I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
And may I say you have done a fine job.
On Twitter I am Lesabre1
Queen Pelosi wasn't happy with the small USAF C-20B jet, Gulfstream III, that comes with the Speaker's job ... OH NO! Queen Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to stop to refuel, so she ordered a Big Fat, 200-seat, USAF C-32, Boeing 757 jet that could get her back to California without stopping! I understand that a former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, flew commerical most of the time.
Many, many legislators walked by and grinned with glee as Joe informed everyone of what Queen Nancy's Big Fat Jet costs us, the hard working American tax payers, literally thousands of gallons of fuel every week.
Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California every Friday and returns every Monday, at a cost to the taxpayers (YOU and ME are those taxpayers!) of about $60,000, one way!
As Joe put it ..."unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday night and that costs us another $60,000!" Taxpayers, that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to us of $5,760,000!!!
That doesn't take into account the cost and maintance of the airplane.
No wonder she complains about the cost of this war ... it might cramp her style and she is styling on my back and yours. I think of the military families in this country doing without and this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing.
Queen Pelosi wants you and me to conserve our carbon footprint. She wants us to buy smaller cars and Obama wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up our tires. Who do these people think they are??? Their motto is ... Don't do as I do ... JUST DO AS I SAY!
If you think this is outrageous, forward it to all those on your email list! Keep in mind the figures above do NOT include the cost of plane or crew ... just the fuel!!! One has to wonder what the total package costs us?
And on top of that ... now she wants to tax our IRA's & 401K's! and no increase in social security for senior retirees!!!!
An Alabama fan is drinking in a New York bar, when he gets a call on his cell phone.
He hangs up, grinning from ear to ear, and orders a round of drinks for everybody in the bar, announcing his wife has just given birth to a typical Alabama baby boy weighing 25 pounds.
Nobody can believe that any new baby can weigh in at 25 pounds, but the Alabama fan just shrugs and replies, "That's about average back home, folks, like I said, my boy's a typical Alabama baby boy. Gonna be an Alabama football player."
Congratulations showered him from all around, a mid many exclamations of "WOW!" One woman actually fainted due to sympathy pains.
Two weeks later, dude returns to the bar. The bartender says, "Say, aren't you the father of that typical Alabama baby boy that weighed 25 pounds at birth? Everybody's been making bets about how big he'd be in two weeks. So, how much does he weigh now?"
The proud father answers, "Seventeen pounds."
The bartender is puzzled, concerned and a little suspicious. "What happened? He already weighed 25 pounds the day he was born !"
The Alabama father takes a slow swig of his beer, wipes his lips on his shirt sleeve , leans into the bartender and proudly says..........
"Had him circumcised."
Obama has now appointed a Golf Czar. Announcements were just made of
major rule changes in the game of golf which will become effective
March 2010. This is only a preview as the complete rule book is being
rewritten as we speak. Here are a few basic changes:
Golfers with handicaps - below 10 will have their green fees increased
by 35%. - between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees. -
above 18 will get a $25 check each time they play.
The dollar amount placed in bets will be as follows: -for handicaps
below 10, an additional $10. -between 11 and 18, no additional amount.
-above 18, you will receive the total amount in the pot even if you do
The term "gimme" will be changed to "entitlement" and will be used
as follows: -handicaps below 10, no entitlements. -handicaps from 11
to 17, entitlements for putter length putts. -handicaps above 18, if
your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.
These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most
importantly, equality in scoring.
In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or
six pars in any given round. Any excess must be given to those fellow
players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all
players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making
the birdie or par,can that player begin to count his pars and birdies
The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes
but the term 'net score' will be available only for scoring those
players with handicaps of 18 and above. This is intended to
'redistribute' the success of winning by making sure that in every
competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only 'net score'
against every other player's gross score.
These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf.
Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with Ability
December 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.
By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Attorney General, South Carolina
Attorney General, Washington
Attorney General, Michigan
Attorney General, Texas
Attorney General, Colorado
Attorney General, Alabama
Attorney General, North Dakota
Attorney General, Virginia
Attorney General, Pennsylvania
Attorney General, Utah
Attorney General, Florida
Attorney General, Idaho
Attorney General, South Dakota