Comment and analysis on all things Charlotte

Nancy Pelosi’s Parks Helms Problem

Judicial Watch uncovers the Speaker’s travel delegation’s taste for fine liquor — along with Air Force jets.

Thank heaven that Parks never made it to federal office.

29 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi’s Parks Helms Problem”

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that Pelosi doesn’t drink. Plus, is it that big of a shock that she travels on Air Force jets? She’s third in line to be president in case of an emergency. Way to go Judicial Watch! What a scoop!

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    Yeah, FOIA for couple thousand documents to find out that Pelosi demanded that the AF meet her at a close-by AFB not the airport, pretty interesting stuff.

    It goes to degree and scope. You use the planes to do the job, not have a non-stop flying party.

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    [...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » Nancy Pelosi's Parks Helms Problem [...]

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    A dead tree stump would see the story is about the abuse and waste of how Pelosi is using Air Force Jets, not that she appropriately has access to them. Way to go Howie! What insight to miss the point of the poke!

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    Get on a frickin commercial flight Nancy and experience the glory of the state examining every 1.5oz bottle in your bag. Let her get frisked by security because political correctness requires a granny mcbotox get culled from the herd as often as Sayid from Craplackistan for additional TSA scrutiny.

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    The story is an attempt to throw something out there to see if it sticks. It doesn’t. Here’s how the writer of the story sums it up:

    ““Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.””

    Put on your thinking cap, DJ, and see if you can figure out what this story is REALLY about.

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    I think the story is about throwing crap at Pelosi and seeing if any of it can leave enough residue to make her stink.

    …and I don’t have a problem with that…

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    ““Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.””

    Boorish=rude, unmannerly use of Air Force aircraft

    Even if Pelosi doesn’t drink, she sure sees to it that her family and congressional delegations can.

    And Howie thought the story was about her inappropriately having access to aircraft?

    My thinking cap is on quite snug, think you very much.

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    Seems to me like the Air Force should just start saying ‘no’ when she asks for a ride. Where in the Constitution does it say the military has to give rides to politicians?

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    Howie,

    See if THIS sticks:

    When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’
    Friday, October 23, 2009
    By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)
    (CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

    Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

    The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

    CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

    Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

    CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

    Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

    “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    [...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » metropolis Pelosi's Parks Helms Problem [...]

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    Musicmax: First of all look at the source. CNSNews.com? YOU can’t be serious.

    Pelosi is correct. Trying to derail health care reform by claiming it may not be constitutional is not a serious offering to the overall debate.

    Really, is there anything more over the top than the right wing media?

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    By the way, the air force is technically not in the constitution.

  • Jan
    29
    2010

    Ya know, Howie, for the sake of argument we can assume that anywhere in the Constitution it mentions the army, you can add “navy, air force, or other military forces”.

  • Jan
    30
    2010

    Once again, without a rational basis for debate, HowieZero attacks the messenger instead of the message.

    Listen dirtbag, I’ll send you a certified check for $250,000.00 if you can find the word “healthcare” in the Constitution.

    Oh, and the Air Force was division of the Army for forty years. Not that a Hate-America-First scum like you would know your country’s history.

  • Jan
    30
    2010

    How does Pelosi’s use of air force jets and total spending compare to previous House leaders? If you don’t know and can’t compare, then this is a ridiculous argument. If she’s 50% higher than the previous House leader, then you have an argument. If she’s 5% below the spending and use of the previous House leader, then go away.

    But let’s find out and make a comparison because otherwise you all look like whiners.

    At the same time, someone show me where it says in the Constitution that I have to wear a seatbelt while riding in a car. And where does the Constitution state that a corporation is the same thing as a human being and has the same freedom of speech rights?

    If you’re going to whine some more about healthcare in the Constitution then be consistent and whine about all the other stuff too.

  • Jan
    30
    2010

    jeffgwise–we DO “whine about all the other stuff”, or most of us do about much of it……
    Your straw man argument fails when you mis-state many of our positions…

  • Jan
    30
    2010

    The air force is not in the constitution because there is no way the founders could have imagined airplanes. However, just because they couldn’t imagine it doesn’t mean that it is unconstitutional. Like wise, the founding fathers could have never imagined the level of sophistication of health care 200 years later. Just because they couldn’t imagine it, or because it wasn’t explicitly stated in the constitution doesn’t mean that it is unconstitutional. Some have argued the point about the goverment forcing one to carry health coverage is a violation of the constitution, but as jeffgwise states above, there are many, many areas of our lives where we are forced to do things by the government.

    Musicmax: “Not that a Hate-America-First scum like you would know your country’s history.”

    I had to laugh at that one!

  • Jan
    30
    2010

    Jeff, “Modern Pharisees ” abound in our society… They are known as liberals. Liberals are constantly telling us what to drive,where to live ,what to eat, I could go on and on……. The point is the constitution sets forth core principles for our government,but you liberals tend to think like children, you want everything at someone else’s expense.. As my drug addict niece summed it all up….. I want what I want and I want it NOW!!!!

    Health insurance is a right ” if you pay for it”.
    I personally cannot afford traditional health insurance so I got a HSA plan with a $5000 deductible . MY premium is about $160 a month . The way I see it almost anyone could afford that …

  • Jan
    31
    2010

    “At the same time, someone show me where it says in the Constitution that I have to wear a seatbelt while riding in a car. ” jeffgwise

    “Some have argued the point about the goverment forcing one to carry health coverage is a violation of the constitution, but as jeffgwise states above, there are many, many areas of our lives where we are forced to do things by the government.” howie

    Government doesn’t “force” you to wear seat belts, you force yourself. Each state, save one, through your elected representatives, spoke for you, and voted for that law so as to get federal road money. Basically we voted to fine ourselves if we didn’t were seat belts. I’d argue there are many issues some think are violations of the constitution but really aren’t as we simply voted to give away our rights.

    And having done so, these issues become examples of why we should give away even more rights–the slippery slope fear.

  • Jan
    31
    2010

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Charles Seymour Jr, PostRevolutionary and DriveTimeHappyHour, TheBobRoseShow. TheBobRoseShow said: The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » Nancy Pelosi's Parks Helms Problem http://bit.ly/cF1vC5 [...]

  • Jan
    31
    2010

    DJ – I’d hate to live in your world. Do you fear the black helicopters listening in to your conversations?

    Seriously, I find it fascinating that strict constructionists want to push society back to the late 1700’s and live solely by what the Constitution explicitly states.

    Thomas Jefferson believed only landowners who were male and white had any rights in our society. We know he was wrong in this belief (or at least I hope you believe that), but that’s how society functioned back then. Society’s view and specifically America’s view of rights changed as necessary to better grow and sustain itself.

    But that gets ignored when it doesn’t conveniently fit into your argument. You cannot argue about only the rights explicitly written in the Constitution and ignore the three-fifths rule (among others) and prevailing beliefs of the men who wrote it.

    If you are a strict constructionist then you must believe in slavery. If you don’t and you agree that the Constitution needed changing to fix that inequality, then you are no longer a strict constructionist.

    But here, I’ll make your head spin even more….I think we ought to abolish the Department of Education and push it back to the States.

    Oops, I guess I’m not a liberal “modern pharisee” anymore. Now what…

    Well let’s see, I’ve never told anyone where they have to live, what to drive or what they can eat. Although I would be possibly be in favor of an outright ban on smoking.

    I certainly don’t think like a child – unless I’m playing with my son – and I absolutely do not favor letting people have what they want on anyone’s dime.

    It seems to me that one can be liberal *and* conservative at the same time depending on the issue at hand. I believe some people call it common sense.

  • Jan
    31
    2010

    If anyone can help me translate what jeffgwise’d rant means and how it relates to what I posted I’d deeply appreciate.

    Never suggested I believe in conspiracies or “black helicopters”.
    Never said I was a “strict” constitutionalist, although I am more that than not.
    No, I don’t believe in slavery. No doubt the constitution was approved only by avoiding a final solution for slavery, and all knew it was yet to be an issue to resolve with great angst. But I don’t accept your premise that a “strict” constitutionalist wouldn’t accept an appropriate change to the constitution.
    Agreed with getting the feds out of the education business.
    Never called you a liberal modern pharisee.
    Never said you think like a child.

    I’ll have to ponder on your assertion that common sense is being both liberal and conservative at the same time–my first reaction is that’s not possible nor I have I ever seen anything that is liberal make much common sense….dj

  • Jan
    31
    2010

    Jeffgwise said,,,,It seems to me that one can be liberal *and* conservative at the same time depending on the issue at hand. I believe some people call it common sense.
    Liberals cannot grasp the reality of human nature,look at the world around us.Go and ponder that statement and get back.

  • Feb
    01
    2010

    DJ – work on your reading comprehension, my “rant” was replying to you and Bruce’s comments.

    Bruce – great use of commas there.

    DJ & Bruce – maybe if you talked to a few more people who don’t think like you do, you’d see a whole different world out there.

    Bruce – “liberals cannot grasp the rality of human nature” is a wonderfully pendantic remark, nice said!

  • Feb
    01
    2010

    Jeff, better quit using words like*pendantic* rednecks like myself might take you serious…lol

  • Feb
    02
    2010

    Guys, the word is “pedantic”.

  • Feb
    03
    2010

    I am now officially embarrassed. When one misspells a word like that its time to move on.

  • Feb
    04
    2010

    [...] The Meck Deck » Blog Archive » metropolis Pelosi's Parks Helms Problem [...]

October 2014
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

RSS Feeds

Archives

JLF Network Websites & Blogs