Rotating Header Image



I am not holding any breath — word-wise nor otherwise — with the big woopdedoo from today’s Congressional parade (perhaps “masquerede” is closer to describing the reality of what transpired, given the issue of personality-cultism that permeated today’s doings in Congress and applause for same throughout the liberal media about that), not holding much optimism today for much good to come from the “new” Democrat majority in the House.

I’ll be considerate here of Liberals that I agree that the Republican majority, while there, didn’t perform acceptably; but, from what and who I saw today in our “new” Democrat House, I see no improvements and anticipate yet more if not worse degradation with this current batch of Democrats. It is the ongoing conundrum of the entire Congress that both political party “delegates” are no longer perceived as representatives — upon which basis they are elected to even appear in Congress much moreso to accomplish anything there — but are perceived, instead, as privileged few who use the resources to enact whatever serves them and those who incentize them to the best of their time and abilities.

The issue of term limits in the House is a glaring example of that (that the people who are sent to the House by the voters are not there as representatives but as delegates for their respective incentivizers, so to speak): Democrats alleged that enacting term limits was among their political objectives, and yet it’s been career Democrats in the House (and elsewhere) who have strongly opposed term limits and continue to.

And yet — here we go again — they campaign upon grandiose objectives, win office and enjoy themselves while ensuring adequate numbers among their party work to ensure the objectives are not accomplished. It’s a process known to happen among both parties so neither of them nor party representatives at this point get my approval. Like many voters, I wonder how those who allege to represent voters can so obviously refuse to do so.


I’m not impressed with Nancy Pelosi, either. She is one among many career polticians who has made Congress her living room if not home entirely. Has she accomplished anything in her working years other than political office? Has she reconciled herself with fulfilling “employment” obligations in a specific time provided? No, she’s based her entire lifetime upon maintaining and rewarding favors and used political office to do so. (Same question here about all career politicians.) And, Pelosi’s gender politics are offensive to my view — I’d rather she devote self-glorification to her accomplishments — if she could — that reflect voter intent but because she defaults to gender (and party) politics instead, she is another well made-up face with her own enterouge of celebrity. Unfortunately.

I’m only surprised that I have not heard or read (yet) that all this is “for the children.” I anticipate it will soon appear in the liberal media, however. It’s that last-ditch rationalization that is deployed among the political upon the voters when and as they have no other justification to whatever it is they’re seeking as to gratification. Wait a minute, I have heard and read it (“stem cell research,” “choice,” “impossible to tell who is a citizen and who isn’t” and the list goes on and on, so, “for the children..”).

If I could give Nancy Pelosi any advice that she’d pay attention to beyond my vote — which she has never received nor never will — I’d tell her to stop waving those fingers of hers at everyone.



C O M M E N T S : now closed