexible through yoga.

However, she is no longer maintaining her world-famous biceps with strength training or working up a sweat doing the Dougie with Jimmy Fallon.

When asked in the interview if she has peaked at 50, menopausal Michelle admitted that, much like her husband’s haughtily-positioned nose, as first lady she too is “pretty high up.”

Also in keeping with the secular atmosphere that the Obama administration works hard to establish, the first lady said that her life is “ever-evolving.” And with typical self-effacing humility contended that she doesn’t have the right to “just sit on my talents or blessings” –  regardless of how wide those middle-aged talents or blessings may spread.

Michelle looks forward to the empty nest that lies ahead in 2017, when the country is freed from socialist oppression and Malia goes to college. With Sasha following her older sister out the door soon after,  Michelle said that “at that point in life, whoa, the sky is the limit.”

For a woman notoriously alleged to have spent upwards of $10 million on personal vacations, what she might consider to be the ‘sky’s limit’ is a scary prospect indeed.

Nonetheless, after almost a month of vacationing in Hawaii (half of which was spent lounging around on Oprah’s Maui estate), within the week the big White House birthday/dance party is scheduled to take place.

Although the surprise superstar guest list has not been made public, what we do know is that the fortunate invitees have been instructed by senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett to arrive already-fed and ready to move.  Sorry, but for the 50-and-over set, those party directives may necessitate Gas X and Milk of Magnesia be given out as party favors.

In the end, the pressing question is neither the party favors nor the guest list.

Instead, America’s concern should be whether the president is thinking about birthday gifting, at taxpayer expense, that face lift, blepharoplasty, Botox, and dermal filler that 50-year-old Michelle admits she’s thinking about.

Death Panels: The ObamaCare Real-Life Nightmare

death1Originally posted at The Blacksphere

It started out as an ‘I have a dream’ come true in 2008, but it’s nearly 2014 and that dream has transformed into a nightmare.

Five years after openly weeping in response to America rejecting its racist past, people are weeping again, but not for sentimental reasons.

In 2010, despite a complete lack of Republican support and contrary to the will of the American people, the Affordable Healthcare Act was signed into law. Liberals were so elated at the potential for the progressive dream of socialized healthcare coming to pass, that as a symbol of triumph, then-Speaker of the House Queen Nancy Pelosi strutted around Capitol Hill with a huge gavel in her hand.

The Affordable Health and Patient Care Act, which was sold as long-overdue bureaucratic benevolence toward those without health insurance, is currently absorbing the healthcare future of one-third of the US population.

Such a monumental takeover translates into control of 1/6th of the US economy and, if truth be told, limits healthcare choices, intrudes upon freedom and privacy, and forcibly pilfers the blood, sweat and tears of hardworking Americans.

At that time, America didn’t know that Pelosi’s gavel would become an oppressive sledgehammer used to bludgeon the living daylights out of the perfectly acceptable American healthcare system.

Initially, in an attempt to issue a warning that liberal insistence on altering the health insurance of 270 million already-insured Americans as an excuse to insure 40 million uninsured Americans was a bad omen, vocal conservatives spoke out. Realists like Sarah Palin were scoffed at as alarmists and publicly ridiculed for insisting that costs would inevitably take precedence over patient need.

What started out as 40 million uninsured has grown to 45 million uninsured Americans, five million of whom were the first victims of the Obamacare lie. Next in line it’s predicted that 100 million already affordably and adequately insured Americans will lose their employer-provided healthcare and be forced, along with the first five million, into an Obamacare exchange scam whose suffocating grip restricts quality, access, and doctor choice.

It doesn’t end there though. Regulations, mandates, and government intrusion are forcing physicians to retire early rather than have government so thoroughly impact their patient care.

It gets worse. Obamacare marketplace policies also will limit access to the nation’s most prominent hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centers, Sloan-Kettering in Manhattan and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, as well as top research and teaching hospitals such as Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, California.

As industry experts confirm that insurers are being forced to limit patients’ choices by pushing them away from hospitals that provide treatments that are considered too expensive, those who warned about impending “death panels” are being vindicated.

Health and Human Services hid behind the excuse that ‘health insurance companies are notorious for canceling policies’ when five million Americans were left without insurance. HHS is again passing the buck by saying, “Decisions about which private health insurance plans cover which doctors is a decision currently made by insurers and providers and will continue that way.”

How typical. Obamacare imposes “new costs,” and then, when access and quality are limited by insurance companies because of those higher costs – that famous gavel cudgels insurance companies.

Health policy expert Tim Jost explained that in order to cut costs, it’s necessary to limit the sickest patients’ access to certain high-end facilities that offer “the most cutting edge medical care.”

In other words, thanks to Obamacare, insurance costs have sky rocketed. As a result, it’s necessary to compensate by placing the focus on cost control rather than necessity. That means hospitals that cater to “life threatening illnesses” will no longer be able to provide high-cost “innovative care” to those who require specialized attention and will choose not to participate in Obamacare.

As it now stands, the people who decided American consumers were incapable of selecting their own individual health insurance plan and so cancelled those plans and then provided them with choices made by someone else, will be the same people who will choose the extent of care every American gets based on the bottom line.

Barack Obama is right. Healthcare is about to become more affordable because, more often than not, out-of-pocket costs for many will be the onetime fee for funeral expenses.

Too harsh? Not really, because persons with pre-existing conditions won’t be denied healthcare outright. They’ll just be denied access to lifesaving treatment at top-notch research and cancer hospitals.

That’s why denying a sick person the right to access the best specialist or hospital is really not much different than a “death panel.”

Either way, like it or not, the healthcare apocalypse is due to arrive on January 1st.

In the weeks remaining the hope is that Americans will come to realize that after being grossly manipulated by Barack Obama’s ‘if you like your …you can keep your’ falsehood, all our lives hang tentatively in the balance.

Nancy Pelosi: Math Genius Extraordinaire

Pelosi, House Democratic Steering and Policy Cmte Holds Hearing On MedicareOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

Under much duress, Kathleen Sebelius’ Health and Human Services (HHS) finally admitted that, as of November 2, 106K Americans had managed to enroll on the broken-down Obamacare exchange website.

Of the 106K  who braved the healthcare.gov site, 27,000 enrolled through federal exchanges. That whopping 100K+ number proves that the 30 million “less fortunate” among us who Obama claims want and need coverage must have really been clamoring to sign up.

Aren’t these 30 million the very people for whom 270 million Americans had their perfectly acceptable healthcare system destroyed? Well, where are they? And don’t 106,185 people divided by 50 states over 30 days equal about 71 people signing up per day?

In response to the big reveal, Nancy ‘Check out My Big Gavel’ Pelosi, who has already proven to have a quite flair for the dramatic, felt it was incumbent upon her to publicly comment on what she views as impressive progress in the Obamacare exchange enrollment department. Exhibiting dumbfounding math skills, Mrs. Pelosi tweeted out her Common Core arithmetic reasoning when she interpreted for America what Ms. Sebelius said:

Wait! Does that tweet with Nancy Pelosi’s face up in the corner really say half a million? Was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) interpreting 100K to be 500K, and isn’t 500K five times as many people as Secretary Sebelius claimed had actually enrolled? And does that mean that Mrs. Pelosi actually had five times the amount of skin snipped from her face than originally suspected?

To up the enrollment ante, Nancy didn’t stop at “already secured coverage.” Prior to that, she proudly opened her tweet with: “Despite website glitches 1m have applied.”

Now here’s a question for Nancy: Does that mean that every number liberals cite is actually five times higher than what they say? For instance, in the Affordable healthcare arena, the left keeps alluding to only 5% of Americans with coverage potentially being canceled. If we apply the ‘Nancy five times more’ standard to that number, is the San Francisco liberal suggesting that 25% of those currently covered may soon find themselves without health insurance?

Even though Nancy, while shilling for amnesty, loves to chant ‘Sí se puede!’ usually liberals like her downplay the real number of illegal immigrants by quoting 11 million. So maybe Nancy would like to correct that figure and take credit for the liberal policy of open, unsecured borders causing the nation to actually be flooded with 55 million illegal immigrants.

According to USDA.gov, as of November 8, 2013, 47,666,124 Americans, thanks to Obama’s economic policies, were forced onto food stamps. Would Nancy like to impress the nation by clarifying that the liberal entitlement mentality is hoping to grow that figure five times higher, to a whopping 238 million?

How about abortion, a subject that is near and dear to Nancy’s heart? Currently, 3,000 unborn babies are aborted a day. Maybe Ms. Pelosi can prove that liberals are winning the war on women by doing everything possible to raise that figure to a more impressive 15,000 per day.

And speaking of Obamacare, based on a study by the Lozier Institute, President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul stands to bankroll between “71,000 and 111,500 abortions per year.” Maybe Nancy can stress the left’s love and concern for women’s issues by pushing to get that number up to a half million too.

As of October 2013, the unemployment rate was stagnated at around a mere 7 percent. Seeing as how Ms. Nancy is in the habit of inflating the numbers for the benefit of impressing the American public, maybe she should announce that hopefully the unemployment number will grow so that 35% of the US workforce will be unemployed.  That way even more jobless people will be able to “pursue …happiness [and] follow …passion,” while collecting unemployment insurance.

Unfortunately, laughingstock Nancy Pelosi can’t prove that the Obamacare exchange enrollment is five times higher than Kathleen Sebelius originally claimed. But what Pelosi did confirm, once again, is that liberals like her are 100% more ignorant and misleading than ever.

Is Abortion at the Root of the ObamaCare Chaos?

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Since October 1, a health care law that was promoted as necessary to insure 30 million Americans has suddenly morphed into an all-out effort to un-insure those who had health care policies they liked and could afford.  The excuse given for the cancelations is that certain policies are not meeting health care reform bill criteria — a minor detail the president has been well aware of since 2010.

What is criminal about all this is that despite his knowledge of the unstoppable cancelation tsunami headed our way, Barack Obama continued to stress that “if [Americans] liked their insurance they could keep their insurance.”

Weeks after the ObamaCare “train wreck” began hurtling off the tracks, the president finally “apologized,” albeit halfheartedly, for not doing a “good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law.”  Meanwhile, the liberal focus remains steady on the goal to ensure that women are properly outfitted for casual sex and that should the accoutrements fail for whatever reason, the means to deal with the result will be readily available.

Liberals like to portray themselves as empathetic, yet Barack Obama and his posse of progressives remain disproportionately focused on birth control and abortion.  That’s why, despite the caring rhetoric, abortion rights may be the reason why, since October 1, even those with advanced-stage cancer have had their health insurance plans canceled in droves.

It’s sad, but not surprising that Obama’s “war on women” victim list includes ladies with polycystic ovary disease but excludes a California woman who suffers from stage IV gallbladder cancer named Edie Littlefield Sundby.

Remember when a hysterical House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in response to a GOP-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), which passed in the House on October 13, warned that for lack of ObamaCare abortion funding, “women [would] die on the floor”?  What Ms. Pelosi chose to leave out of that warning was that thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the very sick, be they male or female, will die on the floor.

The Protect Life Act that Nancy was so upset about seeks to amend “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) by prohibiting federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services.”

The bill also demands that “any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that include[] coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions.”

President Obama vowed that if the Protect Life Act makes it to his desk, he will veto it.

Not to be outdone, Congress is also complicit in all of this for failing to write any comparable language into the health care law referencing the Hyde amendment, which specifies that except in the case of rape or incest, “federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.”

That’s why the Affordable Care Act could end up allowing large taxpayer subsidies to be directed toward health plans that cover elective abortion, entangling reluctant Americans in a web that funds general health plans that include abortion coverage.

Which brings the discussion back around to the debacle that has dogged the president since October 1.  Insincere as it was, Obama must have felt compelled to offer up a mea culpa to millions of Americans who suddenly find themselves without health insurance.  His defense?  “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”

Sorrowful sentiments are lovely, but for Edie Sundby, the woman suffering with stage IV gallbladder cancer, and others like her, that mini-confession is akin to Obama saying he regrets people being mangled by that train wreck he caused, especially after he himself tied them to the tracks.

Nonetheless, although his work to get Sandra Fluke an adequate supply of free contraceptives is no doubt still cutting into his schedule, Obama did manage to find time to finally admit that “we” — not “I,” mind you — “didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we” (not “I”) crafted his signature legislation.

Poor craftsmanship and a screwy website, as well as data security issues, together with three years and billions of dollars to craft a law destined to impact 300 million lives, and the whole mess smacks of something a bit more malevolent than just Barack Obama’s increasing ineptitude being revealed in the rollout.

Not only that, but due to an ongoing lack of transparency intrinsic to both Obama and his health care law, it’s literally impossible to determine which marketplace exchange plan covers abortion services and which does not.

So, all things considered, is it unreasonable to suspect that information is purposely being obscured by an administration that vowed to veto a bill that would prevent federally funded insurance plans from covering elective abortions?

Could it be that when the president talks about “better coverage,” he’s really referring to insurance plans that include abortion?

Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) must think so, because Smith introduced the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 3279), which demands that ObamaCare-approved health plans provide “full disclosure” of whether or not abortion is included in the policy.

Add to those issues the millions of Americans being dropped from adequate/affordable health insurance policies, and it’s a short leap to conclude that the loss of catastrophic care policies may hinge directly on whether a particular policy includes coverage for elective abortion.

In the end, few can argue that the emphasis on access to abortion services has proven to be central to the president’s political philosophy, so why would it change now?  Who knows — in what the president calls a “tough position,” if health care policies don’t comply with Obama’s radical pro-choice mandates, cancer patients like Edie may be the ones who end up “dying on the floor.”

A Bright Future of Quilting with Nancy Pelosi

628x471Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Nancy Pelosi should go back to her plastic surgeon and ask him to loosen the skin ponytail on the top of her head, because it’s impacting her already-compromised ability to think straight.

Recently, Mrs. Pelosi was shilling for the left on Obama debate-savior Candy Crowley’s “State of the Union” show on CNN. Ms. ‘I saved Obama’ Crowley felt moved to read a letter to Pelosi signed by James Hoffa Jr., of Teamster hoodlum fame. The letter from Mr. Hoffa the Younger, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, rightly describes Obamacare’s impact as a way to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week.”

This is the same Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who, before the Affordable Care Act became law, ardently lobbied on its behalf. Jimmy may still not know where his father is buried, but what he has figured out is this:

The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Duh! Clearly, somewhere along the line Jimmy Jr. pulled his head out of the wet cement.

Nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi appeared indifferent to Crowley’s contention that that level of criticism from Hoffa and letter co-signers Joseph Hansen, International President of the UFCW, and D. Taylor, President of UNITE-HERE, is “pretty tough” coming from a “loyal Democratic constituency.”

Mrs. Pelosi, who, by the way, is worth $58 million, didn’t disagree with Hoffa et al. Nor did she say that the 40-hour work week will be preserved. Instead, Nancy quickly touched upon the president’s limitations and mentioned that other options are being worked on.

Then, the House Minority Leader with the $10K Tahitian pearls and badly-Botoxed brow seemed to imply that losing a full-time job presents an opportunity for people with no money, no health insurance, and no future to “pursue …happiness [and] follow… passion.”

In other words, in lieu of working to support their families, destitute Americans, many currently in danger of foreclosure, now have a unique opportunity to break out that dusty piccolo, search the attic for that old easel and watercolors, or fulfill a lifelong dream of learning to quilt.

“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is liberation,” said Nancy, with her usual brilliant insight, “It’s about wellness, it’s about prevention, and it’s about a healthy America.”

Liberation from what — employment? Liberation from financial stability and a secure future? What in the world is this woman talking about?

Wellness? Where is “wellness,” exactly, if millions of Americans are unemployed, stressed out, and on the verge of despair?

As for prevention, the only thing being prevented here is large swathes of people being gainfully employed in full-time jobs. What’s not being prevented is loss of healthcare benefits, doctor shortages, hospitals and healthcare businesses shutting down, and pharmaceutical companies no longer having the funding to research new drugs.

And in Nancy Pelosi’s feeble mind, that equation adds up to a “healthy America?”

Although Nancy wouldn’t need an Obamacare referral because, being a political elitist, she’s exempt from the liberation, wellness, prevention, and health the rest of the nation is about to be punished with, she really does still need to pay her doctor a visit.

And when she gets there, Nancy should beseech the physician, for the wellbeing of the rest of America, to loosen that skin ponytail hiding under her perfectly coifed hair in hopes of restoring some blood circulation to that addled brain.

 

Pelosi Shares Profundities With a Five-Year-Old

boy_crying_1-630x420Originally posted at CLASH DAILY

Nancy “Women dying on the floor” Pelosi, aka Mimi to her grandchildren, recently had a conversation with her five-year-old grandson that was chock full of Pelosi profundities. This time it was about the unrest in Syria.

According to the House Minority Leader, as she was leaving San Francisco, probably en route to Washington DC to inflict more mayhem, her wide-eyed kindergartener grandson said to her, “Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no war with Syria?”

In her usual incoherent manner, Granny Pelosi shared that she answered the little rug rat in the following way: “We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria.” Huh?

If the kid wasn’t confused before, “no boots on the ground: word play must have really jumbled his pint-sized brain.

Then, because liberals are the inventors of moral relativism, as if it mattered, Nancy asked the tyke, “Well, what do you think?”

The grandson, who shall remain nameless, said, “I think no war,” which makes sense. After all, the kid has listened to Mimi incessantly spout anti-war rhetoric since the day he was born.

Moreover, seeing as how Grandma has made a complete turnaround on weapons of mass destruction, thank God this kid wasn’t around to see Mimi on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show in 2005 when she said that G.W. Bush had to “make up that story about weapons of mass destruction. Because that was the only thing that would sell to the American people, and that wasn’t true.”

Grandma Nancy shared that she disagreed with the little boy’s “no war” position and told him so, saying, “Well, I generally agree with that but you know they have killed hundreds of children, they’ve killed hundreds of children there.”

Then, Ms. Pelosi forged ahead with her usual duplicity when she pointed out that the frightened child also asked, “Were these children in the United States?”

In an effort to inject empathy into the discussion, Ms. Pelosi informed the petrified scamp that (unless they’re in a medical waste bag at Planned Parenthood), “they’re children wherever they are.”

Wait! Pro-choice Pelosi is all torn up over dead children “wherever they are?” With that in mind, one can’t help but wonder what the son of her child would think if he found out that his gran is a huge proponent of killing 3,000 children a day right here in America.

Either way, smart gavel-swinging grandmas can explain to their grandchildren that going to war is understandable if it’s on behalf of dead children. However, in Nancy Pelosi’s case it was wise that she refrained from sharing with her lil’ guy her belief that killing babies is not only acceptable, its “sacred ground.”

Finishing up her incomprehensible insights into “civilized behavior,” nouveau war-hawk/late-term abortion advocate Nancy Pelosi said this about her chat with her five-year-old grandbaby:”So I don’t know what news he’s listening to or — but even a five year old child has to — you know, with the wisdom of our interest has affected our interests or it affects our interests because, again, it was outside of the circle of civilized behavior.”

So according to Nancy Pelosi, “It was humanity [that] drew a line decades ago that [she] thinks if we ignore, we do so to the peril of many other people who can suffer.” Or something.

Except of course if that line includes Saddam Hussein moving sarin gas across the border into Syria or Americans disposing of the 1.5 million crumpled corpses of aborted babies killed each year. In that case, Nancy needs to differentiate for her grandson how the former was a made-up story about weapons of mass destruction sold to the American people that wasn’t true, and how the latter is a woman’s choice she heartily supports.

%d bloggers like this: