The Federalist reports that Nancy Pelosi wants to keep churches closed. When asked to comment on her archbishop’s statement that the state and local governments’ restrictions on worship violate the First Amendment, the Speaker said,
With all due respect to my Archbishop, I think we should follow science on this. And again with faith and science, sometimes they’re countered to each other.
Mrs. Pelosi is wrong in multiple ways in her statement. First, there is less science involved the medical response to the Wuhan virus pandemic than many people imagine. Good medicine, like good engineering, uses scientific knowledge and principles to the extent they are available and applicable to the case at hand, but sometimes a new problem must be dealt with without existing good scientific knowledge available. Guesswork based on experience may or may not give an optimal solution, and some guesses will be wrong. Today’s news about Nashville’s wrongheaded response in closing certain business is just one example of how fallible public health officials, mayors, and governors have been. Continuing to act as if a failed hypothesis is correct in bad science.
Second, while her invocation of science is bad science, her theology is even worse. Without exception, apparent contradictions between what we think we understand from science and theology wind up being caused by a lack of clear understanding of what one or both of them are trying to tell us—or from asking one of them to answer questions about which it has no answers. Science tells us how. Religion tells us why. (See the posts under the Science and the Bible tab in the menu above for more on this point.)
Third, her due respect for the pastoral authority of her Archbishop requires that she submit to his spiritual leadership. If she can not or will not, she has a limited range of options. She can go full Karen and speak with his manager. The Pope would probably take her phone call. (Come to think of it, she might even get support from Pope Francis.) Her other honest choice is to leave the Catholic Church. I expect she will do neither.
The voters of San Francisco are getting what they voted for. Good and hard.
… Nancy Pelosi turned down a date to obey local masking requirements because she had to wash her hair.
… and it hasn’t been for almost a decade. The Obama administration began phasing out paper checks in 2011, and since March, 2013, all new applications for Social Security benefits must include sign-up for electronic payments to a bank, credit union, or a savings and loan account or to an EBT card. The only exemptions are for people with certain disabilities such as as mental impairment or who live in remote geographic location where electronic payments may be prohibitive. I received my first Social Security “check” in 2013 by direct deposit.
You’d would think that a mentally competent person in her late 70’s would be aware of how she receives her Social Security benefits, but the Speaker of the House seems to think that checks are still being mailed. She sent this as the opening paragraph of a message explaining why she was calling the House back from the August recess in order to vote on the “Delivering for America Act” to prohibit the Postal Service from changing levels of service from what they were on 1 January, 2020.BTW, the “Delivering for America Act” could be a dumb idea on multiple levels. An improvement in service is a change; are improvements forbidden? Also, there was no mail delivery on New Year’s Day, 2020. Without mail delivery, it’s going to be hard to use mail-in ballots for the November election. (OTOH, that may be feature rather than a bug.)
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
Jeff Dunetz has a post over at The Lid asking some questions about how things will go in the aftermath of the House Impeachment Hoax. This one’s my favorite.
When nasty Nancy ripped up the copy of the State of the Union Address, Speaker Pelosi broke the record for pettiness. Wouldn’t it be fun if, at next year’s SOTU, President Trump gave Pelosi the transcript of his speech on an iPad? I, for one, would love to see her struggle to break the screen when Trump’s speech was over.
Perhaps Shadow can create an app for that.
And the week isn’t over yet.
Yep. Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
Nancy Pelosi allowed the forces on her left wing to go a bridge too far. She tried to find a way to salvage the House Impeachment Hoax, but she’s been outmaneuvered by Cocaine Mitch. The mopping up action will begin in the Senate next week, and the hapless PR skirmishing by the Maddows in The Media will not save The Narrative.
Meanwhile in Virginia, Governor Blackface and his friends in the Legislature are pushing ahead with California/New York style gun control. As anyone who has looked at a map of those Second Amendment sanctuaries can see, the proposed laws have little popular support outside of the DC suburbs and a few urban areas. The legislature has responded to public unrest by changing its rules in order to be make lobbying by gun control supporters more difficult and by moving to change the law related to recalling public officials. The governor plans an emergency declaration to prevent the carrying of firearms at a pro-Second-Amendment rally. These are not the acts of fair-minded politicians seeking to do the will of their constituents.
We see the system of checks and balances envisioned by The Founders working in the case of the Impeachment Hoax. We see it apparently failing in Virginia. I doubt Madison or Jefferson would be pleased with their home state today.
President Trump will face an election, and the voters will either keep him for another term or fire him.
Virginia … well, the state’s motto is sic semper tyrannis, so let’s hope that cooler, wiser heads prevail.
The Russian Collusion Hoax had failed. The Mueller Report was a nothing burger. So the left wing of the House Democrats sold Nancy Pelosi a bill of goods that finally led to her allowing the Impeachment Hoax to go forward. And then it dawned on the Speaker that it would be Cocaine Mitch who would take charge of the action when the Impeachment reached the Senate.
Now, it may be that she had thought that 2019/202 would be like 1974 and that a group of Republican senators would go to the President and tell him to resign rather than face a trial. But 2020 isn’t 1974. In 1974 there was an underlying crime and a cover up of that crime. In 2020, there’s merely whining about Orange Man Bad. Indeed, it appears that there was significant criminal activity that tainted the 2016 election, but the President was among the victims of those crimes. In 2020, the Republicans in the Senate seem prepared to give the President an opportunity to present his defense, and the President seems to look forward to vindication rather than removal from office.
Hence, the Speaker’s problem. If the case goes forward to the Senate, more of the Truth about who did what is likely to come to light, and that is not likely to be beneficial to Pelosi, her allies, or Democrats as a whole. No wonder she’s having trouble articulating her talking points.
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
As this tweet demonstrates, should never be considered an authoritative source for Real World information—While it is true that Speaker Pelosi is next in line after the Vice President in the order of succession, Section 2 of the 25th Amendment specifies that the President (i.e., President Pence if Donald Trump were removed from office) “shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.” Note the use of the word shall. President Pence would be required to nominate a new Vice President subject to the approval of both houses of Congress. When the new VP was sworn in, the Speaker would move back to her proper place in line.
Section 2 has been triggered twice. When Vice President Agnew resigned, President Nixon nominated Gerald Ford to replace him. Congress confirmed that nomination. When President Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became President, President Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller as VP, and Congress confirmed him.
Perhaps the kids over at Vox think that Mike Pence couldn’t think of a sufficiently non-controversial nominee for VP and that the office would remain vacant until after the next election. Or maybe they’re too young and too ignorant of History to remember or know what happened 45 years ago.
Nancy Pelosi’s father was the Democrat Mayor of Baltimore from 1947 to 1959.
Donald Trump is running for reelection, and it seems that he’d rather run against the sort of Progressive Democrat whose politics are strongly different from his own—”a choice not an echo” to borrow an old campaign slogan. While AOC won’t be the 2020 nominee, she’s the face of the Democrat’s for now, and that seems to suit Trump just fine.
Nancy Pelosi’s goals aren’t much different from She Guevara’s, but the two differ radically on how to achieve those goals. After six months as a congresscritter, AOC has shown that she is unwilling and/or unable to work within the established congressional order. She wants revolution now. Pelosi’s decades of practical politics have taught her that a recurring first step toward her goals is winning elections. She’s also seen what happens when her side’s politics moves too fast for the voters. See, eg., the elections of 1994 and 2010.
Pelosi isn’t all that popular with voters outside the costal blue zones, but recent poling shows that AOC and her squad of newbies are unpopular even in many Democrat strongholds. Thus, Trump would much rather have She Guevara as the face of the Democratic Party. As the coming primaries settle on the Democrat’s presidential nominee, that candidate will push AOC aside, but her effect on the party’s branding will linger, and Trump sees that as to his advantage.
So Trump is likely to continue baiting AOC and her squad. And given their mix of arrogance and inexperience, I suspect they’ll keep taking the bait.
Oh, one more thing … I’ve seen Trump’s tweets from last weekend labeled as “racist.” He suggested that a foreign-born congresswoman return to her homeland, straighten it out, and then come back to show us how it was done. How is that challenge racist?
Nancy Pelosi has recently said that the National Park Service should deny a permit to a group she opposes rather than let them “spew forth their venom.” She says that the Constitution doesn’t allow one to “yell wolf in a crowded theater.” David French has a piece over at NRO that looks at how her misquoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., shows her ignorance of constitutional law and our country’s history. (The fire in a crowded theater comment is dicta found in Schenck v. U.S. which is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio is now the proper standard.)
Mrs. Pelosi has also called for Speaker Ryan to remove statues of Confederates from the Capitol, something she failed to do when she was Speaker of the House. (She did order the statue of Robert E. Lee moved to a less prominent spot and his old spot given to a statue of Rosa Parks.) OTOH, at least she didn’t dedicate any such statues—as her father did when he was Mayor of Baltimore. AFAIK, she’s failed to make any public comments concerning her family’s history related to Confederate monuments.
One more thing … Because it will come up, here’s my opinion on Confederate monuments:
I grew up in the South. One of my great-great-grandfathers served as an officer in the Confederate Army. Another great-great-grandfather was a slaveholder. What both of them did was wrong, and I like to believe that I would have been among the substantial minority of Tennesseans who opposed secession and supported the Union.
The monuments that were built by people with a living memory of the war should probably be left alone as historical artifacts. However, later monuments erected as pushback to the 20th-century civil rights movement should have no such protection. If, for example, Baltimore decides to remove the Lee-Jackson monument Nancy Pelosi’s father dedicated in 1948, I would be inclined to believe that city was making a wise choice.
The Daily Caller reports that Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district has not taken in a single Syrian refugee.
San Francisco, California, which includes Pelosi’s district (CA-12), has taken in zero refugees since the fiscal year began. San Francisco also didn’t take in any Syrian Refugees in either 2014 or 2013.
While Pelosi’s district hasn’t actually taken in any Syrian refugees, Pelosi herself has been a vocal proponent of bringing Syrian refugees into the U.S.
Read the whole thing.
Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the government created the iPhone—not Steve Jobs or Apple.
The Weekly Standard has a piece up in which Nancy Pelosi is quoted, and she seems to be saying that she saying that she supports abortion because she’s a Catholic. (H/T, Evi L. Blogger Lady at Batshit Crazy News). I am not a Catholic, but from what I know of that church’s doctrine, I find this mind-bogglingly weird.
Pope Francis was unavailable for comment.
Speaking on the anniversary of the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Nancy Pelosi said,
I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium.
The Weekly Standard reports that during the 2012 campaign season Mrs. Pelosi said,
everybody will have lower rates
during an appearance on Meet the Press (1 July, 2012).
Clearly, either the memory hole is not operating or MiniTrue has dropped the ball on the appropriate rewrite.
In other news … the chocolate ration will be increased to 20 grams.
Nancy Pelosi was raised in Baltimore. Here’s the sort of nonsense she learned in Civics Class. Speaking on Fox News yesterday, she said:
We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves …
The last time I checked, the First Amendment had nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. That seemed to be in the Second Amendment. If that’s the sort of understanding of the Constitution that a congresscritter with a B.A. in Political Science brings to the issues, imagine the confusion of the vast majority of low information voters reliant on what they learned in Maryland schools.
Nancy Pelosi has said that if the Democrats regain control of Congress one of the first things they plan is to repeal part of the First Amendment. The Daily Caller quotes her as saying:
We would pass a DISCLOSE Act. ‘I’m Nancy Pelosi, I approve this message’ — but Mr. Big Bucks who put hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to get tax breaks for their industry or their heirs, they don’t have to disclose their names. So DISCLOSE: Amend the Constitution to overturn ‘Citizens United.’
She’s not alone. President Obama has said that he favors such action.
These people have made themselves the enemies of free speech.
Is it November yet?
UPDATE–David Horowitz speaks out against other enemies of the First Amendment. TOM has video.
Nomex is a fire retardant material used for safety clothing worn by pilots, firefighters, etc. What with all the “pants on fire” level of lying going on, it probably should be used for politicians underwear. Nancy Pelosi might find such safety undergarments useful.
In an interview with Al Hunt she claimed that President Obama has been to Israel “over and over again.” Wrong! He’s never been since elected to the White House. He’s never been as a private citizen. He did make a couple of official trips as a senator, but that hardly adds up to over and over again.
Mrs. Pelosi tries to paint the President as a friend of Israel. With friends like that … Oh, never mind.
Is it November yet?
UPDATE—White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer is another candidate for Nomex BVDs after his bogus claim concerning the bust of Winston Churchill removed from the Oval Office.
Nancy Pelosi says that she won’t release her tax returns until she runs for President.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who is running, claims that directly quoting the words he actually spoke is a false attack.
UPDATE—Mrs. Hoge suggests that Brett Kimberlin probably agrees with the President.
As in a factoid from the Post (WaPo) wherein E. J. Dione writes that we will come to love Obamacare better after the Supreme Court has struck it down. (H/T, @philipaklein) He cites Joni Mitchell’s Law (“You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”). I suppose he makes as much sense as the pundits who see the Court’s handing the Obama Administration yet another defeat as being a good campaign issue for Democrats. Those pundits seem to be relying on Obi Wan’s Dictum (“Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.”).
Folks, this whole Obamacare thing has been a disaster since two weeks before Day One. Any law that follows the Pelosi Principle (“We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.”) is by definition a bad law.
BTW, I’ll be in class when the Supreme Court hands down opinions on Monday morning, but I’ll be checking with the coverage at scotusblog during my first break. I recommend their live feed.
Nancy Pelosi has said that she could have arrested Karl Rove. She is, of course, wrong.
She was referring to the fact that a House committee voted to send a contempt resolution against Mr. Rove to the full House. The House never voted on the matter, so he was never held in contempt. The power to arrest him depended on that vote.
Why should we expect her to understand the Rules of the House when she was amazed by a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare? She is for the voters of her district the living embodiment of H. L Mencken’s definition of democracy—the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
UPDATE–Karl Rove respond. Video here.
You know, she sounds a little bit like Inspector Clouseau and a little bit about the Mad Red Queen, but Speaker Pelosi was dead wrong in her assertion today and I’m sure she had a good laugh and it’s nice to know that she dreams of slapping me in her own personal jail. But she didn’t have any authority to do it.
UPDATE 2–Erika Johnsen notes another difference between Karl Rove and Eric Holder. Whatever Mr. Rove did to cause a Congressional committee to cite him did not cause a single death.
Jazz Shaw asks the question after considering her behavior at a House event in her honor.
The answer is, “Yes.”
Really, she did.
I can’t find it enumerated in the Constitution, so it must be one of those Ninth Amendment rights hiding among the penumbrae. If so, it must be shameful that politicians like Jefferson and Madison neglected to enforce that right.
The House Minority Leader has announced that the bishops suing the HHS over the Obamacare abortion and contraception mandates do not speak for the Catholic Church. Video here.
UPDATE—Bryan Preston asks, “Rep. Pelosi, is the Pope Catholic?”