Archive | February, 2011
28 Feb

Utah Senator Robles holds simultaneous Utah and Mexican Government Offices

Often referred to as a “political newcomer”, Utah Democratic Senator Luz Robles (UT-1) is described by legislative intern Drew Martinez as “an immigrant from Mexico” who “came here in 1996 to attend the University of Utah, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in business marketing and a master’s in public administration…

” Martinez’s January 15, 2009 blog post continues to detail an impressive list of local affiliations and boards served on by Senator Robles. The blog also concludes “[S]he [Robles] really is an exceptional public servant. She’s not your typical Utah legislator.

She’s first off a woman. Also she is a minority in both race and political party…” Mr. Martinez leaves out some other facts that by all accounts, were also unknown by voters during the election that pushed Senator Robles in the political arena.

Indeed, Senator Robles is not a political newcomer at all. In fact the Senator is a seasoned veteran, having previously held elected as well as appointed offices, in the Mexican government.

It is important to note that Senator Robles is a naturalized United States citizen and part of that process entails taking an oath of allegance to the United States, the text of which is:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” source

A chronology of Senator Robles’ relevant political affiliations and career in the United States is:

* Senator Robles was appointed as the interim Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs from July, 2005 to November, 2005;

* Senator Robles was appointed as the Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs in November, 2005 where she served until September, 2007, when she resigned to accept a position with Zion’s Bank;

* 2008 Senator Robles becomes the Democratic candidate for Utah Senate District 1 and participates in the conventions and process in the Spring;

* November 4, 2008 Senator Robles is elected to the Utah State Senate;

* January, 2009 Senator Robles is sworn into office; and,

* February 6, 2009 Senator Robles’ “Conflict of Interest and Renumeration” statement is received by the Utah Secretary of State and lists only Zions Bank as a potential conflict;

What has not previously been reported or disclosed is the following chronology of Senator Robles’ political career with the Mexican government:

* In September, 2005 Ms. Robles was elected through an electoral process conducted by the Consulate of Mexico to a three year term in the “Consejo Consultivo Del Instituto De Los Mexicanos En El Exterior” (CCIME). The CCIME was an advisory commission created by Mexican President Vincente Fox and placed in within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Mexican Government. source;

* Ms. Robles held her elected position from 2006 through 2008;

* During her tenure with the CCIME, Ms. Robles attended at least seven (7) conferences and served as the Coordinator for CCIME the Legal Affairs Commission for three (3) conferences and as a member on the Political Affairs Commission for three (3) conferences; source
* Ms. Robles attended her 6th conference after having won election to the Utah Senate and her 7th as an observer after being sworn into the Senate in Utah;

* Three of the conferences attened by Ms. Robles were held at the Presidential Residence in Mexico;

* During the November, 2007 CCIME conference, Ms. Robles was the featured speaker.

* At the November 10-11, 2008 CCIME conference, Ms. Robles was the moderator for the “Estados Emergentes” meeting, which was also attended by MALDEF (The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund). link

A review of the CCIME website and documents is replete with references to Senator Robles attending and participating in meetings, policy decisions and other official functions both while she was the Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs and after she had won election to the Utah Senate. link

This is a case where the existence of impropriety cries out for an investigation by the Utah Senate Ethics Committee and possibly the Utah Attorney General. The next time Senator Robles takes the floor of the Senate to debate SB 60, Utahans will have to ask, “exactly which constituents is Senator Robles speaking for, Utahans or those in the CCIME?

WRITTEN BY By Dan Baltes,director of Americans Against Immigration Amnesty,SOURCE Salt Lake City Immigration Policy Examiner


Just where does this womens Allegiance stand?

With America or does she still have ties with the Mexican Government?


28 Feb


All 50 states are beginning to get wise to Washington’s scheme of passing on regulatory requirements to the states without offering any funding mechanism whatsoever.

This is what we call “unfunded mandates.”

Let’s call them what they really are – unconstitutional power abuses by the federal government.

The Constitution lays out clearly, simply and succinctly the few powers vested in Congress. All others, it says, are reserved for the states and the people.

The incredible deficits run up by Washington and many state capitals are a direct result of Congress’ history of defying constitutional restraints on its power. This goes for the president, too, and the Supreme Court. But Congress is the biggest offender of all.

Except possibly this president, if you want to call him that – which I refuse to do.

Obama represents the biggest “unfunded mandate” in the history of the nation.

Here’s why:

* His election was a crock from the get-go.

He never satisfied the meager constitutional requirements of office.

He never established eligibility.

In fact, with all of the power centers and bureaucracies established in Washington to regulate virtually every facet of our lives, none of them ever vetted Obama’s eligibility for office. Isn’t that amazing? What’s even more shocking is that one of them, the U.S. Senate, actually did vet his opponent, John McCain.

Whether they came to the right conclusion or did an adequate job, I will reserve judgment since he lost the election anyway. Furthermore, not one of the 50 states charged with conducting federal elections did anything to establish Obama’s constitutional eligibility, either. Now we find ourselves in a predicament with significantly more than half the country doubting whether the man in the White House is even legit.

* Now there’s an effort under way in at least a dozen states to ensure a debacle like 2008 is never repeated. And all we hear from the watchdogs in the Big Media is that somehow the states are exceeding their authority. What? Show me inthe Constitution where it prohibits the states from doing anything they want to do.

* Meanwhile, Obama is spending money without any accountability to the Constitution or the people.

He is racking up the biggest deficits in history.

He is borrowing against the credit of Americans yet unborn without their having the slightest say in what is spent and how. He is demagoging his way through by threatening not to send out Social Security checks to elderly folks and by forcing default on America’s loan obligations unless Congress increases the debt limit.

That’s the old con game played by politicians everywhere: We’ll stop doing what we’re obliged to do to punish anyone who stops us from doing what we want to do. All Washington needs to do to remain solvent is to cut the budget by $700 billion. I could do it with a pencil and a napkin – just zero out useless, unconstitutional departments and agencies that would never be missed by Americans other than the paper-pushers they currently employ.

Columnist John Stossel has done this in admirable fashion. I can’t argue with anything he came up with to put Washington in the black, and I know I can come up with billions more in cuts. It’s easy! It’s constitutional! And it’s fun!

So do you see why I say the biggest unfunded mandate in Washington is actually Barack Hussein Obama?

written by Joseph Farah CEO of WND


FOLKS –Here is something interesting The U.S. Senate DID NOT Vet Brack Hussein Obama Jr (sometimes called Barry)-but-wait here it comes———–they DID VET JOHN McCAIN-HOW ABOUT THAT FOLKS-DOEN,T THAT JUST MAKE YOUR DAY?

AND HOW ABOUT THIS–I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO MAKE YOU WARM AND FUZZY ALL OVER--Not one of the 50 states charged with conducting federal elections did anything to establish Obama’s constitutional eligibility

Patriots, do you smell a rat here? Congress running up to the 2008 national elections did NOT vet Brack Hussein Obama Jr—WHY WHY WHY that is the sixty four thousand dollar question.

Was this all set up? Remember the Democrats are liars,sneaks,haters of the constitution, so nothing I mean nothings is beyond what these SOB’S will do to get and retain power.

Obama and the Democrats have spent our money borrowed money by the billions from China, they have one goal and that is destroy this country and rebuild it as a Socialist state, where people like those protesting in Wisconsin will be right at home-after all they are all Marxist/Socialist packaged as Patriots, lovers of freedom but in reality what could be further from the truth.

27 Feb

Obama to Declare Constitution Unconstitutional?

We right-wingers sometimes have difficulty grasping the deep, elusive logic of intellectual elitists on the left like Barack Obama when it comes to great and serious questions concerning the U.S. Constitution.

For example, we find it difficult to understand how it is that man who invented ObamaCare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two separate courts, feels qualified to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act, law of the land for 15 years, is suddenly unconstitutional, thereby freeing himself from the responsibility to defend said law in fulfillment of his Oath of Office.

What next, Mr. President?

According to unreliable sources, it appears that President Obama will make a major announcement that will CHANGE everything in America.

The gist of that announcement: The U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional because women and racial, sexual preference, and religious minorities were all under represented in 1776.

Indeed, without any openly gay men or transgender people involved in the crafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all such documents must be declared null and void.

Other excluded minorities include women, terrorists, and illegal aliens. Without factoring in the wishes and needs of terrorists and illegal aliens how in the world can our democracy function?
The answer, of course, is that it cannot, which is why Obama will soon declare the Constitution itself unconstitutional! Of course, if Obama really gave a tinker’s damn about the Constitution, he would scrap his outrageous law suit against the state of Arizona for protecting its citizens from invaders.
He would move to scrap ObamaCare, which was rammed down the throats of unwilling Americans with legislative sleight of hands and bribery when the votes were not there to follow the rules.
He would understand that forcing citizens to purchase health care insurance, or face the ravages of the IRS, is barbaric and unconstitutional.
He would understand that the Constitution is very specific when it comes to the eligibility of any person to serve as president. Thus, he would make every effort to be completely honest and transparent with the American people concerning questions about his own eligibility.

He would understand that the Constitution sets forth provisions for separation of powers, meant to assure that the Executive Branch is accountable to the people through the oversight function performed by Congress.
He would understand that installation of stealth Czars in order to circumvent Congressional oversight is a repudiation of the Constitution.

He would understand that voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party is not acceptable simply because the intimidated are not people of color.

He would understand that actions taken to grant rights reserved for citizens to terrorists are anti-American acts of treason.

He would understand that the Constitution requires the president to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws so as to protect the American people.
He would understand that it is the president’s Constitutional obligation to serve as America’s Commander-in-Chief, which requires him to use war powers prudently to defend the American people, rather than using those powers as political footballs.
Above all else, if he were genuine, President Obama would understand that the will of the people should be the first priority for any political entity wishing to govern, and that that applies to taxes, illegal invasions, health care, terrorists, and all major issues of the day.

The fact is that Barack Obama views the Constitution as an impediment to his Marxist agenda.

He MUST be stopped.

written by John Lillpop

27 Feb


What do you mean by “NEA” and what do you mean by “politics?”

Therein lies the main difficulty with placing an indisputable figure on the cash amount. One man’s “politics” is another man’s “member communication.” Some think “political spending” is limited to donations to candidates. Others think it’s every dollar not directly related to bargaining contracts for local teachers.

I’ll do my best to work you through it – from the broadest interpretation to the narrowest and from national to local – with examples from the current election cycle. Fair warning, though: The results are nuanced and overlapping.

The first thing we have to do is to divide NEA into its three components – national, state and local. Though money is extracted from members’ paychecks in one lump sum, its division and destination depend on federal and state laws. NEA’s national headquarters expects to bring in $358 million in 2010-11.

Because unions cannot charge non-members for political spending, each year NEA must compute what portion of its spending is related to collective bargaining and services, and what portion is not. This percentage varies year-to-year, but by NEA’s own computation the non-chargeable portion is around 40 percent. So the broadest interpretation of NEA’s “political” spending would be $143 million annually.

State affiliates must perform a similar computation. Their non-chargeable percentage varies from state to state, but here in California it has traditionally been about 30 percent. The California Teachers Association’s budget is around $201 million, so its “political” spending would be about $60 million. If you were to perform similar calculations on all of NEA’s state affiliates, your grand total would run about $275 million.

NEA has more than 10,000 local affiliates, but relatively few spend money on politics. The ones that do tend to be large, like those in Los Angeles and San Diego. I couldn’t even estimate what a grand total would be, but I feel confident that all political spending, at all levels, under the broadest interpretation, would amount to something under $450 million annually.

But how that money is categorized is a different story entirely, because the lion’s share of it never ends up in the war chests of either political candidates or campaigns. Most of it is used to deliver a political message to members, and is therefore not subject to any campaign finance restrictions. So the question of whether a particular expense is political depends not only on the substance of the message, but to whom it is being disseminated. If NEA sends a mailer to a member calling for the election of Candidate X, or the passage of Measure Y, it is probably not a campaign expenditure. But if NEA sends the same mailer to me, it is.

What NEA spends to influence politicians and the public is reported in political finance public records. What it spends to influence its own members shows up only in its comprehensive financial reporting, gathered by the IRS and the Department of Labor. So when NEA says it plans to spend $40 million on the 2010 election, it isn’t entirely clear whether the union includes member communication in that total. Unfortunately, even when we disregard members the political spending picture can still be very cloudy.

First, there are lobbying expenditures. In the 2009-10 election cycle, NEA has so far spent about $4.4 million on lobbying. Naturally, NEA lobbies Congress and the executive branch. State affiliates lobby governors and state legislatures and report those expenditures individually. You can check each state’s top lobbyists and see where each NEA affiliate ranks, and then total it up. Let me know what you end up with.

Next are PAC contributions. These cause the most confusion because the union is fond of telling objecting members, “We don’t spend dues money on political candidates.” This is true. It is against the law to do so. But this is the narrowest interpretation of political spending – direct contributions to candidates. NEA must collect voluntary contributions for its PAC, and only from members. Most of the fundraising comes during annual events and assemblies, such as the NEA convention each July. It might surprise you to know that NEA’s $1.2 million in PAC spending in the 2010 cycle doesn’t rank in the top 20 Democratic PAC contributors (AFT is sixth).

So we move on to those political expenditures for which you can use dues money: independent expenditures, issue campaigns and ballot initiatives. According to the Federal Election Commission, NEA had more than $3.4 million in independent expenditures for the period from Sept. 1 to Oct. 14. But that’s far from all. As EIA readers well know, NEA collects $10 annually from each member for its Ballot Measures/Legislative Crises Fund. Money that isn’t disbursed carries over to the following year, often leaving NEA with $20 million to spend on national or state campaigns.

The union no longer issues a memo detailing those expenditures, but EIA has reported on the $3 million granted to Oklahoma and $500,000 to Washington. EIA has also learned that NEA will end up contributing almost $4.3 million to California’s ballot initiative campaigns. All these national contributions are in addition to whatever the state affiliate raises and spends on its own. It can get tricky keeping track of these, since an NEA donation could go directly to an initiative campaign, or it could go to the state affiliate, which then gives it to the initiative campaign. There is both a danger of missing a significant donation, or double-counting a single one.

The National Institute on Money in State Politics does yeoman work trying to keep it all straight, but it is limited by the relative transparency of each state’s laws. Nonetheless, it reports $28.8 million in political spending from NEA and its state affiliates during the 2009-10 election cycle (so far). Almost $12.8 million of that is being spent in California. And as we zoom in on California, we can see just how complex this all can get.

Let’s begin with the eight initiatives set for the November ballot. The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission reported on the large contributors in each campaign. The California Teachers Association contributed more than $100,000 to five of them (for what each measure would do, check this page):

– $304,240 to No on 22

– $200,000 to No on 23

– $6,449,894 to Yes on 24

– $1,204,240 to Yes on 25

– $254,240 to No on 26

But CTA’s political spending extends far beyond these initiatives. The union has a candidate PAC, an issues PAC, and two independent expenditure committees. Let’s take them in turn.

The candidate PAC is especially tricky, because CTA, like NEA, has to collect voluntary contributions for it. Except the definition of voluntary is slightly different in California from what it is at the federal level. When one becomes a CTA member, one must check a box refusing to donate to the PAC. Leave it blank, and you’ll be contributing $26.30 a year to the PAC for as long as you remain a member.

This year, the CTA candidate PAC sent relatively small amounts to candidates and Democratic Party committees, but directed $1.5 million to one independent expenditure committee and $5 million to the other. The first committee sent all of its funding to the state superintendent of public instruction campaign of Tom Torlakson. The second committee has so far spent $1.5 million on Torlakson, $1 million on Jerry Brown for governor, and $250,000 to the Alliance for a Better California, a coalition of public employee unions that has given the bulk of its money to Jerry Brown and the Yes on 24 and 25 campaigns.

This brings us, at last, to the issues PAC, which in addition to the ballot initiative spending noted above, also gave $2 million to the California Democratic Party

Written and researched by Mike Antonucci

The National Education Association has never supported on Republican candidate running for office at any level

27 Feb


MOST AMERICANS never heard of Saul Alinsky. Yet his Marxist ideology cast a shadow on the 2008 election. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both worship at the altar of Alinskyism.

Wisconsin,Indiana,Ohio, the whole damn country is turning their backs on American HOW DID WE ARRIVE AT THIS POINT ,what got us here,why are so many Americans embracing SOCIALISM?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both worship at the altar of Alinskyism.

In a 1971 book called Rules for Radicals, Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.

Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.

In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti – Al Capone’s second-in-command – gave Alinsky clout on the street.

He excelled at wooing wealthy funders. Start-up money for his Industrial Areas Foundation – a training school for radical organizers – came from department-store mogul Marshall Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy, and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for Franklin Roosevelt.

Alinsky once boasted, “I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.”

One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky.

Agnes Meyer personally wrote a six-part series in 1945, praising Alinsky’s work in Chicago slums. Her series, called “The Orderly Revolution”, made Alinsky famous. President Truman ordered 100 reprints of it.

During the Sixties, Alinsky wielded tremendous power behind the scenes.

When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects.

In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky’s circle.

After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky’s shakedown. The two men had an “understanding”, Alinsky later wrote.

Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.

Alinsky tried to hire Hillary as a community organizer, but she chose instead to attend Yale Law School. Nonetheless, Alinsky’s network continued guiding Hillary’s career.

Fresh out of law school at age 26, Hillary received a prestigious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigative team in 1974. She got the job on the recommendation of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman.

The Edelmans have been trusted mentors of Hillary since 1969. New Republic editor Martin Peretz called Marian “Hillary’s closest sister and ideological soulmate”. Marian Wright Edelman also happens to be an Alinskyite, having served on the Board of Trustees of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.

Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.

Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.

That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things.

First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system.

Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public.

That is the Alinsky method. And that is today’s Democratic Party.

written by Richard Lawrence Poe

26 Feb

A number of sponsors for Saturday’s protests are noted at

How many unionized American workers consider the “American dream” to be a “future socialist society”?

On their website, the ISO states The International Socialist Organization has branches across the country. Our members are involved in helping to build a number of struggles: the movement to stop the war on Iraq, fights against racism and anti-immigrant scapegoating, the struggle for women’s rights like the right to choose abortion, opposing anti-gay bigotry, and standing up for workers’ rights. We are committed to building a left alternative to a world of war, racism and poverty.

A world free of exploitation–socialism–is not only possible but worth fighting for. The ISO stands

In the tradition of revolutionary socialists Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky in the belief that workers themselves–the vast majority of the population–are the only force that can lead the fight to win a socialist society. Socialism can’t be brought about from above, but has to be won by workers themselves. …

We see our task as building an independent socialist organization with members organizing in our workplaces, our schools and our neighborhoods to bring socialist ideas to the struggles we are involved in today, and the vision of a socialist world in the future.

In addition to working with liberal activists and national labor unions behind the scenes, the ISO is just one of many socialist/Marxist/communist groups organizing their members to support Van Jones’ new “American dream” initiative.

The Daily Caller noted Friday that a number of radical groups — including the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Party USA, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and the Democratic Socialists of America — are taking up the labor unions’ talking points and encouraging Egypt-like unrest in the United States.

The Socialist Workers Party has labeled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker “an enemy of the people.”

“Egypt, whose revolution has been a constant source of inspiration here, reflected in signs and chants — and Walker’s new nickname, Gov. Mubarak,” an ISO article reads. In addition, the article labels the current budget debates in Wisconsin as “class war” and as an affront to “the standard of living of working people.”

“Using the deficit as a scare tactic, the right-wing corporate Republicans are on a fast track to defeat every initiative of the Obama administration, to destroy unions and public services at the federal, state and municipal level, and at the same time protect tax breaks for the richest few,” writes Joelle Fishman, chair of the Communist Party USA’s Political Action Commission. A “broad alliance of forces for social change (labor, racially oppressed, women, youth)” need to step forward to re-frame the nation’s political debate for the 2012 elections, she insists.

While many skeptics claim these radical leftist groups may agree with the unions on a number of issues, the fact that these groups are actually working in conjunction with unions to orchestrate the ongoing protests says a lot about American unions’ modern-day political orientation — far to the left and antithetical to the real American dream


What about Mr and Mrs America you the majority, you 70 plus percent, is this the tipping point, is this when we all take to the streets, or do we wait until these bastards completely destroy America.

Ladies and Gentlemen these people the Teacher Union the AFL-CIO, and all the other socialist organizations are telling you and me we that voted across the nation to put in place individuals that more represent mainstream America, we voted to take away power from the Socialist left, the Socialist Democrats, the party of Pelosi,Reid,Obama, we knew as a nation that the Socialist Democrat party was destroying our country.

But, the election of Nov 2010 as far as the left is concerned did not take place, they do NO recognize the new government, they do not recognize the constitution, they do not recognize our laws, they are telling us all to SHUT THE HELL UP THEY ARE STILL IN CHARGE

26 Feb


The Democratic National Committee wanted to honor Nancy Pelosi Thursday — but its praise wasn’t good enough for the House minority leader.

When the DNC’s Resolutions Committee brought up a resolution commemorating Pelosi’s years as speaker of the House, Pelosi’s daughter sought to alter the proposal at her mother’s behest, adding some of the accomplishments that the elder Pelosi felt the committee had overlooked.

“I have some friendly amendments,” said Christine Pelosi, a political strategist, at the committee’s session during the DNC Winter Meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel Thursday afternoon. She is a member of the committee.

“You think I’m kidding,” Christine Pelosi added, to surprised laughter from the room. The proposed changes, she indicated, came out of a discussion with her mother.

First, Pelosi wanted to add a mention of her fight against HIV and AIDS, because it was “why she went to Congress.” Then, she wanted to insert a paragraph on her “accomplishments for equality,” mentioning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in December.

“Finally, since, as she said, ‘I’m not going anywhere,’ she wanted to add, in the final ‘whereas’ clause, ‘…and will continue the fight for America’s working families,'” Christine Pelosi said.

The committee applauded that point, and approved the amended resolution on a voice vote.

The Pelosi resolution, submitted by a roster of Democratic luminaries headed by DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, was one of dozens of ceremonial acts considered by the committee, on such topics as praising President Obama’s State of the Union address, honoring the victims of January’s Tucson shootings and memorializing Elizabeth Edwards. Most of the resolutions were approved without changes.

Comments by Gary Gatehouse,
The Insane one (Pelosi) has to be from another planet,this person is sickening, she needs to retire to her Northern California vineyards!