EDITORIAL CARTOON: Losing the center

Cartoon printed Feb. 18, 2010 For more opinions, yours and ours, click
Don Lee
May 13, 2010


Cartoon printed Feb. 18, 2010

For more opinions, yours and ours, click HERE


brutus smith

goofus, why do you hate women????


Pelosi's monumental abuse of military aircraft privileges-- travel for children and grandchildren
American Thinker ^ | February 01, 2010 | Rick Moran

Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 10:22:40 PM by Ooh-Ah

Doug Ross has been on this story and broke some news yesterday about the millions of dollars - that's right, millions - that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rung up in travel using military aircraft.

Now we learn from Doug that it appears Pelosi is using military jets to facilitate the personal travel of her children and grandchildren. No member of congress involved, just the junketing of her kids:

Since Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker in 2006, she's rung up millions in military travel expenses
Worse still, she also appears to have requisitioned entire flights for the personal use of her children and grandchildren. That is, unaccompanied by any member of Congress, her kids, in-laws and grandchildren are utilizing entire military passenger jets for their routine travel needs.

Using the documents obtained by Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, I have discovered the following manifests and travel requests.

22-Feb-2007: A military jet is requisitioned for the sole travel needs of the Speaker's son, Paul Jr.

13-Apr-2007: A military jet is utilized for the unaccompanied travel of the Speaker's daughter, son-in-law and grandson.

30-Oct-2008: A military jet is requisitioned for the Speaker's daughter and a son-in-law, Peter Kaufman. to commute between San Francisco and Washington.

Military flights cost between $5-$20 thousand dollars per hour to operate. Pelosi only reimburses the government between $120-$400 per flight. You and I pick up the rest of the tab with our tax dollars.

It's all perfectly legal, of course - or is it? Even if it is, perhaps we should start asking why a politician's children and grandchildren should have their travel subsidized at taxpayer expense?

Update and Clarification:

I received an email from Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch whose FOIA request brought these documents to light.

He informed both Doug Ross and me that documents Judicial Watch received last year "seem to show that the Speaker was on most if not all of the flights in question."

That may be true. But as a commenter points out at Doug's site:

":Even if these were scheduled flights, the individuals are not dependents of the Speaker. While they may be her children, they are grown adults, and do not meet the eligibility requirements of DOD 4515.13-R. Her son and daughter should not be flying on military aircraft at all.

The idea that any of her adult children should be subsidized by the taxpayer for anything is ludicrous. Pelosi's husband owns real estate worth as much as $25 million:

The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $12.5 million as of 2008, largely from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued between $5 million and $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $1 million in Apple Computer, and is the owner of the California Redwoods of the United Football League. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress.


Nancy Pelosi’s jet fueled by alcohol. And lots of it.
February 1, 2010, 10:52 am · 17 comments

Princess Pelosi demands that you spend more on her booze than you spend on your house
Bill Clinton may have felt your pain, but it appears that Nancy Pelosi’s feeling no pain. She couldn’t be if she’s consuming al the alcohol she demands for her weekly cross-country flights on the taxpayer’s dime.

World Net Daily offers up the remarkable details:

It reads like a dream order for some wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show that the Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

Combine this with the fleet of luxurious jets that sit at Congress’ disposal and you have the makings of a really fun weekend for American royalty members of Pelosi’s retinue.

Nancy Pelosi puts the party in the Democratic party. As usual, they’re drinking the alcohol, but the American taxpayers are left with the hangover.

Source: World Net Daily

Tagged as: alcohol, jets, Nancy Pelosi

brutus smith

I thought Reagan was the great orator???????????????


Could the hole in the middle be caused by the moderate democratic congressmen quitting. I know that McCain and his cronies are still in the middle.

brutus smith

By Katherine Skiba, Tribune reporters

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s perk costs taxpayers $1 million
Hastert’s aides and allies benefit from archive fund

9:28 p.m. CST, February 17, 2010
Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has plowed through about $1 million in taxpayer dollars in the last two years for an office and staff in west suburban Yorkville, thanks to a little-known perk given to ex-speakers.

Hastert, 68, a lobbyist and business consultant who retired from Congress in 2007, has hired three of his former staffers at salaries of more than $100,000 apiece to run the publicly financed office.

Taxpayers also are paying monthly rent of $6,300 to a company partly owned by three sons of a Hastert mentor and business partner. Other public funds go for an $860-a-month 2008 GMC Yukon leased from a dealership owned by a Hastert friend and campaign donor.

Federal law allows former House speakers to maintain a taxpayer-funded office anywhere in the United States for up to five years. The purpose is to "facilitate the administration, settlement and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of" a former speaker's tenure in the House.

Hastert is not allowed to use the office for his moneymaking ventures, including lobbying for the countries of Turkey and Luxembourg, sitting on the board of Chicago-based financial giant CME Group Inc. and giving speeches with an asking price of $25,000



@brutus smith: "What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance." - Jesse Jackson

President Obama is hypnotic in his speech. He mesmerizes his audience. As an orator, he he unparalleled in this century. I have never heard someone who can captivate an audience the way he can. That said, when you stand right back and listen to his message... there isn't anything there. It is empty, there is no substance. He makes promises that all of your problems will be fixed, but makes no suggestion as to 'How'.

Now, I will be the last person to stand up and say that any other politician wouldn't try to get away with the same thing. But if you really sit down and talk with a hard-core Obamanaut (yes, it is supposed to be like astronaut because most of them are space cadets), they do believe that he will solve their problems. They have elevated him to a cult status. I have been involved with politics from childhood on, and I have *never* seen anything like the public's reaction to President Obama.


We really don't have much time before the county collapses. The far right and the far left need to, but I doubt will, set aside thier agendas and do what is correct for the great masses. Fillabustoring needs to be abolished as well as lobbyists and all other forms of governmental greed. THAT sounds like an oxymoron to me.

brutus smith

S R, who promoted Obama as a Messiah figure????? Oh yeah, Faux News.


ur spin makes it too easy
no 1 could miss ur pref


Bryan Dubois

If leftwingnuts and rightwingnuts are people who "hold strongly held beliefs on major issues" then one can assume that independents are people who "don't hold strong beliefs on major issues." In other words, independents don't know what they believe. National politics then boil down to whoever performs better with their demogoguery. The cartoon above was predicted by rightwingers many months ago: Obama was promoted as a near messianic figure who would easily win the White House - but then he would disenfranchise the left who would undoubtedly be dissapointed with his real world performance during the first year. What do we end up with? Obama has now become more of a polarizing figure than George W Bush.


A large number of "Independent" voters are government workers.
It can be an advantage in a government job, if you are worker bee.

When the party in charge changes, your job can be more secure and trouble free, especially if the new boss is a wingnut.
However if you dig deeper, they will be split close to 50 - 50.
In the lunchroom the same issues surface, abortion, guns, greed, etc.

If you do a bubble sort on "Tea Party Independent", they will surface as 90% republican, 10 percent....


I like this one!

Tis the way I see what is happening!

But alas, after the next election, the winners will ALL have a D or an R after their name. And the partisan politics will continue to get worse.

(If someone from the Tea Party wins, will they have TP after their name? Just wondering)

6079 Smith W

“Center' is a myth.

When our country first declared its independence, the colonists essentially broke down as follows:

33% sided with the founders.

33% supported the King

33% just wanted to be left alone.

The ‘left alone’ category essentially amounts to today’s independent voter who declares himself or herself to be neither Democrat nor Republican.

And over 200 yrs. later, the percentages really haven’t changed much. The independent voter determines the outcome of elections.