In interest of future speculation– however– the special election results in Massachusetts offered promising hope.  Many expected a sure win for the Democratic Party, yet Republican Scott Brown walked away Senator in the end.  The victory may have been unexpected by established sources, yet it was anxiously anticipated by citizen’s nationwide.

USA Today: Two weeks ago, Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley enjoyed a double-digit lead in polls, was raising an average of $24,000 a day in political contributions and had yet to put up a single campaign television ad.

In a matter of days, her front-runner status had collapsed. Suddenly, a little-known Republican state lawmaker, Scott Brown, had turned the contest for the Bay State’s Senate seat — a seat that had been held by Edward Kennedy for 47 years — into a real race.

Massachusetts voters responded Tuesday by turning out to the polls in droves as snow fell across portions of the state, delivering an upset victory for Brown despite a 3-to-1 Democratic advantage in voter registration. The Associated Press called the race less than an hour and a half after polls closed.

This is upsetting to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not only because it shows how potentially misleading “voter registration” advantages can be, but also the very real delay this will put on her much criticized health-care reform bill.

The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill

“People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper in to debt,” Brown said in his acceptance speech.

[...]

House Republican Leader John Boehner fired back at Pelosi’s “right on course” comment, with spokesman Michael Steel saying, “Regardless of what happens in Massachusetts, it’s clear that jamming this government takeover of health care through Congress will set off a political firestorm. The American people are screaming, ‘stop’ at the top of their lungs, and out-of-touch Democratic leaders ignore them at their peril.”  Politico

The Associated Press reported that some were concerned that they would “block Brown long enough to complete congressional passage of the health care plan he has promised to oppose.”  Harry Reid comments:

“The people of Massachusetts have spoken. We welcome Scott Brown to the Senate and will move to seat him as soon as the proper paperwork has been received,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.  Associated Press (Yahoo News)

Needless to say, the Speaker of the House is in store for some “big political problems” of her own.  Contribute your support to the John Dennis Campaign today, and help insure she gets her full share.

Brown is a free-market advocate who believes that the “federal stimulus bill made government bigger instead of creating jobs.”  Nancy Pelosi is overwhelmingly responsible for such growth (previous post).  Congratulations on your win, Senator Scott Brown.

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.

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

Upset 2010?
by Ryan Jaroncyk

Not your typical Republican, John Dennis is adopting an unorthodox strategy in his bid to unseat Speaker Nancy Pelosi in next year’s congressional mid-terms.  Many political pundits would consider his campaign a long shot, especially in the more liberal domain of San Francisco, but rising voter discontent and a 27% congressional approval rating may set the stage for some potentially spectacular upsets.

Pelosi is revered by most Democrats and is one of the most powerful women in the world.  She is a seasoned politician and has become one of the most recognizable faces in the US Congress. However, a number of developments have weakened Pelosi’s political standing. In an October poll, Pelosi registered a 34% approval rating in the state of California, with only a small majority of Democrats (51%) giving her high marks.  Since the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress, Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have continued to fund the Iraq War, despite offering vociferous opposition under President Bush, and three years later, there are still over 120,000 troops stationed there and sectarian violence is once again on the rise.  In early 2008, the Bush-Pelosi $168 billion stimulus failed to rescue the economy from the coming crash.  In 2009, the $787 billion stimulus failed to stem unemployment at the predicted 8.1%, the Afghanistan-Pakistan war has been ramped up with two substantial troop surges in less than a year, and healthcare reform has disappointed many in the Democratic Party.  Couple these troubling developments with an angry grassroots movement bent on punishing incumbents throughout the nation, and Speaker Pelosi’s seat may not be as secure as she’d like.

Enter John Dennis.  Dennis is a successful businessman and entrepreneur running as a political outsider.  Unlike most of his fellow Republicans, he believes America should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as close down a significant number of US military bases around the world.  Instead, Dennis advocates a more limited, focused, and cost effective approach to national defense. On the domestic front, Dennis is a staunch defender of civil liberties, a diehard fiscal conservative, and a devoted adherent to the Constitution.  Not afraid to hold his own party accountable, Dennis even campaigned for Dr. Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential primaries, a campaign that vigorously challenged the GOP’s foreign policy, debt-laden fiscal record, and inability to predict the economic collapse.  For a closer look at Dennis’s positions on a slew of issues, click here.

If healthcare reform turns out weaker than expected, climate change legislation stalls, unemployment still hovers around 10%, the pace of the Iraq troop drawdown disappoints, and the Afghanistan war bogs down yet again, Pelosi could face robust competition from the upstart Dennis.  However, if the opposite scenario plays out, then Dennis will not stand a chance and Pelosi will face an easy reelection.

Keep an eye on this California’s 8th Congressional District.  Things could get very interesting.

Read original post at www.caivn.org

Hundreds of protestors surrounded the Hilton hotel in Irvine.  Above is a short clip to get the idea.  Signs expressing the need for change in 2010 were proudly displayed.

Among the protesters was Irvine Councilman Steven Choi, who has recently taken some criticism for having a picture of Nancy Pelosi rendered as Josef Stalin attached to his back during the event.  The Liberal OC article (link above) indicated that his actions disrespected the office, not just the person.  That is, if we do not respect the person that’s fine, so long as we respect the office.

Okay, let’s suppose this is a sound argument for supporting law and order.  Still, how did he disrespect “the office” if the picture clearly shows Pelosi, and only Pelosi, dressed as Stalin?  So then, what does this author mean by “respecting the office”?  Does he expect that when in high government office a person is the office, and therefore should never be spoken ill off, truth be told or otherwise?  If that is the idea, then this notion surpasses socialism and enters the realm of royalty and tyranny!  The office she holds does not leave her unaccountable to the impression she makes on citizens.  Choi illustrated this impression, nothing more.  It is a demonstration of his 1st Amendment right.

Many are determined to point out Pelosi’s accelerating tendencies to support and propose socialist legislation.  The list of such infractions is endless- Patriot Act, FEMA amendment, massive bailouts (which she would like to include the newspaper industry and another measure specificially for “job creation”), healthcare reform, etc.   These policies alone can call forth such pictoral depictions.

Another argument proposed was that she is not a mass-murderer, like Stalin.  This argument is sensitive, but needs to be addressed.  She need not murder millions of innocent people like Stalin did for the picture to make sense, but if we must address the implications, it should be noted that the number of dead innocents are piling up fast in both wars.  These wars could not continue without her funding efforts.  So anyone who dares to bring this point up is perhaps acting against the best interests of the Madame Speaker, to put it nicely.

As always, the American public are one step behind the actions of Congress; the House Speaker’s agenda serves as prime example.  We read today what she had planned long ago.  Our involvement has been limited to retroactive criticism, for the most part.  That needs to change; come next November in the 2010 election, she must be defeated.  My guess is that more renditions of Pelosi as historical socialist leaders are forthcoming, and overdue.  Choi showed bravery and resolve.

Choi is also running for reelection, which probably indicates that his actions were not thoughtless.  Many underground bloggers and concerned citizens laugh about the incident.  One commenter says: “finally someone did it.”

Pelosi challenger John Dennis was also there, lending support to the swelling crowd.  A radio interview was conducted during his stay, as reviewed here, with audio.

Fox News also covered the protest and her speech.  Primarily, the protest was about healthcare, they said.  Pelosi claims the healthcare bill will directly assist in job creation, while protesters disagree.

The 2005 video of Nancy Pelosi defending the 3-day rule in order to combat lengthy legislation has been watched by many.

Recently she passed a 1,990 paged health care reform bill that had been amended and changed frequently, then passed without sufficient time for review.  The hypocrisy is too blatant to ignore.

The Washington Examiner sums up the following in their “opinion” section:

The most obvious and immediate take on the video is disgust with the unsurpassed hypocriscy of Pelosi in forcing the Obamacare bill through to passage despite its massive size, its gigantic implications for changing the daily lives of every American, and its enormous impact on the financial integrity of the government.

But let’s not forget the context in which Pelosi’s 2005 speech was delivered. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other leaders of the Republican majority that held power prior to 2006 were routinely doing exactly what Pelosi just did wth Obamacare – jamming continuing resolutions consisting of thousands of pages and costing trillions of dollars through Congress with barely enough time to read the titles, much less the entire text.

Bottomline: A binding, 72-hour public posting of all legislation should be an inviolate rule no matter which party is in power in either chamber of Congress. And it cannot happen too soon. The people at Readthebill.org need your help.

Last Halloween, Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave birth to her ugliest child, The Affordable Health Care for America Act. The bill was a 1,990-page legislative behemoth fathered by

With time of the essence, Pelosi quickly made concessions for the Stupak Amendment, which prevented government funds from paying for abortions, giving her pro-choice constituents a Catholic snub and her health care package the support needed to pass.

The bill cleared congress with a 220-215 (D-R) vote on November 7th, which paved the way for a Senate version that passed it’s 2,074-page bill Saturday. Although a vote has been tallied, the bill is not yet final, giving Senators a few weeks to make amendments. There is some speculation that this bill might not pass the Senate, but it seems unlikely that Pelosi would put her name on anything but a sure thing.

Pelosi’s legislation was labeled “The Worst Bill Ever” by The Wall Street Journal due to the half trillion dollars in new taxes that will be placed on income earners. Language added by Pelosi increases the top marginal tax rate to 45 percent. The bill is riddled with smaller taxes and fees on both consumers and suppliers, not to mention a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. This is far from being the “free” solution touted by it’s supporters.

Between never ending wars that Nancy has repeatedly voted to fund and a trillion dollars worth of new debt that her health care program is expected to add; this woman is recklessly mortgaging our future. The sole beneficiaries to our financial burden are our lenders. China and the private bankers who collect a premium on the massive deficits our treasury incurs will be happy for years to come while our borrowed principle inflates at the speed of compounding interest.

It is blatantly obvious, Pelosi is an agent of huge business. Her constituents are not the free-thinking individualists of San Francisco, but the conformist conglomerates who keep Pelosi elected. She does not want to save our country money; Pelosi hates money, because money is her only constraint now that she has ruled out any constitutional obligation. Debt is a non-issue to Pelosi as long as the interest is paid and the creditors are happy. For interest to be paid, taxes need to be raised, and this is Pelosi’s only fiscal goal.

America’s most powerful woman and her quasi-government social planners want to harness the power of clockwork. Patient in, patient out. They will not pass a public option. Why? Partially, because the American people will never stand for limitation placed on choice, and partially because Pelosi’s high rollers will never allow for a separation of government and economy. They want fascism, they want the private property rights protected by capitalism and to earn a profit by means of a monopoly offered by big government contracts. These cowards do not want to pay for the infrastructure or be exposed to the risk it takes to set up a nation-wide health care network, but still they want a return on it. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

A prime example of Pelosi’s wheel n’ deal politics are the 2 billion dollars worth of taxation she was going to place on the medical device industry. Democrat Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, whose state is home to prominent medical device makers, including Zimmer Holdings Inc., Biomet and DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., was one of a handful of red state Democrats whose support was vital in getting the 60 Senate votes necessary to advance the health care overhaul. The taxes were removed when Pelosi’s bedfellow, Harry Reid, convinced Bayh to vote for the bill if Reid agreed to slash the medical device taxes. It almost seems like the taxes were added in the House by Pelosi in order to get the vote from Bayh in the Senate. It is one thing to indiscriminately raise taxes in order to fund certain programs, it is quite anther to pick and choose which industries to tax in order to bully Senators into votes.

Health care lobbying exceeded $422 million during the first nine months of this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. An estimated 31 million to 36 million people would be added to insurance rolls because of the mandates in both bills — even if these people don’t use doctors, hospitals or prescription drugs. Now Pelosi affiliated insurance companies will enjoy millions of new forced insurance subscriptions.

Hoards of additional people with health insurance would also mean billions more in drug sales for Pelosi picked pharmaceutical companies. When government is choosing the meds, the free-market is bypassed and Pelosi decides which pharmaceutical drug slangin’ multi-national corporation will be the benefactor. Smaller, generic drug manufacturers who didn’t send a lobbyist to DC on time will be facing language in both bills that lengthen patents on new drugs entering the market. Bully legislation like HR 3962 creates the oligarchs, monopolists, and robber barons of American industry. Pelosi’s bill is not what true health care reform looks like, but a re-enactment of the policies that destroyed a health care system that was once the shining example of the world.

Our country needs term limits, monetary reform, and balanced budgets — these are bi-partisan issues. These are the only policies that will put an end to incumbents like Pelosi wreaking havoc on our country in order to stay in power.  She has won the battle, but not the war. She has passed her re-distributive monstrosity, and will be heading back to San Francisco for Thanksgiving to spend time with her family. Hopefully Nancy gets the wrong side of the wishbone this year, because in 2010, she needs to be DROPPED.