I think a lot of people thought that once President Obama was elected, we wouldn’t see the traditional bargaining and compromising and things taking so long.
Let’s say this: the president became president with a nation in crisis—an economic crisis, a budget crisis, two wars, and a climate crisis. People want change, but they are menaced by it; they are cautious about it. I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the ratings of Congress. I really don’t.

Menace: 1 possible source of danger 2 nuisance (a constant source of trouble and annoyance) 3 threatening quality 4 threatening act

Which one of these definitions is the House Speaker referring to?  Well, if change includes giving more power to an ever growing federal government at the expense of individual liberty, we can see how that may fit definitions 1, 3 & 4 quite nicely.  Is change a nuisance?  Sure, if it’s a nuisance to witness escalating national debt and rampant international treaties that wreck havoc on our beloved Constitution.  With Congress constantly digressing from their Constitutional authorities, it’s no wonder people are “cautious” about change.  Many Americans feel this caution absolutely warranted.

It was reported that you were negotiating with the conference of bishops.
I talked to one of the cardinals. I said to him that I believe that what we are doing honors the principles we talked about: we want to pass a health-care bill, we want it to be abortion neutral, and we want it to [have] no federal funding [for abortion], which is the law. And we believe that our language does that. They said, “We believe that it does not.” I said, let’s sit down at the table and our lawyers can compare language. That’s what the meeting was about—to make our case. Clearly, the people at that table were not willing to accept what we know to be a fact.
I think you have had some brushes with [church] hierarchy.
I have some concerns about the church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose. I have some concerns about the church’s position on gay rights. I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will.
Is it difficult for you to reconcile your faith with the role you have in public life?
You know, I had five children in six years. The day I brought my fifth baby home, that week my daughter turned 6. So I appreciate and value all that they want to talk about in terms of family and the rest. When I speak to my archbishop in San Francisco and his role is to try to change my mind on the subject, well then he is exercising his pastoral duty to me as one of his flock. When they call me on the phone here to talk about, or come to see me about an issue, that’s a different story. Then they are advocates, and I am a public official, and I have a different responsibility.

One year after Pelosi’s controversial comment in an ABC interview, the Drudge Report article covering the fact still comes up close to the top every time someone “googles” the House Speaker’s name.  Her comment was this: “family planning services reduce cost… contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”  Is it any wonder then that she is “soft” on abortion, to put it nicely, and attacked regularly by the Church she supposedly represents?  Regardless of religious affiliation, think about the implications of her motives… they’re not comforting.

We have had very few high-profile political women. Hillary Clinton is very popular now, but she has had some low moments. Ironically, in the past, she has been the most popular when she shows her vulnerabilities. Do you draw any lessons from that?
Well, I don’t care how popular I am. I’m not putting myself out there to run for higher office. I just [want to] make sure that we win the election next year.
And 2010 looks a little problematic.
Oh, no. We will be fine. We have great candidates. I am constantly raising money.
You have zest for this job. You’re not beaten down.
I actually take some level of pride in the opponents I have gathered. And it helps with my fundraising. [Laughs.]

Since Nancy is a practicing Catholic, no doubt it is a waste to remind her: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” KJ (Proverbs 16:18).  And if excessive money is the foundation for her pride, she may be in for a surprise come this November elections.  More than ever dissatisfied citizens nationwide are putting their hard earned money towards the candidates most promising to upset significant seats in the House and Senate, and surely the Speaker’s seat is primarily so.  Visit www.johndennis2010.com to review the opponent she takes so much pride in having, and donate what you can to make a difference.  This year will resemble no “sparring match,” such as she is used to.  This is a prize fight; this is a fight for our Republic, and more are waking up to this fact daily.

She doesn’t care how popular she is for one reason: She feels that she has the votes she needs to win.  But what if more residents of the 8th District (SF) register to vote, considering the severity of the potential upset in the upcoming election?  San Francisco certainly has enough non-voters to make a difference.  It is up to us (citizens nationwide, remember) to inform and educate as many SF voters as possible within the next ten months.  Every dollar raised for John Dennis will contribute as efficiently as possible to raising awareness in SF voters before November.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks with GM CEO Ed Whitacre, alongside UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, center, while they view a Chevy Volt on Monday at the North American International Auto Show. (SUSAN TUSA/Detroit Free Press)

When Pelosi visited the North American International Auto Show at Cobo Center yesterday (Monday), she was met by protesters.  Upset with the recent bailout of the auto industry, they couldn’t miss the opportunity to voice their indignation with the Speaker of the House.  Her comments, no doubt, only added fuel to the fire.

“Our hopes are riding on the auto industry succeeding in this country,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…

She led a congressional delegation to the show and — after riding in the hybrid versions of the GMC Sierra pickup and Chevy Equinox — declared: “The investment that taxpayers made in the auto industry is one that will be rewarded.”

[...]

“There is no doubt the American auto industry needs help, but the Democrats’ solution of government takeovers and expansion isn’t the answer,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kristen Kurkowski.

[...]

About two dozen Tea Party activists picketed outside of Cobo Center… The state and national Republican parties mocked Pelosi for her comments that the visit was historic.

Detroit Free Press

It’s quite humorous to consider the presumed number-one carbon emitter in Congress taking delight in a hybrid car.  This presumption is of course based on her military jet, which has been flying the Madame Speaker coast-to-coast since 9/11.   Cost is estimated to be around $60,000 one way, and that doesn’t include food… or flowers.

Picture courtesy of The Absurd Report.

Pelosi is learning the hard way that there’s a difference between receiving attention for being a pioneer and receiving attention for fouling up on the job…  To call it a disastrous public performance would be polite.  NY Times

Having been in office since 1987 with virtually zero opposition, what kind of havoc could this woman wreak?

The first and foremost complaint has been her readiness to support and advocate “bailouts” for American industry.  Especially considering the “industry” originally bailed out, which can hardly be called an industry at all; i.e. the banking (money derivatives) sector of our economy.  America has lost its position as a manufacturing superpower some years ago.  It has since been saturated with international finance derivatives specialists.  This position is only strengthened by government bailouts, and to the dismay of citizens, our “real worth” in the world has diminished as a result.  To bailout the institutions responsible is absolutely ludicrous; unless your agenda differs form that of the people you serve, Ms. Pelosi.

Healthcare reform under Pelosi has blatantly included penalties of up to $250,000 and 6 years in jail for those who cannot afford health insurance.  Yet we are to believe that this is GOOD for the 40 million or so who are uninsured?  This is the same practice Obama denounced in reference to Hillary Clinton’s reform plans.

Although she is currently unloading her war efforts on the President, no one can deny that she has been a pivotal force in the funding for both the Iraq and Afghanistan war fronts.  This kind of “flip-flop” policy making is nothing unheard of to those following the Speaker’s procedures.

The Hill says that she is looking for a new “boogeyman” come 2010, pointing out:

In her book, “Know Your Power”, Pelosi wrote that the first agenda item in winning campaigns is, “You must take down the ratings of your opposition.”

And keep in mind that she is not new to the game.  This is a multi-generational political spinster, as John Armor points out here.

There is one hope, one person, one candidate that can usurp the Queen of the House.  His name is John Dennis, and he needs your help now more than ever.  Please visit his site and “vote with your wallet” TODAY to show the Madame Speaker that we are serious.  She wants a “boogeyman” for 2010?  She has one.

The rift between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Church will likely grow thanks to new comments the abortion advocate made. Pelosi said in a new interview that the “free will” of women wanting abortions outweighs pro-life Catholic teachings.

Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift conducted a year-end interview with Pelosi.

The conversation turned to the topic of abortion and health care and Pelosi blasted the Catholic bishops for their opposition to the pro-abortion bill.

She tells Clift it was frustrating that Catholic bishops “were not willing to accept what we know to be a fact” — that the “public option” would supposedly not violate a ban on federally-funded abortions.

Then, as Clift asks about her “brushes” with the church, Pelosi drops a bomb.

“I have some concerns about the church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose,” Pelosi responds. “I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith.”

[…]

The comments will likely throw fuel on the fire of public opinion within pro-life and Catholic circles that Pelosi is well-outside the mainstream — but she tells the pro-abortion Newsweek reporter she doesn’t care.

[…]

For Pelosi, her motive appears to be more about winning than her reputation and standing.

“I don’t care how popular I am. I’m not putting myself out there to run for higher office. I just [want to] make sure that we win the election next year,” she said.

The new comments follow on the heels of Pelosi thanking God that the Senate health care bill funds abortions.

Read in full, December 28, 2009

In yet another comment that will draw guffaws from pro-life advocates, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is thankful to God that the Senate bill include massive abortion funding. Pelosi also claims she has enough votes to pass a pro-abortion health care bill in the House, though that is disputed.

The Senate bill, unlike the House government-run health care measure, funds abortions though the public option and affordability credits.

[…]

The Senate bill “doesn’t have a public option, doesn’t expand Medicare for the (age) 55 to 64 group, and has abortion language that is completely different from the House — thank God.”

Pelosi told reporters she believes the House can approve the Senate bill or a merged conference committee measure even without the Stupak amendment the House added on a large bipartisan vote to remove abortion funding.

Read in full, December 17, 2009

Attorney Mary Harned of Americans United for Life, has also examined the abortion sections of Reid’s new measure, which she says “provides for an unprecedented expansion of federally-funded abortion. ”

“The bill includes pro-abortion language and mirrors the false compromise Capps Amendment from the House debate — it allows the public option to include abortion coverage and provides federal subsidies for private plans which cover abortion,” she said.

Read in full, November 19, 2009

The Department of Defense didn’t ask for money to update the old officers club in San Francisco’s Presidio into a visitors information center and exhibition space. Neither did any other member of Congress – except House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (SF Gate)

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the $626 billion defense appropriations bill approved by the Senate last Saturday.  $128 billion is allocated to Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Typical to modern legislation, it was heavily laden with earmarks.  The total came to 1,720, amounting to $4.2 billion.  Congress recently passed a $447 billion spending bill (Dec 13th) with over 5,000 earmarks, as reported in a previous post.

After the defense spending bill passed the House this week, Pelosi issued a statement praising the measure for making “critical investments in the success, health, well-being and training of our men and women in uniform.”

Pelosi mentioned that the bill included a pay raise for military personnel and resources for everything from treating troops suffering from traumatic brain injury to money for “first-class equipment and armor.”

But she didn’t mention the money for the Presidio Heritage Center.

[...]

The $5 million earmark will fund close to 25 percent of the center’s estimated renovation and help leverage other donations from corporations and foundations, said Tia Lombardi, director of public affairs at the Presidio Trust.

In other words, the trust needs federal subsidies to lure private investment – so it no longer has to rely on federal subsidies. The building, which dates to the early 1800s, is now used for exhibitions and events.  (SF Gate)

The point was to allow Democrats to put their names on a “jobs bill” before heading home for the holidays to their increasingly disappointed constituents. But many of those same Democrats are taking a detour through Denmark, and their constituents deserve to know that their work there is all about killing jobs, not creating them. (NPR)

The Congressional Budget Office and the Energy Information Administration say the cap and trade bill, passed by the House and awaiting Senate approval, will lead to more job loss.  The bill virtually admits this by adding a subsidizing clause to aid those “hardest hit,” which of course, would be the industries producing the most carbon emissions.  Globally, such provisions are what world leaders at Copenhagen were understandably upset about (i.e. that first world nations would create loopholes in legislation).

The bill includes a tacit admission that it would be a job-killer: To prevent mass layoffs, it would subsidize the industries hit hardest by higher energy costs. Refineries and utility companies would get billions of dollars’ worth of free carbon permits to offset the costs associated with capping their emissions. (NPR)

Sunday the Senate passed the $447 billion spending bill with a number of earmarks (5,224 special spending requests) totaling $3.9 billion.  The Peterson-Pew panel calls for immediate action to stabilize our GDP to debt ratio at 60%, according to the San Francisco Gate.  Our GDP to debt ratio is estimated to be over 90% by the end of this year.  Soon, more than 100% of our gross domestic product will be used to service our national debt.

Pelosi has opposed the idea, and so has the powerful retiree group AARP. But Pelosi now would agree to it as long as a “pay-as-you-go” budget rule favored by conservative “Blue Dog” House Democrats is included.

That would require new spending to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases.

[...]

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has railed about stimulus pork, singling out for ridicule $54 million going to Napa Valley’s “wine train.”

“Wine train”?  Conflict of interest anyone?  If you’re unaware, Pelosi and her husband own a vineyard worth up to $25 million in Napa Valley.

John Boehner represents Ohio’s 8th district in the House.  He strongly criticizes Pelosi’s actions in the Hillsboro Times-Gazette.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) completed the latest chapter in this lengthy story by ramming a massive $447 billion spending bill through Congress that contains double-digit funding increases to Washington agencies.

In addition to these excessive increases, the bill includes more than 5,200 earmarks, including $300,000 for music and education programs at New York City’s Carnegie Hall, where they pay the employee who oversees the props more than $530,000 in salary and benefits.  Regardless of whether these are worthy projects, are they really more important than our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay the debt we’re piling up to do all this stuff?

[...]

This is just another ploy to increase spending at a time when our national debt hit a record $12 trillion last month.  Before the end of the year, Democrats plan to raise the debt limit by another $1.8 trillion dollars.

He asks John for 3-5 hot topics, to which John replies:  Individual liberty, respect for the Constitution and the free market.

Nancy Pelosi’s jet transportation has costs the American taxpayers $21- to $28-million over the last 3 years, and we are borrowing 1/3rd of that money.  “That to me is unconscionable,” he says.
Dennis has the ambitious goal of ending the IRS, saying that we do not need the income tax to fund the government, despite popular belief.

When asked about the drug war, he recognizes the futility, saying: “I think we’ve seen that we’re not prohibiting anybody from doing anything.”  We are creating an underclass of former prisoners and costing a fortune, all for what?   Liberty is not a “salad bar”; if you are going to accept it, you have to accept the whole package.

He also feels the 700+ bases around the world need to be reevaluated from a socio-economic perspective.  We really should stop at “what is constitutional” and what isn’t.  Upon review, we may find that these bases do not make us safer, and certainly are not affordable.

Regarding Social Security, John considers it a pyramid scheme that depends on population growth.  We should allow people to opt out of the system and be responsible for their own retirement.