Third In Line: President Pelosi

| | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

"Third in line" means, if the Democrats manage to take both bodies of Congress on Tuesday, and also manage to impeach and convict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, here's your new President of the United States:


pelosi_lg.jpg

Planning to punish the Republicans? Consider President Pelosi on the issues:

Typical for her 20-year House career, Mrs. Pelosi received a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America last year and a 0 rating from the National Right to Life Committee. A Roman Catholic who has repeatedly voted to uphold partial-birth abortion, who has voted against parental notification when minor children seek abortion and who has shown no concern for the rights of the innocent unborn, Mrs. Pelosi has consistently opposed the death penalty.

Over the years, Mrs. Pelosi has consistently voted against welfare reform, including the 1996 bill signed by President Clinton and its re-authorization. In 1998, she opposed a constitutional amendment to permit school prayer in the classroom. In 1999, she opposed allowing state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property, including schools. She has voted against education IRAs. In 2003, she opposed a $10 million program for school vouchers in the District of Columbia. That same year she voted against the 10-year $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug bill because she preferred one that was twice as expensive. Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly voted for tax increases and opposed tax cuts, even the 2001 bill that doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, among other cuts.

As the United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for oil, Mrs. Pelosi has always opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...


A couple more nuggets:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
[Ed. - Whoops.]

The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile.


Check out more of Nancy Pelosi's positions especially on illegal immigration and tax reform.

UPDATE: I realize Pelosi could also be described as "second in line" since there is only Cheney ahead of her and Bush is not "in line." I'm not really a numbers guy.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Third In Line: President Pelosi.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/698

11 Comments

Had Enough said:

Pelosi's winery in CA depends on illegal aliens according to this article:

Pelosi's illegal alien employees
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6512

"Pelosi’s steadfast opposition to any attempts to enhance border security and stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. all the more interesting since she seems to be among those rich employers who financially benefit from a steady supply of cheap foreign labor."

A vote for her and people like her is a vote to give this country away.


anon said:

Todays Wash Post, pA4. - “The picture in the House remains grim for Republicans, with analysts from both parties predicting that Democrats will pick up the 15 seats they need for the majority and possibly twice that number.”

“If George Allen hasn’t closed the sale yet, Rothenberg said, it’s going to be hard for him to do it.”

“The bottom just fell out, said Amy Walter, a House analyst at the non-partisan Cook Political report. Her publication predicted yesterday that Republicans will lose 20 to 35 seats. Rothenberg predicted a 34 to 40 Democratic gain. The House is gone he said.”

crossposted from TC

e-tranger said:

Wow, I hadn't realized just how good her voting record is. Thanks for the box of information!

Still, perhaps you're being a little optimistic on this impeachment business. BOTH the incumbent AND Cheney?

Anon, of course it's grim. It's ALWAYS grim, if you recall. in Nov 2004 it was still very grim about 6:00 pm on election night. With absentee ballots to be counted, we mey not know who controls which house until the end of the week. That being said, I agree it does not look good for the GOP.

Etranger - wise guy.

Honestly, my bigger fear would be they take over both houses and DON'T impeach the sonofabitch but collude to open the borders permanently.

Don't tell anyone, but this year I'll be too busy to campaign so I'm going through the motions here. Expect more agitprop in the coming days.

zimzo said:

Yes, it would be so scary if Democrats took over Congress. Then the Bush Administration couldn't get away with things like this story about how Bush cronies secretly snuck in a provision to a bill to close the office of the audior in Iraq who investigated rampant corruption there:

Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: November 3, 2006

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

Mr. Bowen’s office has inspected and audited taxpayer-financed projects like this prison in Nasiriya, Iraq.
And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

Mr. Bowen’s office, which began operation in January 2004 to examine reconstruction money spent in Iraq, was always envisioned as a temporary organization, permitted to continue its work only as long as Congress saw fit. Some advocates for the office, in fact, have regarded its lack of a permanent bureaucracy as the key to its aggressiveness and independence.

But as the implications of the provision in the new bill have become clear, opposition has been building on both sides of the political aisle. One point of contention is exactly when the office would have naturally run its course without a hard end date.

The bipartisan opposition may not be unexpected given Mr. Bowen’s Republican credentials — he served under George W. Bush both in Texas and in the White House — and deep public skepticism on the Bush administration’s conduct of the war.

Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who followed the bill closely as chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, says that she still does not know how the provision made its way into what is called the conference report, which reconciles differences between House and Senate versions of a bill.

Neither the House nor the Senate version contained such a termination clause before the conference, all involved agree.

“It’s truly a mystery to me,” Ms. Collins said. “I looked at what I thought was the final version of the conference report and that provision was not in at that time.”

“The one thing I can confirm is that this was a last-minute insertion,” she said.

...

“It appears to me that the administration wants to silence the messenger that is giving us information about waste and fraud in Iraq,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform.

“I just can’t see how one can look at this change without believing it’s political,” he said.

The termination language was inserted into the bill by Congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008.

I made a video about this very possibility at the link.

zimzo said:

Here's a better video:
________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr5tx0lcyQc&eurl=

albert g said:

The winery issue is bull. Here's an abc news investigation.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4804677

John said:

The real issue is not whether Nancy Polosi should receive Communion. If she makes public statements, repeatedly, contrary to fundamental dogma and morals as proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church, then she must first be warned and cautioned, and as necessary instructed, that her immortal soul is in the gravest danger.

Should she then willfully persist, she must be accused of heresy and, following proper ecclessiastical inquiry and trial, if found to be a persistent and unrepentant public heretic, she must, these being modern times, not be turned over to the secular authorities to be burnt alive to ashes at the stake, but cast out from the body of all the faithful, anathema to all members of the Body of Christ, forever and eternally damned with Satan and all his minions of evil in hell - excommunicate.

As her heresy was public, so to must be her excommunication.

This was the policy adopted long ago in the case of the obscure rebel monk, Dr. Martin Luther.

However, as I recall, he burnt the Papal Bull of Excommunication in the public square surrounded by a vast, cheering multitude, and damned its author as the current embodiment of the Anti-Christ...and there, too, hangs a consequence, a little theological contretemps called The Protestant Reformation, which tore the "seamless garment of the Bride of Christ" to tattered rags, and divided the Brethren in Christ into warring factions, perhaps to the end of the world itself.

One does not, after all, become a Cardinal Prince of the Church, a Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch or Metropolitan for nothing. At these very senior levels, charged with ultimate responsibility for the long-term protection and welfare of Holy Mother Church, they must be as wise as serpents as well as pure as lambs. At this highest level of ultimate responsibility, a kind of theological "raison d'etat" may suggest the greater wisdom of negotiation, prevarication, persuasion and, yes, even looking aside...

That's got to be spam. If anyone can discern relevance, please clue me in.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM