The Pelosi Art of Deception

The Pelosi Art of Deception
In pursuit of the truth – www.cinopsbegone.com – Saturday, November 21, 2009

When that deception involves the ultimate inclusion of abortion coverage and no conscience clause protection for doctors and health care workers by Catholic label politicians like Nancy Pelosi; then we have a truly diabolical, clever, evil CINOP mindset.

Let’s study and figure out a statement by Arizona Congressman John Shadeg regarding the vote on the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosi Health Care Bill.

Washington, Nov. 8th, - Last night I was the only Republican member to vote “present” on the Stupak Amendment. I did so because I am passionately pro-life, but I am also passionately pro-freedom in the end, THE STUPAK AMENDMENT GAVE POLITICAL COVER TO DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR NANCY PELOSI FOR SPEAKER.

She is anti-freedom and rabidly pro-abortion. She is no friend of Life and outsmarted opponents of socialized medicine. Before the vote she promised pro-abortion Democrats she would strip the Stupak language. Obama will help her. Let me explain:

Republicans who, at the request of Right to Life, in good faith, voted “yes” on Stupak last night defined a “yes” vote as the pro-life vote. But it wasn’t. A “yes” vote increased the votes for the bill and enabled Pelosi to pass it. That means more abortions.

Instead Republicans could have been principled and neither voted for the Stupak amendment nor against it. We did not have to help Nancy Pelosi. Republicans could have said “present” means “present”. It doesn’t mean “yes” and it doesn’t mean “no.” Members of Congress have three choices when they go to vote. A VOTE OF PRESENT IS A PROTEST VOTE. DOING SO WOULD HAVE DENIED THE PURPORTED PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS COVER.

Given the extremely narrow margin of victory for the bill, it’s highly likely that without the Stupak language, it would have been defeated. It passed by five votes & there are far more than five Democrats who almost certainly wouldn’t have voted for it with government funded abortions in it.

Harry Mitchell wouldn’t or he would be in much deeper trouble next fall than he is now. Neither is it likely that Driehaus or Hill or Wilson or Mollohan or Ellsworth or Donnelly or perhaps numerous others would have. The bill would have been dead, and along with it, the threat of publicly funded abortions! We could have defeated NANCY PELOSI.

THE TRUTH IS YOU CAN’T BE TRULY PRO-LIFE AND PRO-PELOSI. Even if I am wrong and the bill hadn’t failed, it is absolutely clear the vote on passage would have been closer. It passed by only five votes. One of these votes was Republican: Cao. He stated publicly that he voted “yes” only because Stupak passed. Without his vote the margin would have been only three votes.

NOW, THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR STUPAK WILL SAY THE “RIGHT TO LIFE” VOTE WAS ON STUPAK AND THEY VOTED PRO-LIFE. REPUBLICANS SET THE STANDARD. INSTEAD OF MAKING ‘PRESENT’ THE PRO-LIFE VOTE, WE MADE ‘YES’ THE PRO-LIFE VOTE…

WHEN THE STUPAK LANGUAGE IS STRIPPED IN CONFERENCE (AND NANCY PELOSI WILL STRIP IT), THE SUPPOSEDLY PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS WILL BE PRESSURED BY PELOSI AND OBAMA TO VOTE ‘YES’ ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT MORE INTENSELY THAN EVER. PELOSI AND OBAMA … WILL TELL THESE PURPORTELY “PRO-LIFE” DEMOCRATS THEY’RE SAFE FROM ATTACK BY “RIGHT TO LIFE” BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR THE STUPAK AMENDMENT...
George H. Kubeck