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.

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.

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.