Petition for Immigration Law Enforcement

Numbers USA is organizing a petition drive to demonstrate our will to see current immigration laws enforced. To date, 11,491 people have signed their petition, which states:

Petition to President: It is not 'UN-AMERICAN' to open jobs for jobless Americans through immigration enforcement

At a San Francisco rally against immigration laws, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that it is un-American to use types of enforcement to drive illegal aliens out of U.S. jobs. She has also called for an end to ICE's worksite operations. Coming from one of the nation's highest ranking public officials, this is very disturbing. The small amount of worksite enforcement over the last 18 months has proven itself especially effective in providing jobs for unemployed Americans, including by frightening non-targeted businesses into hiring only legal workers.

We call on you to affirm that a primary purpose of immigration laws is to protect American workers -- particularly our most vulnerable citizens. And we urge you to re-state your oath to carry out these laws of our country to your fullest ability. Please show your commitment to putting especially low-skill American workers back on the job by giving your full support to ICE agents and adopting regulations requiring all federal contractors to use E-Verify.

I have signed the petition. I urge my fellow citizens to sign it and to join Numbers USA and actively express their desire to support legal immigration. Given the current balance of political power, the fence won't be built, many more illegal aliens will join the millions already here, accompanied by terrorists crossing the open border and they will be given citizenship and become a permanent part of the Democrat's voting block. That outcome can only be prevented if we apply intense political pressure. I view this petition as a good start.

Sphere: Related Content

INFINITE AUTHORITY: Why you can’t be Roman Catholic and support Barack Obama

Cross posted from Right Truth.

By R.J. Godlewski

“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to do evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” Catechism of the Catholic Church [407]

Usually, I am quite reserved when it comes to people’s political views and beliefs, so long as it represents an honest reflection. It is when dishonesty arises do I become terse and nowhere is this more evident than when “Catholics” try to subterfuge official Church dogma to support their personal political agendas. We’ve seen this as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, among others, have perverted their faith for political gain. There can be no greater amount of hate then I have towards such people. However, I will tame my desires for an Inquisition and simply proceed with outlining how adherence to the Roman Catholic Church cannot be reconciled with the liberal Democratic Party.
    
As Senator Barack Obama is now the de facto leader of the Democrats and although he is not Catholic himself, I will still use his beliefs against him to show Catholics why they cannot accept these policies and remain faithful to the Mother Church. In brief, no Roman Catholic can vote for Obama in good conscience. Because I, as a member of the human population, am ill suited to discuss matters of divine revelation, I will defer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as final authority on matters of Church doctrine.
    
If you claim to be Roman Catholic, especially in public, you hold allegiance to these truths. Any deviation is grounds for major sin; any swaying of the “flock” against them threatens eternal damnation. Roman Catholics should never – ever – vote for any person, support any organization, or harbor any action that goes against these beliefs. Period.

Abortion

“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation…These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin” [2273] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994,607)

 Simply put, the Catholic Church believes that human life begins at conception and no earthly authority – state or parent – can deny this fact. People like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would have you believe that the Church only recently adopted this doctrine. They are very wrong:

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” [2271] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 606).
    
This not only silences the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, but it highlights the grave infraction of a “Christian” such as Barack Obama who vehemently opposed law protecting children born live after failed abortions.

Homosexuality
 
“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” [2357]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 625).
    
Can anyone add anything better than “Under no circumstances can they be approved”? Judge people by what they do, not by who they are.

Spreading the Wealth

“The responsibility of the state. ‘Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society”  [2432]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 643-644).

In other words, if people break the law through greed and corruption, then throw them into jail. Otherwise, the state has to keep its hands off for “responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals”.

Furthermore, the concept of “those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labor” and “work effiiciently and honestly” means that paychecks fall under what we in the marine salvage industry call “no cure no pay” agreements. Simply put, if you don’t work you don’t get paid. A simpleton could understand that so why thousands of college-educated Obama supporters can’t is beyond me.
    
However, I still believe in “fair wages”. Nobody likes ecking out a living in a minimum wage job. I didn’t like it. I’m not sure if Barack Obama ever earned minimum wage as a post-collegiate adult, but I bet that he wouldn’t have liked it if he did. The point is there is a world of difference between someone toiling their way through a hot, dangerous factory and someone who simply doesn’t want to work. Fair wages is a two-way street – eliminate all those industry-destroying “I’m only going to do my particular job at fifty bucks per hour” automotive jobs and lower the cost of living for everyone else. Unions kill jobs when they make people lazy. At their salary, they should be able to fill the shoes of nearly every position within their area (while working in computer software for General Electric, I couldn’t plug in a computer printer because that was a client union job. That kind of employment socialism needs to stop).

“Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’” [2427]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 642)
    
Barack Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” convoy just took a direct hit. That reference about “no work, no eat” comes straight from 2 Thessalonians: “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat” (3:10).  Remember when God Himself, the one who multiplied loaves of bread and fishes, came down to earth for a vist, He did not work as a “chartiable organizer” as some liberals propose. No, he worked as a carpenter. He worked with his hands in Joe the Carpenter’s shop and today would probably work well in Joe the Plumber’s shop too. No way could an office worker endure a Crucifixion. 

Self-Defense

“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not’” [2263]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 603-604)

“Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 

“…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s” [2264]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.” [2265] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)

“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm” [2266]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
Barack Obama has made it perfectly clear that he wants to take away your right to own guns and punish you for protecting your life. Yet, in doing so, he is denying you your “grave duty” to protect yourself and your family. Innocent human life is so infinitely precious that even the Catholic Church itself understands that it cannot be left solely to the care of so-called “proper authorities”. If Barack Obama does not value all innocent human lives, he certainly does not value yours.

Capital Punishment

“For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” [2266] (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 604)
    
This is probably the most misunderstood piece of Church doctrine. Several times I have heard liberals use the death penalty argument as a means to trap pro-life Republicans by saying such things as “You support the death penalty when the Catholic Church is against it so why can’t Democrats support abortions?” The truth is, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty in “cases of extreme gravity”. Sure, we all have aversion to killing other people but we’re not talking about people writing bad checks here. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject, take a good look at that phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”. We need to stop allowing sexual predators to go Scot free as the liberals desire. It does not function well for the “common good of the family”. Or of the state.

The Environment

“The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.” [2416]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)

“God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” [2417]  (United States Catholic Conference, Inc. 1994, 640)
    
Simply put, we take care of the planet because we are religious, not because the environment is our diety. Without human utilization, the environment becomes a vastness of unappreciated nothingness. Now let’s consider that last quotation: “Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing”. This should stop PETA and other activists in their tracks. The higher order of things places people at the top of the totem pole.
  ................................................................................................................................................................

To cover the eight hundred or so pages of the Catechism would require more time than we have left before Tuesday’s election. I have attempted to cover those topics that I feel are of most value to Catholic (and, perhaps, other Christian) voters. This election may very well lead to the subjugation of the Church here in America. It is very important to remember that you cannot reconcile a vote for Barack Obama and membership in the Faith. To do so cancels out one or the other.
    
So, if you consider yourself a faithful, truthful Roman Catholic, then please vote against Senator Barack Obama on November 4th (already, John McCain has gained a 20% surge amongst Catholic voters and now leads Obama by 11%). However, if you believe that Senator Obama’s social, economic, and military policies are more in line with your values, then by all means go ahead and vote for the gentlemen. Just get the hell out of my Church; you don’t belong here – yet.

Reference
United States Catholic Conference, Inc. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Sphere: Related Content

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?

Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that's the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I'm simply pro-child. I don't believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason--when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I've heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I'm screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don't like them, don't listen. But don't attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this--you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don't have to face the gruesome reality of your "choice"). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They're all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn't work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don't and you aren't. When you are out of line with the Church because you don't understand something or don't know something, that's fine--as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will--yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don't get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm--life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968--in the wake of the advent of "The Pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution--Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical "Humanae Vitae".

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is "New Questions" Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, "Interpreting the Moral Law" Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd's Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on "Meet the Press":

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

To answer the simple question "When does life begin?" Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don't ask the Doctors of the Church to "make that definition." One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: "And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, " p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
-Pope John Paul II; "Evangelium Vitae," paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says "that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time." Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all--to do so would force her to change her position. And no "ardent, practicing Catholic" has ever been, or ever will be, "pro-choice" on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi's Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

"I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart," he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself," the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it's stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It's a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker's Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn't lax enough--they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, "freedom" to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don't understand the Church will not change her stance on these items--ever. No matter the currently in vogue "revolution", the Church will not change for expediency. She can't change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn't strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this--artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior--the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No--because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of "women's choice" espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:



I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for "women's rights".

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called "religious" as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it's because those who believe in this kind of "enlightenment" are truly dangerous--and yes, evil. This isn't about a woman's choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy--I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Nancy Pelosi is a Liar

Nancy Pelosi on when life begins

On Meet the Depressed...er...Press this morning... 

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...
  
From: Hyscience 

August 24, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Lied On National TV About The Catholic Church's Position On Abortion

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Clearly, unequivocally, and no possible doubt whatsoever, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is either a babbling idiot who makes claims and says things with no thought whatsoever as to the validity of her statements, or she callously and blatantly lied on Meet the Press today while attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life.

Pelosi has decided on her own that Pope Benedict's warning that Catholic politicians that support abortion risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion. She actually told Tom Brokaw that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, she has studied the issue of abortion for a long time and she knows that over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to "make that definition."

... St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child-first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and-to-that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

She even goes on to say that the Catholic Church's present position on the pill began 50 years ago with the event of the pill.
Pelosi is so typical of the liberal Democrats. They see the world and life as they want to see it, and express their distorted perceptions as such, and seldom, if ever, see the world and life as it really is based on the facts and uncontested truth.

For the benefit of Madam Pelosi and the Democratic Party, Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church, and in spite of the attempts of various writers and groups, and even some church authorities and a few popes to the contrary, the history of the position of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder and that it is evil dates back as early as the Didache and remains the same to this day. And as for Pelosi deciding on her own what the position of the Church is at the time of her sitting before Brokaw based upon her own readings and interpretations - if in fact she actually did so, perhaps as a practicing Catholic, as she so claims to be, instead, might consider following her faith as her Pope and mine, Pope Benedict XVI, proclaims. (Which is what a "practicing" Catholic does)

By the way, one cannot honestly say they are a "practicing catholic" and support abortion. Each position unequivocally disqualifies the other.

Related:
Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion.
Abortion is crime against society

Sphere: Related Content

From an Army Rangers' Mouth About Iraq

~Snooper~

Many moons ago, before I joined the consortium of conservative thought here at A Newt One, I blogged elsewhere. During that time outside of A Newt One, sometime in 2007, I had posted a particular You Tube "interview" with an Army Ranger that was begging - literally - for someone to stop the Leftinistra (my term not his) from causing the deaths of his fellow soldiers with their constant assailing the Troops and the President of the United States in a time of war when they should be supporting the Troops so they can win this war that the terrorists started - and come home proud and victorious. This was not to pass because political expediency took precedence over Patriotism, gratitude and that which was right.

Before I repost this video, let it be known that I was so affected by the latest post by Humbled Infidel, that I could not find my post that contained a message that only I could write. Having said that, I will post the verbiage from Humbled Infidel here. But, before I do that, know this. I despise the likes of Nancy Pelosi. Taking it a few steps further, I actually hate her and would not bemoan her demise - from natural causes, naturally.

In more recent posts, I have called for the investigation in regards to the deaths of American Troops both in Iraq and Afghanistan which can be directly attributed to the defaming and blind hatred of President Bush and our Troops by the likes of Nancy Pelosi. She is the ring leader in the Lower House, after all and it is within her power to stop the nonsense. I have conducted a specific investigation of my own and there is a direct correlation to the spikes in attacks on American and Coalition forces fighting in this war. One of those spikes resulted in Spain removing their forces from Iraq which was repaid by yet another terrorist attack in Spain as a heart-felt thank you to Spain from Al Qaida.

Anyone within the construct of government service which conducts themselves such as Nancy Pelosi and her similar ilk in regards to this war, that, by the way, they all signed onto, are a disgrace to this nation and by the very definitions of treason, subversion and sedition, an investigation is in order and charges are required to be levied.

The Army Ranger that has originally called into a radio broadcast show was killed in action fighting a war Pelosi approved of in the first place. Thank you Nancy et al for prolonging this war and contributing to the deaths of the men and women that protect you and thank you Nancy et all for contributing to the deaths of my Brothers In Arms. May you rot in hell. The blood on your hands will never wash away.

Humbled Infidel:
I posted a video "Army Ranger Calls Pleas For The American People To Let Them Finish Their Job in Iraq" on November 16, 2007. Please notice below, Lewismadmax says this Army Ranger was killed in a roadside bomb. My heart is just aching because when this man died, we know these liberal traitors' words where weighing heavy on his heart. Yes these liberal traitors have our Troops blood on their hands! They need to be brought up on charges -

CONVICTED AND PUNISHED.........

1 Cause of PTSD

This reposting of this video was originally placed here at You Tube...on April 27, 2007.

Nancy Pelosi is a war criminal. There are no more men remaining in DC and DC is comprised of cowards and power hungry cretins, of which I hate them all. Men of courage would have stood up to the Pelosis in DC and across the country yet, to this day, they remain silent, the cowards which they are. May they burn for an eternity, damn them all to hell.

Someone asked me to present some sort of data that supported my personal and professional allegations. The above is said data. There are many more and I have them in my possession.

---

Jimmy Z adds: Watching that short film I am reminded how vile and traitorous Harry Reid and Jack Murtha are as well. They are scum. Put them on trial, find them guilty, and string them up for treason right alongside Ms. Pelosi. They are the enemy.

Sphere: Related Content

PELOSI THANKS IRAN FOR KILLING OUR TROOPS

~Snooper~

The latest and greatest produced by our friend, x-dhimmi (deb). And, an OUTSTANDING product indeed!!

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE AMERICA?

Sphere: Related Content

Quick Quiz Otherwise Known as Tired Talking Points

Who said this and when?

"...there is a shortage of trucks, helicopters and other equipment necessary for the disaster clean up effort due to the Iraq war."

And:

"...states all over the country are not only missing personnel, National Guard troops are — about 40 percent of the troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan — but we’re missing the equipment. When the troops get deployed, the equipment goes with them,..."

And:

"...laying blame on America’s effort to destroy terrorism with the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq for hindering fire-fighting efforts in California."

Give up? The quotes were made by two separate women, both Democrats, both suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, during the course of two separate disasters.

The first two quotes were by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius during the Greensburg tornado tragedy in May of this year. The last, by Barbara Boxer.

And it gets better. Here's the "money quote" regarding the California firestorm:

In response to a question on the energy bill, [Harry] Reid said the following:

As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.

Six questions later, a reporter followed up on Reid's amazing statement.

Question: Senator, on the California fires, you said that the reason the fires are burning in California is global warming?


Reid: No. Here's what I - I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming...

The full story of Governor Sibelius can be found at Spree's Wake Up America here, but it later came out she was instructed by both Howard Dean and Dick Durbin NOT to ask for Federal aid after the killer tornado and:

A brief summary: A source apparently close to the situation has told Quinn that Sebelius called Brownback shortly after she made the Katrina-like statement to the press to apologize. She allegedly told Brownback that she had been instructed by Howard Dean and Dick (Durbin?) to blame the fictional “lack of response” to the hurricane on the absence of National Guard troops and equipment, which had been diverted to Iraq (not true).


She said she would not have said these things “unless she had to,” and that she was told not to pass up an opportunity like this.


KS Governor Sebilius (D) said:


1. Howard Dean called me at 5AM this morning and said we needed to “use this”.


2. [Senator] Dick [Durbin] called about two hours later and told me not to ask for federal help.


3. We had “too many” National Guard personnel

TOTALLY exposed as a liar, using a natural disaster for political gain.

And now Boxer and Reid are doing the same thing with the California firestorm.

Trouble is, there are a lot of people in California that aren't going to listen to their spin and certainly aren't going to let it go unchallenged or let it pass. I may disagree with some of Arnold's liberal bents, but he certainly doesn't mince words in a crisis and he doesn't suffer fools lightly.

This is what Arnold had to say to Boxer's nonsense (From Snooper's Take Our Country Back here):

"Anyone that is complaining about the planes just wants to complain, because there's a bunch of nonsense," he said in the broadcast interview. "The fact is that we could have all the planes in the world here -- we have 90 aircraft here and six that we got especially from the federal government -- and they can't fly because of the wind situation."

More from TOCB:

Former State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian was part of thousands of people evacuated from their homes in San Diego County on Monday. Kaloogian lives in San Elijo Hills. Move America Forward’s Vice Chairman, Lt. Colonel Buzz Patterson (USAF, Ret.) has prepared his family for evacuation in Simi Valley, CA, as the Malibu fire is threatening to come over the mountain into populated parts of Ventura County. The family of Move America Forward Grassroots coordinator, Joe Wierzbicki, was forced to evacuate from their homes in Fallbrook to the ocean after flames approached.

“Now is a time for people to come together to help one another during this awful natural disaster. Thousands of Californians have lost their homes, or may lose them in the next 24 hours, and the focus should be on how to help these people, not play petty and pathetic political games,” said Colonel Patterson, Move America Forward Vice Chairman. [Emphasis mine]

Patterson also pointed out that if, “Senator Boxer was so concerned about insufficient military equipment, she should stop voting against military appropriations.” [Emphasis mine]

Besides being shameless, Senator Boxer’s comments are also inaccurate. As Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Paul McHale declared today:

"I can tell you unequivocally that the ongoing war-fighting activities ... have had no negative effect at all (on) our ability to provide sufficient forces to assist civilian authorities in fighting the wildfires.... There is no manpower shortage,” McHale has publicly stated. [Emphasis mine]

Global warming. Iraq. Anything and everything except what the actual truth is: Santa Ana winds and the time of year==California Wildfires.

These people are losing lives, homes, pets, everything they've worked for. More are set to evacuate at a moment's notice. Because of California's many natural disasters, they have an extremely competent relief procedure. They don't need the Boxers or the Reids trying to make everyone "helpless" and "dependent" on the Federal government. California was founded by independent minded people with a will to survive and succeed through adversity. They have the resources they need and everything is running smoothly.

Instead of congratulating them on doing a magnificent job with a relatively low loss of life, these BDS idiots want to hamper them. Well, guess what? They don't need your interference Barbara Boxer. They don't need your mealy-mouthed speculation Harry Reid.

Let's look at some of the reasons why these wildfires become firestorms.

One word--Environmentalists.

Tree huggers more concerned with the latest "endangered species" than with human life and property. Idiots who hamper property owners from keeping brush cleared from around their homes, thus cutting fuel for these wildfires, because some rare, chartreuse footed dingo bird has a nest in a bush--and the nest goes up in flames anyway. By hampering efforts to keep the dead brush cleared away in a timely manner and keeping controlled burns from occurring, a small wildfire becomes a firestorm.

And now, the latest word, is possible arson. I know today while firefighters were fully engaged, an arsonist was arrested as he was setting yet another fire.

And here's a question--California is the home state of SOH Pelosi. So, where is she? Is she on her way to participate in some of the on-going aid efforts for her state constituents?

Nope.

She can't be bothered.

She's going to try an end run with SCHIP while her fellow representatives ARE in their districts helping in any way they can. Absolutely, totally despicable.

Is there no depth too deep for these anti-Americans to stoop in order to further their political gain?

Apparently not.

However, I hope when election time rolls around again, the constituents of California will remember who was there to offer aid, who stayed in Washington to play politics and who tried to spin the politics for political gain. If they continue to elect these immoral cretins after this blatant display of "Washington Musical Chairs for My Benefit" rather than "We the People" then they deserve the kind of representation they will get--exactly what they're being given now.

Disgusting. Playing politics with natural disasters and people's lives for political gain rather than doing their job.

Pray for those involved and their families.

Catch the Wave!

Sphere: Related Content

Pelosi's "Rebuke" of Stark--The Way The Left Fringe "Parents"

Cross posted from Wake Up America and Stop the ACLU!

Of course being a Democratic politician, Nancy Pelosi's rebuke was mild, but even she understood some sort of rebuke was necessary from her, as Speaker of the House, regarding Pete Stark's remarks on the floor of the House. (Hat Tip to Lew for the email)

One of Pete Stark's remarks:

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark accused Republicans. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Nancy Pelosi's mild rebuke: (From the San Francisco Chronicle)

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand - providing health care for America's children," Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said.

This is not the first time Nancy Pelosi has had her own underlings in the Democratic party undermine her as she was trying to focus everyones attention on SCHIP.

Right before the SCHIP veto by the president, you might remember that Nancy was upset that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) decided to unveil his Iraq "war tax" idea, which raged through the blogosphere for about 4 hours before Nancy nixed it publicly, upset that Obey had shifted focus from SCHIP to the war tax, at a critical time.

The Democratic party cannot seem to stay on the same page. Almost like the left hand having no clue what the right hand is doing.

This type of rhetoric from Stark is not new though, his past is strife with him making inappropriate comments, one time, in 2003, the police even had to be called to the hearing.

In 1990, Stark told Health and Human Services Director Louis Sullivan, an African American, that he was a disgrace to his race.

In 2001, Stark made a reference to the children of Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., all being "born out of wedlock. Patently untrue, but that rarely matters to Stark who is known as a back bencher that cannot control his tongue.

He also accused Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., of being a "whore for the insurance industry.

In 2003, Stark, called Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., "a little wimp" and a "little fruitcake" -- and suggested the two should step outside. Capitol police were called to the hearing. (Source)

It is pretty bad when the San Francisco Chronicle says:

Surely there must be someone along the shoreline between Alameda and Fremont who could represent the good citizens of the district with class and dignity. It's not the case now.

Republican politicians had some critical words for Pete Stark following his latest outburst.

John Boehner issued a press release:

“Our troops in Iraq are fighting against al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists hellbent on killing the people we are sent here to represent. Congressman Stark’s statement dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America’s armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security. Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas. ”

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas:

"It is despicable to have a member of this Congress accuse this president, any president, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, blowing the heads off our young men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the remarks:

"were hateful and wrong, and should be labeled as such by the House Democrat leadership."

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri:

Pete Stark’s statements on the House floor this afternoon crossed all lines of decency and decorum. As a member of Congress, he should be ashamed. But as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee –- and the current chairman of its Health subcommittee –- the Democratic leadership ought to be ashamed as well.”

Steny Hoyer (D) said Stark's remarks were "unfortunate" and "totally inappropriate", he then went on to say that he's hopeful that Stark will express his regrets because he says that these comments have been a distraction and CNN is told that several Democratic lawmakers have called Stark today and made it clear that what Stark said on the House floor yesterday was hurting their cause.

That comment from Hoyer is not going to make the lunatic fringe of their party very happy at all, because the far left, liberal, unhinged portion of the party do not want Stark to apologize and those are the people that lead Stark by the nose. Some even claim it is only the Republicans that are upset at Stark, completely ignoring Pelosi's words, Hoyer's words and the fact that other Democratic politicians are calling Stark to make him apologize.

The National Republican Campaign Committee issued a press release:

DEMOCRAT DISGRACE:
Pete Stark Drags SCHIP Political Circus to All-Time Low
Washington – Just moments ago, in an outrageous and delusional tantrum on the House floor, California Congressman Pete Stark trampled on the sacrifice of our troops fighting on the frontlines while simultaneously questioning the motivations of the Commander-in-Chief in wartime.

(For those getting this from the email subscription to Wake up America, the video shown above can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lTUB5_l0Mg )

Pete Stark and the Democrat leadership owe the American people an apology, the troops and their families an apology, and they should apologize to the millions of children being held political hostage by their party’s desperate attempt to score a political victory instead of providing healthcare for those who need it most.

While Pelosi and Hoyer are upset about Stark "distracting" from the SCHIP issue, Stark's insane cheer leading squad from the far left are encouraging him.

More proof that they party is not only divided but the fringes have the uncanny ability to work against the leadership of their own party, which is one reason they cannot seem to get anything done and are running at a 11% approval rating.

Can any one say.... self destruct mode?

[Update] Gateway Pundit shows that when the nutroots cannot win an argument, they simply lie about it.

Nutrooters Crooks and Liars discovers that if you can’t possibly win an argument over the latest disgusting anti-military, anti-Bush remarks by a Democratic politician…
Then just lie about it.

Sphere: Related Content

American Family Association ("AFA") Alert: Religious Words Such as God, Lord BANNED by Architect of the U.S Capitol

The Architect of the Capitol is responsible to the United States Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United States Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.

Currently, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, AOC's Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, in accordance with P.L. 108-7, is serving as Acting Architect of the Capitol until a new Architect is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The above definition of the position and current position holder of Architect of the U.S. Capitol can be found here.

Someone please tell me where it states this position has the authority to eliminate religious terms, without vetting, and simply on his "views"? Yet--that is exactly what he's done regarding certificates of authenticity for flags flown over the Capitol.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Who gave him this authority? Who ok'd this?

Were it not for AFA, I never would have known about this--would you? With that in mind, I'm printing the entire email I received from AFA:

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol Contact your congressman and senators today! Dear [Redacted], According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation's legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: "under God" in the pledge, "God bless you," or "in the year of our Lord, 2007." Never before has this official prohibition been leveled. Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates. Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed. The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office. Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran's 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: "This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot -- to love God, family, and country. We love you!" When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times). Take Action! Forward this to your family and friends. Take Action Send an e-mail to your representative and two senators. Ask them to put a stop to this nonsense. A low-level employee should not have the authority to ban the use of religious words. Forward this to your family and friends and ask them to send an e-mail to their representatives and senators. If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please consider making a donation to help us continue? Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman American Family Association P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

*********************

Here is the article referencing Capitol Flag Policy in the above alert:

Article published Oct 6, 2007
Capitol flag policy assailed

October 6, 2007

By Audrey Hudson -

A group of Republican lawmakers is demanding the architect of the U.S. Capitol reverse a policy that bans the use of the word "God" on flag certificates sent to constituents.

Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio said one of his constituents, Paul Larochelle, recently requested to receive a flag that had flown over the Capitol. Mr. Larochelle's son had hoped to present the flag and the accompanying certificate to his grandfather, an Army veteran.

The Larochelles wanted the certificate's inscription to read, in part: "In honor of my grandfather, Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country and family." However, when the flag and the certificate arrived at Mr. Turner's office from the architect of the U.S. Capitol's office, which handles the Capitol flag program, the word "God" had been eliminated.

Mr. Turner said he requested an explanation from the architect's office, which cited one of its 14 Flag Office Services rules. The rule states, "... religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates."

Mr. Turner — along with fellow Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Randy Neugebauer of Texas and Steve Pearce of New Mexico — complained in a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the architect's office had "informed several congressional offices that the use of the word 'God' violates the rule." [Emphasis mine].

"This is an abuse of power, plain and simple," Mr. Neugebauer said. "Using the nonpartisan position of maintaining the Capitol to decide what citizens can have written on their flag certificates is unacceptable."

Stephen T. Ayers has been acting architect of the U.S. Capitol since February, when his predecessor, Alan M. Hantman, retired. Mr. Ayers' spokeswoman was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The lawmakers are asking Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, to review the authority under which the architect's office made the rules and that the policy "which censors our citizens' right to expressions of their faith" be reversed. [Emphasis mine]

They also point out that as the custodian of the Capitol, the architect is responsible for a building inscribed with many religious references, including "In God We Trust" in the House and Senate chambers.

"The architect's policy is in direct conflict with his charge as well as the scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a building containing many national religious symbols," the lawmakers stated.

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said a Democratic proposal may help solve the problem. [Emphasis mine]

The proposal would have the architect certify that the flag was flown, and then a member of Congress could add the constituent's message separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. [Emphasis mine]

"It will be resolved in the near future," he said.

Lawmakers receive more than 100,000 requests from constituents each year for flags that have flown over the Capitol.

********************
Who wants to lay odds Pelosi's office won't do a damn thing? Even her "solution" of flying the flag and later inscribing the certificate with what the constituent wants doesn't address nor alleviate the fact this non-elected official has taken it upon himself to do as he pleases. She simply wants to allow him to continue to do so rather than order him to follow the rules.

Sign the petition and contact your representatives about this. Just another piece of throwing our values under the bus and play politics for the dems. Disgusting.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

[Update] People were heard and God is once again allowed on the certificates.

Sphere: Related Content

Democratic Supporters: Nancy Pelosi is Weak

Cross posted from Wake up America

Don't shoot the messenger, although I agree and I have often made the point, this time, it isn't the nasty ole, Wake up America, right leaning blog, saying it...it is a far left liberal Democratic blog that has issued this brilliant deduction.

That's right, one of the farthest to the left leaning, liberal blogs has declared Nancy Pelosi is weak... Huffington Post to be exact.

If there was any doubt before, which there wasn't, it's gone now. Watching Nancy Pelosi on The View yesterday morning provided the final proof that the backbone of the House is only as strong as its speaker. Her body language said it all. There she sat in the center of the table, sandwiched between Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the "Is the world flat? I don't know" lady, looking anxious and devoid of stately confidence. She could barely look in the eyes of America's Favorite True Believer on her left, who immediately smelled fear and pounced on her prey. "If the violence in Iraq had gone up," she started in (I'm paraphrasing), "you would be insisting that the surge was a failure. Now that the reports say it's gone down drastically, aren't you willing to admit that the surge is a success?" So what does Pelosi do? Does she make like Bill Clinton versus Chris Wallace, lean into her face and retort "young lady, don't try that little conservative hit job on me. You obviously don't know fudged numbers when you see them"? No. Instead she looks somewhere in Hasselbeck's general direction and squeaks meekly, "But that's still a lot of deaths." (I'm not paraphrasing). She then quickly changes the subject as she spends the rest of the interview leaning away from Hasselbeck and focusing on the three women on her right, wishing to God they had sat her down beside Whoopi.

Now although Huffington Post and I come to the same conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is, indeed, weak, spineless and had no backbone, we critically disagree on the reason.

In my mind, Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "On Monday came news that U.S. military deaths in Iraq fell to 64 in September, the fourth straight drop since peaking at 121 in May and driving the toll to a 14-month low."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "Civilian deaths also have plunged, dropping by more than half from August to 884. Remember just six months ago all the talk of an Iraqi "civil war"? That seems to be fading."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "The just-ended holy month of Ramadan in Iraq was accompanied by a 40% drop in violence, even though al-Qaida had vowed to step up attacks."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "Speaking of al-Qaida, the terrorist group appears to be on the run, and possibly on the verge of collapse — despite making Iraq the center of its war for global hegemony and a new world order based on precepts of fundamentalist Islam."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "Military officials say U.S. troops have killed Abu Usama al-Tunisi, a Tunisian senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq who was responsible for bringing foreign fighters into the country. Not surprisingly, the pace of foreign fighters entering Iraq has been more than halved from the average of 60 to 80 a month."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "Last month, 1,200 Iraqis waited patiently in line in Iraq's searing heat to sign up to fight al-Qaida. They will join an estimated 30,000 volunteers in the past six months — a clear sign the tide has turned in the battle for average Iraqis' hearts and minds."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "Finally, and lest you think it's all death and destruction, there's this: Five million Iraqi children returned to school last week, largely without incident, following their summer vacations."

Nancy Pelosi is weak because she hasn't got the spine to stand up to her far left liberal supporters and say: "None of this, of course, is accidental. The surge of 28,500 new troops announced by President Bush last February, and put in place in mid-June by Gen. Petraeus, seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida, though still a potent foe capable of committing mass atrocities, has been backpedaling furiously."

So, I do agree Nancy Pelosi is weak and has no spine. She hasn't the backbone to tell the liberal left to shut up and look at the progress that is being seen in Iraq. She doesn't have the backbone to tell her supporters that now that we are seeing progress, it isn't the time to try to "change course" yet again, the last change seems to be working.

She hasn't got the integrity to admit she was wrong as were her supporters and drag them, kicking and screaming, if need be, into declaring, as a country, we WANT TO WIN, we want to see victory and we want our troops to come home in triumph and they are well on to their way to doing just that.

She wants to keep calling this a Republican war, fine, so be it.

If the success and progress our brave troops are seeing continues, then it will be remembered that the Republicans fought for victory while the spineless Pelosi & Co. let her far left liberal supporters dictate that she had to wish for defeat and actively fight for it.

I agree with Huffington Post for once, Nancy Pelosi is weak, spineless and has no backbone.

She is incapable of seeing that success and progress can be embraced by the Democratic party if only the unhinged portion of it could be stood up to by her and her party.

Sphere: Related Content