And she ducked it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, publicly stated earlier this year that she had a duty to pursue policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, the “Word made Flesh.” But at a press briefing last week, when reminded of this statement, Pelosi declined to say when Jesus got the right to life.
“Whenever it was,” said Pelosi, “we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”
Video on the CNSNews page also which is worth a watch.
She had no problem discussing “The Word” being made flesh last spring, though. Up until the CNSNews reporter sticks it to here in a recent press conference.You might notice too that she never mentions the name of Jesus or invokes God in her little phoney monologue.
What fake reverence and total hypocrisy of this woman. I cannot believe that her constituents don’t see these same character flaws that we see. But then, look at Rep. Stark and his history.
She is disgusting to watch.
(I love Father Jonathan and never miss him on Fox if I can help it.)
The last 2 minutes of this video, Laura Ingraham discusses Pelosi and her meeting with the Pope and her Catholicism:
This is a very interesting question that I think many Catholics don’t want to face. Did Jesus have a right to life at conception? If you believe that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary (what we Catholics call the Immaculate Conception) then you have to believe that all life begins at conception – not at some arbitrary date in the gestation of the not-yet-born.
Science is improving and making great strides every year. That arbitrary date of a “viable fetus” will change in the future. Babies will be viable earlier and earlier outside the uterus.
These are moral questions that have to be confronted by the individual and not by the government.
Going forward, the [Tea Party] movement will face some challenges. Will it become a legitimate third party or will it stay as an anti-Obama protest group? For now, these folks are scaring liberal America big time. Bill O’Reilly
Tax day Tea Party in Phoenix
Why do these people all believe that the Tea Party is strictly an anti-Obama movement? When even Fox doesn’t get it, we have a message problem.
I’m no Tea Party expert and I’ve been on the fringes of the movement – attending a few events and not joining or volunteering for any one close to home – but from what I have seen and read, the party has multiple issues and grievances with many politicians in both parties. The biggest issue is a return to the Constitution and rule of law. If Obama is guilty of not upholding his oath, then yes, he’s one of the party’s problems. There are dozens of republicans and democrats in office who have not stood by their oaths, as well.
Read the Contract From America and while you’re there, sign it. It spells out, in 10 points, very clearly what the Partiers want to see addressed and made right again.
There’s no denying that Obama is a big issue for them (us). He is unquestionably the most left president we have ever had. Yes, we had 8 years of Bush and too much spending and yes, it should not have happened and our Republican congress is heavily to blame for it. But we have been pushed to the left so far and so fast – and Obama has done this – that we are awake and not going to stand for it.
We need to reframe the message and make sure that it’s not all Obama, all the time. The left is writing the narrative and just like the Constitution, we need to take the story back!
~~~ooOoo~~~
A great audio at BigGovernment.com
Lengthy (9 minutes) but worth listening to. He talks about screwing with the Tea Party via twitter, how they can’t stop punching O’Reilly in the nose and how net neutrality isn’t dead, among other things.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
William McGurn/WallStreetJournal
Is there an IRS agent in your future?
Shortly before Barack Obama signed the health-care bill, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee created a stir with a report suggesting our new law will lead the Internal Revenue Service to hire as many as 16,500 new agents. The Republicans came up with the figure by extrapolating from the IRS budget, the amount spent on employees, and the $10 billion in new funding that the Congressional Budget Office says the IRS will need to meet its new responsibilities under this legislation.
It’s made for some heated debate. In an entertaining segment on the Fox News Channel last week, host Bill O’Reilly tried to get Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) to admit that the IRS would have to enforce the penalty tax for people who refused both to get the mandated coverage and to pay the penalty. Mr. Weiner accused Mr. O’Reilly of “making stuff up.” The next day, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman seemed to settle the question in Mr. Weiner’s favor when he testified to Congress that IRS agents are not going to be auditing taxpayers to verify that they’ve obtained acceptable health insurance.
Or did he?
The individual mandate remains one of the murkiest bits of this legislation. During the 2008 primaries, Mr. Obama criticized rival Hillary Clinton for favoring such a mandate. He later changed his mind, for one big reason: There’s no way to afford expensive provisions such as forcing insurance companies to cover people with, say, pre-existing conditions unless millions of healthy people who won’t need insurance are forced to pay into the system. With the mandate, the government gets more healthy people into the risk pool—and with the penalty it gets their money whether they buy coverage or not.
In testimony before a House Ways and Means subcommittee last Thursday, the IRS commissioner deflected questions about the agency’s precise role vis-à-vis health care. Mr. Shulman reassured citizens that this bill does not “fundamentally alter” their relationship with the IRS, and said the IRS would not be snooping into their health records. About the penalties associated with the mandate, he was less clear.
Partly that’s because the law is unclear. The original House bill opened the door for criminal sanctions against Americans who didn’t buy health insurance and pay the penalty. The Senate bill did the same until Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.) successfully pushed to amend the bill. Even so, the final language begs the question that Mr. Shulman and Mr. Weiner avoided: Who’s going to enforce the mandate, and how?
It’s more than a theoretical proposition. Approximately one in six drivers goes without auto insurance, according to the Insurance Research Council, even though most states require it. As for health coverage, the U.S. Census says that Massachusetts’ has the nation’s lowest rate of uninsured at 5.4%, thanks in part to its own individual mandate. Even so, costs have exploded and fines for not carrying coverage are increasing.
Almost by definition, those hit by the mandate will be either young people starting out, or those working for smaller businesses that do not provide employees with health coverage. Back in November, a report by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that nearly half (46%) of the mandate penalties will be paid by Americans under 300% of the poverty line.
In today’s dollars, that works out to $32,500 for an individual. For a family of four, it’s $66,150. Generally speaking, these are not the folks who have to worry about paying taxes on, say, a villa in the Dominican Republic or income from the International Monetary Fund.
So we are left with one of two possibilities. The first is that the penalty for not having “minimal essential coverage” is fully enforced, in which case Americans of relatively modest means will get a lesson in how the government deals with people who don’t pay up.
Or the penalty for violating the individual mandate will become like the fines for not filling out your Census form. In other words, unenforced. In that case, the costs of this legislation will be even higher and more hidden than we have been led to believe.
In his appearance before Congress, Mr. Shulman stated he was still working on “the proper resources” the IRS would need to handle the tax provisions of the health-care act. Maybe that won’t mean 16,500 new agents. If the Republicans do manage to take back Congress come November, however, it should mean hearings in which Mr. Shulman provides the American people with specific answers about how much bigger the IRS is going to get because of this bill—and how exactly the IRS will deal with Americans who don’t pay the penalty tax.
Then again, that’s something Congress might have done before passing the bill.
Our Charge is to Protect the Blessings of Freedom
9/11 Never Forget
 | DRS on Who is Peter Joseph? I think,… |
 | Dena on On Birthdays, Anniversaries an… |
 | bydesign001 on Protesting hypocrites |
| bydesign001 on Protesting hypocrites |
 | AFVet on What We Didn’t Know About the… |
 | roxannadanna on What We Didn’t Know About the… |
| AFVet on What We Didn’t Know About the… |
 | funnyclimatechange on A Future Fox News Alert? |
 | rick headlee on Thank you all |
 | Tammy on Stand with Israel. Sign the… |
Helmets for all!
“Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun,” 31-year-old Faisal Shahzad told a federal judge. “Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow.”
click image
"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever...we absorbed it and we are stronger."
from The Patriot Post
Click to sign the Mt. Vernon Statement
Click to Adopt a Soldier
Electing Senate Conservatives
Diary of a Mad Conservative 