Nancy Pelosi forgets her oath of office

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no idea what her oath of office is, nor does she understand her ostensible duties under the U.S. Constitution -- or so she implied in June 3rd remarks marking the unveiling of a statute honoring former President Ronald Reagan.

"President Eisenhower, President Reagan and all of us who take the oath of office know that our first responsibility is to protect and defend the American people, and that's why it's so appropriate that President Reagan's statue has contained within it chunks of the Berlin Wall as a symbol of his commitment to national security and his success."

This is wrong. Entirely wrong, actually. The president's oath of office says nothing about protecting and defending the American people, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald pointed out when a Brookings Institution "scholar" made that same erroneous claim while defending President Obama's support for indefinitely imprisoning those deemed threats to the United States.

Rather, the oath of office all U.S. heads of state are required to swear by asserts the president will, to the best of his or her ability, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That is, rather than anointing the president as America's Great Protecter defending us proles from the evildoers abroad, the oath states the president must seek to uphold constitutional protections and the rule of law. Understanding that distinction is crucial to putting in context the Bush/Obama administration's efforts to indefinitely imprison terrorism suspects in the name of national security while shredding the bill of rights along the way.

Of course, politicians have rarely been much influenced by a piece of paper signed hundreds of years ago by a bunch of white dudes in wigs -- how many divisions does Thomas Jefferson have anyway? Still, it would be nice if those in government at least pretended to abide by the document that ostensibly binds U.S. citizens in perpetuity to the "social contract" it purportedly represents.

Like most of her fellow lawmakers, however, Pelosi -- who herself took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (again, no talk of protecting the homeland) -- has no desire to speak of constraints upon her political power, rather having every incentive to portray herself and her cohorts as the last line of defense between the barbarians at the gate and our beloved children.

But whether Pelosi is actually acknowledges or is even aware it is her responsibility to defend the Constitution or not is really of no consequence, for that particular piece of paper American politicians swear to uphold certainly hasn't stopped those in power from regularly trampling its protections for individual rights. As Lysander Spooner observed, "whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Meanwhile. In dedicating a statue to a man who funded death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, Pelosi had this to say about the ever-so inspiring example the Reagans provided to the American public:

President Reagan and Mrs. Reagan had one of the great love stories of all time, and the American people benefited from that. The support, the love that Mrs. Reagan gave the president were a source of joy to the American people, and, again, of strength to the president of the United States.

I was too young to remember the period, so a sincere question: Did anyone out there really find the marriage of Ronald and Nancy Reagan -- a modern day Anthony and Cleopatra, says Speaker Pelosi -- to be a "source of joy"?

Anti-semites!

The BBC reports:

An Israeli military college has printed damning soldiers' accounts of the killing of civilians and vandalism during recent operations in Gaza.

One account tells of a sniper killing a mother and children at close range whom troops had told to leave their home.

Another speaker at the seminar described what he saw as the "cold blooded murder" of a Palestinian woman.

-----

The Palestinian woman and two of her children were allegedly shot after they misunderstood instructions about which way to walk having been ordered out of their home by troops.

"The climate in general... I don't know how to describe it.... the lives of Palestinians, let's say, are much, much less important than the lives of our soldiers," an infantry squad leader is quoted saying.

In another cited case, a commander ordered troops to kill an elderly woman walking on a road, even though she was easily identifiable and clearly not a threat.

As this slaughter took place, it’s useful to remember that the only criticism great humanitarian, progressive political leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could muster was to express meek “concerns” to the Israeli government about “the collateral damage that is occurring in Gaza.” Since Palestinians don't experience Western-style emotions – life is cheap over there, don't you know? 72 virgins and such – they weren’t worthy of much concern from our Botoxed political elite, their deaths at the hands of U.S.-subsidized munitions being unfortunate insofar as they detracted, in the words of Ms. Pelosi, from the “good things that are happening on the ground there as well.”

Ever get the feeling you're being ruled by monsters?

Pelosi mourns "collateral damage" in Gaza

At her weekly press conference with Capitol Hill reporters this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed how ever so concerned she was about Palestinian "collateral damage" -- euphemistic military jargon for "dead innocent men, women and children" -- but said Israel had an absolute right to defend itself and blah blah blah. See this exchange she had with one reporter (whose hand I'd like to shake):

Q: [On the House floor Dennis Kucinich] raised the issue of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits U.S. weapons from being used to escalate a conflict.

I have two questions. How can Israel claim self-defense when it bombs Gaza, which has no army, no air force, no navy and has been under a constant blockade? And how can Israel claim self-defense when its bombs destroy U.N. schools killing children?

So I wonder if you could answer those questions and whether you agree with him that Israel is in violation of the Arms Export Control Act?

SPEAKER PELOSI: We will have on the floor tomorrow, hopefully, tomorrow, a resolution about what is happening in the Middle East. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert Saturday, the 3rd of January and expressed to him concerns that we have about the collateral damage that is occurring in Gaza, but also reiterating my statement that Israel does have a right, any country has a right to defend its people; in fact, it is all of our responsibility to protect and defend our people.

Q: What about the questions from Congressman Kucinich?

SPEAKER PELOSI: You know what? I understand your characterization and I'd have to see why he specifically said that, but let me say in a larger sense that we will address this issue in our resolution tomorrow and the resolution addresses the issue of a two-state solution, a cease-fire, two-state solution with a Palestinian state that is independent and secure and a Jewish democratic state that is independent and secure as well.

The funny thing about Pelosi's response is her remark that she understands the reporter's "characterization" of the events in Gaza -- as if there were any dispute of the fact that the Israeli military deliberately targeted UN schools housing hundreds of Palestinian refugees, killing more than 40 innocent civilians. Meanwhile, the resolution on the Gaza crisis she refers to does call for the protection of civilians, but only after declaring that the House of Representatives: "expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas’s unceasing aggression." 

If your hoping it mentions Israel's total air, water and land blockade of the Gaza Strip in the months leading up the current crisis -- sorry, no. 

By the way, for those keeping score at home: the number of Palestinians killed so far by (U.S.-subsidized) Israeli attacks? More than 760, with another 3,200 injured. The total number of Israelis killed by rocket fire since June 2004? 18.

But wait, there's more!

At this morning's press conference, in response to another question concerning Gaza and whether she had spoken to any of Israel's leaders regarding the (dis)proportionality of their military offensive, Pelosi reminded the troublesome journalist that "you're talking about certain things from one perspective. There's a picture of some good things that are happening on the ground there as well."

Perhaps this is what she had in mind?

Nancy Pelosi thinks you're stupid

H.L. Mencken once remarked that, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an op/ed she "wrote" for USA Today, seems determined to test that statement with a serious of ludicrous assertions that appear designed to test America's capacity to believe unadulterated bullshit.

Consider:

In September, as we moved quickly to help rescue Wall Street and our financial system, the House also passed an economic recovery package for Main Street that would create and save jobs by building a 21st century infrastructure, providing extended unemployment assistance and preventing the loss of crucial health services.

-----

In the weeks since, the need for responsible action to strengthen our economy has become more urgent. I have asked the chairmen of the relevant committees in the House to review the economic impact of a larger recovery package and, because of the Congress' commitment to fiscal responsibility, the effect on the budget.

Catch that? Pelosi and her fellow Democrats acted decisively in September to "rescue Wall Street and our financial system" by granting the Bush administration the unilateral authority to seize/nationalize any assets they so desire, to the dismay of the banks that actually had competent leadership. Yet after this bold, courageous action, "the need for responsible action to strengthen our economy has become more urgent." Wait, you mean that $700 billion (and counting) taxpayer-funded bailout for Wall Street -- which the political/media elite claimed was absolutely vital to prevent another Great Depression, ridiculing anyone who dared to say otherwise -- hasn't fixed the U.S. economy? You don't say.

Remember also that after Congress -- in a rare act of commonsense -- initially rejected the bailout plan, the likes of Pelosi and Barney Frank all bemoaned their fellow lawmakers' economic ignorance, linking the rejection to the stock market's dramatic 700-plus point fall that day. And what has happened since Congress caved and passed the bailout? The stock market has fallen almost continually, including 733 points just today.

But it gets better:

Democrats have made fiscal responsibility a top priority, reinstating pay-as-you-go budget rules on the first day we took control of Congress in 2007. In keeping with these principles, each component of our recovery package will be justified in terms of creating good-paying jobs, stimulating our economy and returning revenue to the Treasury.

So the Democratic Congress that approved the very spending that, as Reuters reports, has resulted in a record-high $455 billion budget deficit this year -- and a record-high, $10 trillion-plus national debt -- is committed to "fiscal responsibility"? The same Democratic Congress that has approved hundreds of billions of dollars in "emergency" funding for a war in Iraq that they claim to oppose -- and campaigned in 2006 on ending -- is supposed to be a model in fiscal conservatism? Are we to believe that mean old George W. Bush just did this all on his own, and not with the help of a complicit and corrupt class of politicians collectively known as the Democratic Party?

It shouldn't have to come to this, but let me point out the obvious: one can't approve $700 billion in corporate welfare, hundreds of billions more for failing military occupations, another $300 billion in a "stimulus" package aimed at bribing the masses with their own money (that is, the money that isn't merely printed by the Fed or borrowed from China), and still claim to be the defender of the U.S. taxpayer. Sorry, you just can't.

Finally:

When Americans are worried about losing their jobs, their savings, their homes and their chance at the American Dream, Congress and the president must work together to lift our economy and restore hope. That is the course the New Direction Congress will continue in the days and weeks ahead.

Is the phrase, the "New Direction Congress", not the perfect embodiment of the Democratic Party's devolution into mindless sloganeering as a substitute for actual policies, or thought? The focus group-tested "New Direction" slogan is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate the fact that the United States is headed in the same direction that it was before Democrats took over Congress -- down -- except now, perhaps, at a faster pace.

Now, if Ms. Pelosi or one of her underpaid aides is reading this, let me pose a few questions to the esteemed leader of the most unpopular Congress in recent history: 1) how does it feel living the lifestyle of jet-setting cosmopolitan as you deplete the wealth of the average American in the name of the twin gods of corporatism and imperialism?; 2) do you believe the American public will believe whatever b.s. you spout so long as you have a 'D' and not an 'R' after your name?; and 3) have you no shame?