Speaker Pelosi Bolsters Democrats in Birmingham
Posted by Glynn Wilson on May 3rd, 2008
The first woman Speaker of the United States House of Representatives came to Birmingham this week to try and bolster an Alabama Democratic Party that has been rocked by scandal in recent years.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco addressed a packed HealthSouth conference center and gave powerful lip service to the "disrupters" in American history, from the founders of the American Revolution to the leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
Yet her remarks were anything but revolutionary or particularly disruptive.
She talked bad about the war in Iraq, the foundering economy and how the Bush administration has turned the Justice Department into a political arm of the White House and the Republican Party's election apparatus, and she received the strongest response when she recognized former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, recently released from prison, to a standing ovation.
But her address was couched in the most politically safe terminology possible, lest she offend some Alabama mother who might see her on the evening news.
She offered very little to the true progressive community in the country or this state.
As I commented to Siegelman after the main show, I considered showing my own disruptive nature by going up to the Speaker and asking her this:
If the Iraq War is so bad, why haven't you led the fight to de-fund it in the Congress?
If the Bush administration is so bad and corrupt, why have you not led the fight to impeach Bush in the House, where impeachment proceedings must begin according to the Constitution?
Why hasn't Pelosi done what is right? The Republicans were sure to get her involved early on concerning torture and other illegal tactics. If she goes after them, they will point back at her that she knew and went along with them. She was told about the torture and did nothing. She didn't stand up to them. She was intimidated. She feared them. She feared for her position. She feared that they would use "national security" to silence her and to label her a traitor, etc. She feared that she wouldn't be able to convince enough of the public to back the truth. She feared the corporate media that is owned by people with a huge interest in expanding Empire at the direct expense of anyone standing in their way. What else could it be? If there are other reasons, they'd only add gasoline to the fire. If there are back room deals or if there is personal dirt, that would only add to her reasons not to fight for truth.
Certainly the reasons she's given in public are extremely weak. The nation is much worse off by not cleaning house. The precedent she is setting is terrible. It should not and will not stick. The system she is supporting will be overturned by truth.
She's been told, yet she won't repent. She hasn't turned to do the right things.
Is she waiting until she thinks it will be safer — when the Democrats have a majority in both houses and hold the presidency? If so, that's a huge error.
The iron was hot immediately after the 2006 elections.
Also, so-called president Bush has the lowest ratings in history.
Nevertheless, he's still very much capable of doing horrendously terrible things. He's foolish enough to attack Iran if the Likudniks and US neocons swell his head with enough fantasy. It doesn't take much. His Threshold is very low. He's not very bright. He's risen way above the level of his incompetency. That makes him a puppet.
If Pelosi is just letting Bush do the Empire's dirty work, taking down potential or upcoming rivals, and thinks she will then criticize and ride even higher on a larger wave against the neocons, the blood will be on her hands too for not having acted in time to stop Bush and his neocon fascists.
She's playing along with them way too much. She is too compromising. She is working it too much. She's willing to do deals with the devil.
She'll agree to a so-called free-trade deal with Columbia in the face of Columbia's fascistic regime killing more labor organizers than anywhere else on the planet and supporting death squads just so she can get some domestic concessions from Bush.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)