Partisan POS Pelosi Polemic Prose Purge Prompts Protest
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:04 pm
Despite her pre-election assurance...
Pelosi says don't be afraid of Democrat control
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 | 10:28 AM
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... id=6473426
House Democrats muzzle GOP on sensitive issues
Jul 16 03:42 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
Yet, even when the Republicans agreed to limit the duration of their debate, Pelosi refused to allow them to participate in debate/deliberations. Clearly her dystopian agenda is to censor all non-liberal dissenting opinion, an assertion I as well as most conservative pundits have rightfully alleged throughout her tenure as Speaker. Yet, while partisanship seemed an unpalatable practice when she was House Democratic Leader under a Republican Speakership...
It is incomprehensible for any person aligned with any pro-U.S. political party to condone or remain silent during such a blatant unconstitutional censorship. Politics, by definition, is an interaction, debate, and study to develop methods of governance: As with any "body", removing roughly half of that "body's" potential may allow the remaining half sole control of the "body's" direction, but with the unused half acting as dead weight, the potential of the "whole" has in effect been nullified. And as sure as the Sun rises, those who sophomorishly dismiss such conduct as "politics as usual", will find the medicine quite unpalatable once the political pendulum swings back as it inevitably always does.
Pelosi says don't be afraid of Democrat control
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 | 10:28 AM
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... id=6473426
...the single most incompetent Congressional leader ever to hold office has not only locked out Republicans in the most partisan leadership demonstration in the history of Congress, she has repeatedly lied about her bipartisan inclusion policies, repeatedly rescinding her promises whenever the Republicans acquiesce to her demands......on concerns that Democrats might control both the White House and Congress she said the following:
"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said Pelosi....
House Democrats muzzle GOP on sensitive issues
Jul 16 03:42 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
In light of the Democrat leadership's practice of withholding partisan conference committee legislation scheduled for floor vote until the last minute, often only posting scanned images of the completed bill on the Speaker's website the night before a vote (in the case of the stimulus bill, exactly 14 hours before the vote), the alleged "delaying tactics", which Pelosi's spokesperson apparently cites as reason for the Speakers unethical, if not unconstitutional, misconduct, seems not only appropriate, but unquestionably in the best interest of all Americans.WASHINGTON (AP) - In their zeal to protect their members from politically hazardous votes on issues such as gay marriage and gun control, Democrats running the House of Representatives are taking extraordinary steps to muzzle Republicans in this summer's debates on spending bills.
On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government's contribution to the District of Columbia's city budget.
No way, Democrats said...
...At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs—usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.
The tradition has often meant laborious debates. But it has allowed lawmakers with little seniority to have their say on doling out the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year. It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., insists the clampdown is to prevent debates from dragging on and on. Republicans, however, have agreed to limit the amount of time debating the bills.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged in a brief interview that one reason for restricting amendments is to save members of his party from having to cast politically painful votes...
...Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party's leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.
Democrats effectively reversed that stance while the bill was still being considered by the Appropriations Committee. Stupak said the Democratic leadership's new policy on floor debates "muzzles the voices of pro-life members."
The process has become so relentlessly efficient that Democrats were actually forced to drag out action to Thursday on a $33 billion measure funding energy programs and water projects. The reason? They need to stretch the workweek into Friday to force lawmakers to remain in Washington for committee work on health care and other spending bills...
...Democrats say that months ago, they offered Republicans the chance for a more open process in return for a guarantee that Republicans wouldn't drag things out. Republicans initially said no but recently have agreed to limit how long a bill can be debated. Too late, say Democrats.
"We offered Republicans the opportunity to work with us in a bipartisan way to offer amendments so we could complete the appropriations process in a timely manner," said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "They rejected that offer and have repeatedly used delaying tactics."
Yet, even when the Republicans agreed to limit the duration of their debate, Pelosi refused to allow them to participate in debate/deliberations. Clearly her dystopian agenda is to censor all non-liberal dissenting opinion, an assertion I as well as most conservative pundits have rightfully alleged throughout her tenure as Speaker. Yet, while partisanship seemed an unpalatable practice when she was House Democratic Leader under a Republican Speakership...
...it not only has become the Democrats accepted practice, but practiced with shameless dishonesty in direct conflict with the Framer's intent of guaranteeing freedom of debate withing the House of Representatives, the body SPECIFICALLY, constitutionally empowered to REPRESENT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, in contrast to the Senate's role as State representatives.( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 734-8240r/ ) ...Buried deep in the massive House spending-cut proposal is a provision to do what many conservatives have been wanting to do for years: split up the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allow President Bush to appoint some new judges to it....
...The provision prompted immediate outrage from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who said there is "no justification" for it.
"Today's action is the latest in a series of Republican attacks on an independent judiciary, and the latest in financial irresponsibility by the Republican majority," she said. "It is simply a partisan exercise to appease the radical right."
It is incomprehensible for any person aligned with any pro-U.S. political party to condone or remain silent during such a blatant unconstitutional censorship. Politics, by definition, is an interaction, debate, and study to develop methods of governance: As with any "body", removing roughly half of that "body's" potential may allow the remaining half sole control of the "body's" direction, but with the unused half acting as dead weight, the potential of the "whole" has in effect been nullified. And as sure as the Sun rises, those who sophomorishly dismiss such conduct as "politics as usual", will find the medicine quite unpalatable once the political pendulum swings back as it inevitably always does.
