nancy pelosi personal jet 757

[Team Sergeant]

For all the idiots that actually believe snopes.com, see below, the bitch known as nancy pelosi does in FACT use a 757 to jet back and forth across the nation. And the morons in Califorina are wondering why Califorina is passing out IOU's and about to go bankrupt...... Hows that for hope and change. Let's spend another trillion dollars.



Below is the best picture we’ve seen of the Air Force Jet that shuttles Speaker Pelosi between DC and San Fran

The Speaker of the House historically hasn’t been assigned a special government plane. That changed after 9-11, when the government decided that the individual who was third in succession needed secure travel. The Speaker at the time, Dennis Hastert, was assigned a small military jet, although he rarely used it. When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker she…well…upgraded, to a Boeing 757. Consider this as you plan your holiday travel next week.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/20/friday-free-for-all-holiday-travel-edition/

[Red Flag 1]

If my FOG memory serves me well, I seem to recall that President Bush backed the aircraft upgrade out of respect for the office of Speaker of the House.

Since the dims are so busy bashing all of President Bush's decisions, why not go after this one as well?:mad::mad:

RF 1

[JAGO]

IIRC The "selling point" for the larger aircraft was supposed to be security concerns over having to stop mid-way for fueling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501295.html

Why a miltary base in Utah wouldn't be secure was never addressed.

Traditionally her broom could make the trip w/o refueling, but the broom was only capable of a tandem - no room for hairdressers, plastic surgeons, and the signature was larger for any one with a heat seeker. A real flamer....

[mojaveman]

Jeez, I could almost accept a Lear jet but a 757? I wonder how many people travel with her. America's going broke and she's doing this? Now I know where so many of my misspent tax dollars are going.

[MK262]

Congress got it's Pee-pee slapped earlier this year for trying to get even more planes to accommodate her royal highness and her stooges. :mad:


Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009
Congress's Bid for More Plush Planes Hits Turbulence
By Mark Thompson / Washington
UPDATED 8.30 a.m ET

Just as quickly as the House added $330 million to bolster the luxury jet fleet it uses for global jaunts, its leaders have stripped the four aircraft from next year's defense-spending bill after public outrage began to rear its head. "If the Department of Defense does not want these aircraft, they will be eliminated from the bill," Representative John Murtha, chairman of a House panel on defense appropriations, said late Monday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose staff has scrapped with the Air Force over planes for congressional delegations, concurred with Murtha's decision.

House leaders seemed taken aback by the firestorm, even following last year's howls of outrage after U.S. auto executives flew into Washington on private jets to seek government bailouts. In part, they felt protected because the added planes — best known for flying generals and White House officials around the globe — also carry lawmakers on them approximately 15% of the time. And they do so amid comforts that most Americans who endure long security lines and cramped economy cabins could only dream about. (See the Top 10 Most Expensive Military Planes.)

Senators had already been grousing that the additional planes would be a waste of money during the recession. "Talk about the wrong message at the wrong time," Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri said. "While American families are tightening their belts there is no way we should be buying extra executive jets." The anger had clearly spread. "Lawmakers justifiably pilloried the auto industry CEOs for flying on corporate jets," said Steve Ellis of the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "But now a few months later they are stuffing hundreds of millions into the defense budget for their own jets while the rest of America is trying to make ends meet — it doesn't make sense."

House members who favored acquiring the new planes argued that they were needed replacements for aging aircraft, and would be less costly to fly. The current Gulfstream C-20 costs $6,100 an hour to operate, compared with $2,700 for the more modern Gulfstream C-37. The Air Force VIP fleet is usually reserved for work-related foreign travel, which is a double-edged sword for lawmakers. While some boast they avoid it to save taxpayers money, others argue it is needed to visit foreign leaders and conflict zones to get a firsthand look at the impact of U.S. foreign policy.

The hidden tug-of-war over these airplanes revealed just how perk-conscious lawmakers can be. In March, the nonprofit group Judicial Watch obtained e-mails from the Pentagon (under the Freedom of Information Act) written by aides to Pelosi seeking military airplanes. "It is my understanding there are no G-5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess," one May 2007 message said. "This is totally unacceptable." The Pentagon explained the planes were already booked by "White House military office taskings, the VP, Cabinet officers and multiple other executive users." (See pictures of military aircraft.)

Mounting demand for congressional travel may help explain why the House initially ordered the Pentagon to buy two more $65 million G-5s — Gulfstream V jets, known in the Air Force as C-37s — as part of the $636 billion defense budget, along with an additional pair of $70 million C-40s, the military version of the Boeing 737. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated when asked about the additional planes last week.

The House also had instructed the Air Force that two of the new planes be stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside the capital. Andrews, of course, is home to Air Force One and the élite fleet of 16 additional executive jets flown by the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing (there are dozens of other aircraft sometimes used to ferry lawmakers and other VIPs). Hard data on the 89th is tough to dig out and, obviously, both the military and Congress like it that way. The go-to source for public reports on government spending — the Government Accountability Office (GAO) — answers to Congress. "We haven't looked into it in a long time," a GAO spokeswoman says. But the Air Force, after a day of asking, reported that the 89th currently has two Air Force Ones, based on the Boeing 747 airframe; five C-20s (Gulfstream IIIs); four C-32s (Boeing 757s); five C-37s (Gulfstream Vs) and two C-40s (Boeing 737s).

It's easy to see why lawmakers might become accustomed to flying on the 89th's jets with their first-class leather seats, workstations and galleys, and on which military personnel whip up their meals, carry their bags and fix their favorite drinks. And they can stretch out — those 737-sized C-40s can fly with as few as five lawmakers aboard (they carry up to 149 passengers for Southwest). Lawmakers are also permitted to take their spouses along, for free. Folks get used to such niceties after a while, and that might have played a role in the push for the added planes. "We appreciate the efforts to help the [congressional delegation] fly commercially, but you know the problem that creates with spouses," the Pelosi aide quoted in the e-mails told the Air Force in 2007. "If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1915676,00.html

[greenberetTFS]

For all the idiots that actually believe snopes.com, see below, the bitch known as nancy pelosi does in FACT use a 757 to jet back and forth across the nation. And the morons in Califorina are wondering why Califorina is passing out IOU's and about to go bankrupt...... Hows that for hope and change. Let's spend another trillion dollars.



Below is the best picture we’ve seen of the Air Force Jet that shuttles Speaker Pelosi between DC and San Fran

The Speaker of the House historically hasn’t been assigned a special government plane. That changed after 9-11, when the government decided that the individual who was third in succession needed secure travel. The Speaker at the time, Dennis Hastert, was assigned a small military jet, although he rarely used it. When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker she…well…upgraded, to a Boeing 757. Consider this as you plan your holiday travel next week.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/20/friday-free-for-all-holiday-travel-edition/

They should put her ass in a Piper Cub(Are they still around?).............:rolleyes::eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

[rubberneck]

I wonder how large Speaker Pelsoi's carbon footprint is. I would guess the carbon output from that jet over the course of her time as Speaker of the House equals the output from tens of thousands of households.

[Kyobanim]

I wonder how large Speaker Pelsoi's carbon footprint is

At least as big as her ass . . .

[BMT (RIP)]

Three of the C-20C's don't fly that often.
They have some good commo onboard.

BMT

[Red Flag 1]

I wonder how large Speaker Pelsoi's carbon footprint is. I would guess the carbon output from that jet over the course of her time as Speaker of the House equals the output from tens of thousands of households.

As big as Herr gore?

RF 1

[Box]

At least as big as her ass . . .

Nicely done

[Richard]

The Wall Street watchdogs in action - seems as if there are many more polecats hiding under that woodpile and there's a lot more to it all than just the Speaker's issue -

Pelosi's Repeated Requests for Military Travel

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/mar/judicial-watch-uncovers-documents-detailing-pelosis-repeated-requests-military-travel

Purchase Order: Luxury Jets for Congressional Travel

http://www.judicialwatch.org/foiablog/2009/aug/purchase-order-luxury-jets-congressional-travel

Senate Requests for Military Travel

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/aug/judicial-watch-uncovers-documents-detailing-u-s-senate-requests-military-travel

And so it goes...:mad:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Costa]

My mom happened to be bitching about this yesterday.
We were discussing global warming being a hoax and just another bandwagon for people to jump on. She brought up Pelosi not willing to put her money where her mouth is on ANYTHING. Health care, Guantanamo, and of course global warming. Flying home every weekend on her "big ass jet" as my mom puts it.:munchin

[darbs]

...seems we're paying for the food-n-beverage on the flight as well... :munchin

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123472

Posted: January 29, 2010
12:20 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



Part of the tab for alcoholic drinks on a congressional trip arranged by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

"Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. "And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else."

Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her "sense of entitlement," the group said.

"Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline," the evaluation said.

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

Do the tone-deaf lawmakers in D.C. make your blood boil? Read all about Washington and its politics of corruption in "Breach of Trust."

"We have ... folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc," said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi's requests for aircraft.

"Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?" it stated. "[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..."

The e-mail noted that the speaker's office had "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi's demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco's airport.

"She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …"

Said another, "This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker('s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future."

Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:

"Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens."

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi's military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

Among the newest highlights revealed:


Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker's family.


One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, "to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders" included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.


According to a "Memo for Record" from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, "CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.
Pelosi's office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

[LarryW]

The 757 just gets her to CA. What's she use to get from SF to her huge 7acre grape ranch? Helo? Marine Corps-III?

[Richard]

Kinda makes ya wonder what it costs to fly the POTUS and Veep around, doesn't it.

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

[PedOncoDoc]

...It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer...

I, for one, don't believe they chose top shelf gins and whiskeys then picked cheap scotch. The politicians have lost even more points in my book after seeing that list... :rolleyes:


Don't get me wrong - JW and Dewars are good....but there is so muich better.

Also - shame on them for boozing on my dime when I have neither the time nor the money to enjoy a good drink as often as I'd like. :mad:

[HowardCohodas]

I, for one, don't believe they chose top shelf gins and whiskeys then picked cheap scotch. The politicians have lost even more points in my book after seeing that list... :rolleyes:


Don't get me wrong - JW and Dewars are good....but there is so muich better.


Where is the Lagavulin?

[bandycpa]

I, for one, don't believe they chose top shelf gins and whiskeys then picked cheap scotch. The politicians have lost even more points in my book after seeing that list... :rolleyes:


Don't get me wrong - JW and Dewars are good....but there is so muich better.



Part of the spending freeze.


Bandy

[Kyobanim]

I'm waiting for a flight with a choice bottle of Ripple on it

[Pete]

I'm waiting for a flight with a choice bottle of Ripple on it


Pagan Pink - a true American Classic

[armymom1228]

Pagan Pink - a true American Classic

I think I will hold out for Thunderbird myself.


But Beefeaters? shudders....Tangeray or if I want to slum, Bombay. With Lemonade of course. :lifter

[wet dog]

I think I will hold out for Thunderbird myself.


But Beefeaters? shudders....Tangeray or if I want to slum, Bombay. With Lemonade of course. :lifter

The Gin / Bourbon drinks and I do not mix.

Full flavored / full bodied beers, Jameson, John Powers, Johnny Walker, (in all the colors), and a few rare Irish bottles that come along once in a while is more to my liking.

[nmap]

It seems that her children and grandchildren also enjoy the good life.

While I suppose the images of FOIA results are also in Richard's Judicial Watch links, the following link provides a selection of materials that deal directly with the Speaker's children and grandchildren.

LINK (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/pelosi-children-and-grandchildren-get.html)

[Kyobanim]

You forgot to post the pic of her family . . .

[JAGO]

Govt contract announced so congress can watch direct TV while they drink cheap booze and fly on our tax dollars. They just don't get it.:mad:

http://whatsbrewin.nextgov.com/2010/02/two_mil_so_congress_can_watch_tv.php


TECHNOLOGY AND THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT
What's Brewin': Bob Brewin's Take on Defense Information Technology
Two Mil So Congress Can Watch TV?
By Bob Brewin 02/22/10 03:35 pm ET

This contract award notice was posted on FedBizOpps on Feb. 19, detailing the cost of the gear needed to receive DirectTV on three DC-9 jets operated by the 932nd Aircraft Wing at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., for "Distinguished Visitor" (that would be congressional folks and other pooh-bahs).

The award -- to Rockwell Collins, which had a similar contract last year -- is for supplying DirectTV service to the aircraft, including the Continental Europe and Mideast packages.

Rockwell won the contract with a 20 percent discount for the TV service, but the contract said the cost of the receiving gear per aircraft will be $631,353. That rounds out to almost $1.9 million for three DC-9s the 932nd uses to haul pooh-bahs around in style.

Yeah, I know bolting a DirectTV dish onto a DC-9 is a more complex endeavor than lashing one onto the roof of my house, but I wonder whether the Air Force should have considered the Dish Network option.

I bet the Dish Network would even throw in some DVRs into its package.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTSNo comments on this blog entry have been posted yet. Be the first one to share your opinion with What's Brewin' readers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Richard]

Govt contract announced so congress can watch direct TV while they drink cheap booze and fly on our tax dollars. They just don't get it.

Some thoughts -


Cost seems a bit excessive to me
I would assume the contract was a competetive bid
Leadership having the ability to monitor the likes of C-SPAN, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc while in transit somewhere during a 'breaking news' event makes sense to me
Cost still seems a bit excessive to me - but I worked for the Govt at one time and know how that goes
Did I mention that I think the cost seems a bit excessive to me

And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

[JAGO]

Some thoughts -




Leadership having the ability to monitor the likes of C-SPAN, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc while in transit somewhere during a 'breaking news' event makes sense to me



And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

Richard,
I would think the USAF comm systems could give them a SITREP? But what about a cost/benefit analysis before they award the contract?

[Pete]

........ Leadership having the ability to monitor the likes of C-SPAN, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc while in transit somewhere during a 'breaking news' event makes sense to me.........

Watching "Breaking news" on the MSM seems a bit incestuous to me. After all, in most cases the leftists and the MSM are one in the same.

And Nancey & Harry watching FOX :D Yeah, right. (Yes, I do know a number of moderates and Democrats do watch FOX - more than would admit it to their friends)

Now if they would cut everything except the News and C-SPAN feeds...........

[Richard]

Watching "Breaking news" on the MSM seems a bit incestuous to me. After all, in most cases the leftists and the MSM are one in the same.

I would think the USAF comm systems could give them a SITREP?

In my experience, it can be relevant to understanding something important when one knows what ffolkes are saying across the full spectrum of the news reporting networks - and sitreps, by their nature, are lacking in that. ;)

But what about a cost/benefit analysis before they award the contract?

Based on my experiences with materials procurement, that was an end step in the bidding process - after all bids are in, can we afford it or is it too high - if so, send it back for a re-bid or sh*t can it. Have things changed that much? :confused:

The final costs - as I think I stated previously - still seem a bit excessive to me. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Mr Furious]

Another thing to ponder...the costs that roll into the back-side support for the flights, and not just the equipment and luxuries. Not certain what level of PSD the Speaker is alloted, but staging and receiving elements portal to portal and ops mgmt can cost a small fortune. Tapping into another budget for that and wouldn't be included in "aircraft" funding. Folks are serving and on the payroll already, but for every TDY/event to chase a Speaker around the globe...

YIKES!

[JAGO]

In my experience, it can be relevant to understanding something important when one knows what ffolkes are saying across the full spectrum of the news reporting networks - and sitreps, by their nature, are lacking in that. ;)



Based on my experiences with materials procurement, that was an end step in the bidding process - after all bids are in, can we afford it or is it too high - if so, send it back for a re-bid or sh*t can it. Have things changed that much? :confused:

The final costs - as I think I stated previously - still seem a bit excessive to me. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Agree the costs are too high.
I am willing to bet it's a "done deal" unless the people rise up to complain. This was reported by Bob Brewin, the MSM simply ignore.

Congress moves at a snail's pace (most times) which is good. Congress having instant access to breaking news while on a flight in Europe is OK thru the USAF HF system. As far as gathering points of view from across the spectrum, whle they are in EUCOM, I don't accept the need.

I saw G.O.'s in charge of rear echelon logistics bases demanding every perk in the book, thinking they needed that in order to protect the nation. Combatant/Unified commands need it to protect the nation, but that luxery for the "rank and file" is, IMHO not necessary. Some Congress person watching Crhis Mathews or O'Reilly while drink booze and flying europe does nothing to make us more secure.

This is just a Perk of office. A billion here, and a billion there and pretty soon, we are talking real money....(forgot the source of that one!)

v/r
phil

[Richard]

A billion here, and a billion there and pretty soon, we are talking real money....(forgot the source of that one!)

Everett Dirksen, US Rep and Sen (IL - Rep)

As far as gathering points of view from across the spectrum, whle they are in EUCOM, I don't accept the need.

Aren't these DV aircraft used by people such as Congressional leaders; secretaries such as State, SecDef, etc; GOs such as Ch-JCS and Service Chiefs; etc?

As a former FAO who was responsible for providing 'context' for such information related to US-Euro Pol-Mil affairs to my bosses at the Embassy (Ambassador Walters, 1xCOL, 2xLTCs, others) and TAACOM (1xLTG, 1xBG, >COLs) - I have to disagree with your conclusion.

However - I do agree with the premise that - on the surface - the costs do seem excessive to me.

And so it goes...;)

Richard

[Pete]

........As a former FAO who was responsible for providing 'context' for such information related to US-Euro Pol-Mil affairs to my bosses at the Embassy (Ambassador Walters, 1xCOL, 2xLTCs, others) and TAACOM (1xLTG, 1xBG, >COLs) - I have to disagree with your conclusion......


So what will be available while in flight over Pakistan, India, places like that?

Back in the "old days" it would have been limited to CNN International or the BBC. I'm sure the lineup includes Al Jazeera now but what else for "Fair & Balanced" news in English?

Just wondering.