Tag Archives: Democrat

John Boehner vs Nancy Pelosi – who wastes taxpayer money?

House Republican Leader John Boehner

Consider this story from The Hill about John Boehner’s decision to fly commercial airlines between Washington, D.C. and Ohio.

Excerpt:

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), the presumptive Speaker-elect of the House, will not use a private jet as Speaker for trips back and forth to his home district, he said Wednesday.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft, and I’m going to continue to do that,” Boehner told reporters at a press conference.

The statement signals the first time since 2001 that a House Speaker has traveled commerically between Washington and their home district.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency, was assigned a designated Air Force jet to shuttle them back and forth to their home districts on weekends.

Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) used the jet, as does Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In 2007, Pelosi requested, and received, a larger jet than Hastert had used — this one capable of flying between Washington and California without stopping to refuel.

A spokesman for Boehner said the Minority Leader had already spoken to security officials about his desire to travel commercially on the weekends, and that he would still use military transport for certain types of trips, like those to Afghanistan or Iraq.

That’s why he’s running for the Speaker of the House uncontested. This is a serious man of principle.

On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi wasted millions ferrying herself and her family around the world on military aircraft, all at taxpayer expense.

Excerpt:

We recently obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing Speaker Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft between March 2009 and June 2010. And they pretty much tell the same, outrageous story as previous documents we’ve uncovered and released.

Here are the highlights from the newest batch of documents, which we obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on January 25, 2009:

  • Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009 through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights.
  • Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights. On June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Air Port. That flight included $143 in on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.

According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. Seriously, review these documents for yourself and you can see that Nancy Pelosi repeatedly turned indispensible Air Force aircraft into congressional party planes.

For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.

The article also notes that Pelosi would reserve military aircraft all the time, and cancel her reservations at the last minute.

How good are Democrats at standing up to radical Islam?

Here’s a story from the Jakarta Post. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

Incidents of church attacks and religious violence are spreading throughout Java, outside of traditional “hot spots” such as Greater Jakarta and West Java, activists said on Sunday.

The latest violent incident occurred in Sukoharjo, Central Java, on Oct. 13, when 12 people on motorcycles set fire to a Protestant church, said Theophilus Bella of the Jakarta Christian Communication Forum (FKKJ), which documents sectarian violence in Indonesia.

A day before, an attempt to set fire to St. Joseph Catholic church in Klaten, Central Java, was foiled and caused only minor damage, he said in a report made available to The Jakarta Post. On Oct. 17, radical Muslims threatened to attack a Catholic church in Karanganyar, Central Java.

Last month, an unidentified group attacked a Catholic church in Pasir regency, East Kalimantan, it said.
Most of the incidents over the last several years took place in Greater Jakarta and West Java, including attacks and forcible church closures that occurred with little or no intervention from the government, the report said.

According to the FKKJ, officials of Lubuk Linggau, Sumatra, said Huria Kristen Indonesia (HKI) congregation members lacked an official permit and could not conduct religious activities in their church, in apparent response to complaints from local residents.

The FKKJ said religious violence in Indonesia has escalated since the country gained independence in 1945.

Will Obama denounce this religious violence in Indonesia?

Look at this article from the BBC. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

US President Barack Obama has held up Indonesia as an example of how a developing nation can embrace democracy and diversity.

He was speaking in Jakarta on a visit to the world’s largest Muslim nation.

Mr Obama said innocent people across the world were still targeted by militants but emphasised that the US was not at war with Islam.

Analysts say it is his biggest attempt to engage the Islamic world since a speech in Cairo last year.

Mr Obama was speaking at the University of Indonesia, before an audience of 6,000 people.

That’s Obama, but what about Democrats here in the United States?

Consider this article from Fox News. (H/T The Blog Prof)

Excerpt:

A popular new law that bars Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic law, or Shariah, when deciding cases was put on hold Monday after a prominent Muslim in the state won a temporary restraining order in federal court.

Two state legislators were quick to blast the judge’s ruling and the Oklahoma attorney general, who they said did not stand up to support the new law.

…Supporters of the Oklahoma ballot initiative, which passed with 70 percent of the vote, would not comment on the impact of the ruling. But state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who co-authored the measure, charged that the judge ruled as she did because the state’s attorney general, Drew Edmondson, failed to respond to the suit.

“The attorney general failed to file a response,” Sykes said. “I am afraid that this might get written in stone that shouldn’t be because the attorney general is leaving and a new one is coming in.”

The current Attorney General is a Democrat.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, a Christian woman is set to hang for blasphemy, which she almost certainly did not commit. (H/T The Blog Prof)

The relationship between government spending and immigration

Political Map of Canada

Mark Steyn is one controversial Canadian. Here is a summary of his concerns about government spending, immigration, multiculturalism and Western civilization, from Canada’s national newspaper – the National Post.

Excerpt:

Rates of public spending growth here in Canada, meanwhile, are only sustainable if we permit mass immigration, given that Canadian birthrate declines are more drastic than even America’s (where they hold, for now at least at roughly replacement levels). These days, that immigration comes from Muslim countries, something that has caused severe social unrest in European countries that have relied on a similar model.

“In the space of about 20 years, the Muslim community went from really nothing to overtake the well-established Jewish community in Toronto. And the idea that that’s simply just one more interesting exotic item in the Canadian salad bar—we would be extremely lucky if that were the case.”

Amsterdam, among the most liberal cities in the world, he points out, is suffering an epidemic of gay bashing from unassimilated Muslims. In Sweden, perhaps Europe’s most tolerant country, half the Jewish population of Malmo has fled after a sharp rise in Islamic anti-Semitic attacks.

“I was in Malmo a couple of weeks ago,” he says. “It’s future is as a Muslim city.”

That he considers Muslim fundamentalists an unwelcome element in liberal society is the kind of thing that gets Mr. Steyn so readily branded as a bigot, particularly in Canada where a worship of his most hated term “multiculturalism” has, he says, utterly shrivelled the limits on public discussion. That may, however, only prove his point.

“It’s a sick fetish,” he says. “The idea that multiculturalism simply on its own terms is a virtue in itself is completely preposterous.”

What the fact that 75% of Canada’s population growth relies on immigration says “in effect, is that tomorrow’s a crapshoot; tomorrow is whoever happens to turn up.”

When Immigration Minister Jason Kenney suggests, as he did this week that Canadians can choose between higher immigration levels, or having more children, he leaves out one option: for Canadians to stop spending at a rate that demands population growth. In any case, Mr. Steyn says, the fact that most immigrants bring behind them older or unproductive family members is just a way to “kick the can 10 years down the line and ensure there’s an even bigger population making demands upon the state for which you’ll have to bring in even more people.” Eventually, the pyramid scheme runs out. We are, he says, engaged in nothing less than “civilizational suicide.”

An interesting story just came to a conclusion in Canada. A Canadian-born Muslim was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan while fighting Canadian soldiers. In Canada, Muslim men can marry four women who will all collect wefare. The article raises questions about whether the women entered the country legally. The same thing happens in the UK, according to the article. (In fact, there is an epidemic of rapes by Muslim gangs in various countries who justify their raping by same that the non-Muslim women are not dressed to proper Islamic standards.) Some work needs to be done to acclimate immigrants to Western standards of conduct.

A policy of preferring skilled immigrants might help prevent the problem of radical immigrants, but that’s not the policy favored by the left – they want unskilled immigrants because unskilled immigrants tend to vote for bigger government, more wealth redistribution, higher taxes and more control of business. These policies are put in place by the left in order to buy votes from those who like to collect government handouts. In fact, the left opposes immigration of skilled workers, since they are more likely to vote for lower taxes and limited government. I think we could be very open about legal immigration – but then we have to make immigrants responsible for paying their own way and following the laws of the land.