February 8th, 2007 13:24 EST
Pelosi's bug-eyes too big for U.S. Budget?
As nearly everyone knows, Speaker Nancy Pelosi hails from San Francisco, the most liberal-infested city in all of America.
The Sodom and Gomorrah of contemporary civilization. The antithesis to logic, reason, rule of law, and rational Republicanism.
That would be the same San Francisco that recently refused to allow the USS Iowa to dock in local waters because of local opposition to the war in Iraq.
The same wacky city in which the school board voted to keep ROTC off school campuses because, in the words of a former teacher, "We need to teach a curriculum of peace."
The same city in which Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval actually said, "We don`t need the U.S. Military" and "I am not in favor of a standing army."
Despite intense anti-military sentiment in San Francisco, Speaker Pelosi wants the United States military to fly she and a cast of thousands back and forth between Washington, D.C. and San Francisco on a regular basis.
Of all the bloody check!
In order to meet the Speaker`s zany request, it would be necessary for the military to divert the equivalent of a 757 from legitimate government purposes, just to fly a "Socialist Think Tank" 3,000 miles. One way.
On top of the extraordinary expense, authorities would have to keep a real close watch on Gerardo Sandova to guard against a reckless act that might jeopardize U.S. military aircraft in San Francisco airspace.
Of course, the burning question that must be asked in light of Pelosi`s immodest request is: Why are the Board of Supervisors and local anarchists not protesting Pelosi`s plans to jump in bed, figuratively speaking, with the military?
Might it have to something to do with the thousands of money sacks stuffed with U.S. treasury that Pelosi is expected to bring to San Francisco vultures via that 757?
Minority-party Republicans have a moral--indeed constitutional--obligation to provide opposition "oversight" to protect America from Pelosi and her socialist conniving.
In that regard, several pertinent questions and alternatives must be examined:
* Until now, Pelosi has managed with far less elaborate accommodations. What justifies this quantum leap?
* In this era of advanced technology and communications, why is the Speaker not relying on e-mail, voice mail, the Internet, and cell phones instead of fuel-guzzling air travel?
Perhaps Pelosi should forego her next six plastic surgeries in favor of a tech makeover in Silicon Valley?
* As Speaker, Pelosi is now much higher in the presidential pecking order and should spend most, if not all, of her time in Washington, D.C.
Why not put Pelosi up in an inexpensive Motel 6 studio, within walking distance of the capitol, where she could stay 24/7 except for federal holidays?
* Pelosi claims that a large aircraft is needed for non-stop flights. But recently deposed Speaker Dennis Hastert was required to take flights with stops.
Why is that not good enough for Pelosi?
* Given Pelosi`s bleeding heart, would it not be more humane, and politically correct, to give money to homeless people, illegal aliens, and other unwashed poor folk, rather than wasting funds on lavish accommodations for the liberal elite?
Bottom Line: California does not need a Pelosi presence in the state. Ever.
After all, we have a state government comprised mostly of Democrats who are quite capable of driving California into bankruptcy and complete moral decadence without the bug-eyed Speaker of the U.S. House!