Lying Worthless Political Hack Fears Violence in the Debate Over ObamaCare

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

The Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, not content to call opponents of ObamaCare Nazis,  has now raised the spectre of political violence:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

Hmmm, you know when she is right, she is right.  A SEIU union thug assaulted ObamaCare opponent Kenneth Gladney at a townhall in Saint Louis.  ObamaCare opponent William Rice had a finger tip bitten off by an ObamaCare supporter at a townhall in Thousand Oaks, California.  No doubt the Lying Worthless Political Hack was talking about this type of violence?

Maybe not.  Maybe she was merely attempting to demonize her political opponents.  Why not?  Nothing else seems to be working.  After a brief rally after Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress, the numbers for ObamaCare are back where they were with a majority opposed.  Some Democrats have played the race card and only 12 percent of the American people appear to believe that opponents of ObamaCare are racist.

What makes all this Sturm und Drang from the Lying Worthless Political Hack truly hilarious is that she has a huge majority in the House.  All she has to do is to keep most of the Dems in the House onboard and she can pass any version of ObamaCare she wishes.  She obviously lacks the political skills to do this, and thus she resorts to a low rent theater of the absurd.  You know, if I were a Democrat who had dropped a wad over the past four years in campaign contributions so the Democrats could run the House, I’d be yelling for a refund.

More to explorer

Socialism Kills

  Chilling story by José Cordeiro at Reason:   I was working in Silicon Valley when my mother called me from back

Medal of Honor

He deserves it:   For now, I want to salute the contribution of Joshua Watson, 23 years old, who was one of

The History of Christmas

  A good video on the history of Christmas.  Go here to read an excellent article at New Advent on the history


  1. And her concerns during the Bush years were where? When protesters wouldn’t even let the man take a vacation without picketing at the end of his driveway. When members of her party advocated every measure of obstruction, and hurled every sort of vile epitaph at Bush. Where was her concern?

    Lying Worthless Political Hack is too polite a title for this mouthpiece of Satan.

  2. She’s desperate. With 48 congressional Democrats (8 more than their majority) coming from districts that voted for both Bush and McCain, Mrs. Pelosi knows that in all likelihood her gavel will be handed over to Mr. Boehner in 2010.

  3. This name-calling does grave disservice to the church in that you identify this blog as Catholic. I am not convinced by your argument that Pelosi is liar, but even is she were, there is a way–a Catholic way–of calling attention to the truth that avoids the ad hominem. Not to mention that there is a way–a Catholic way–of calling another Catholic to conversion. And yes, Nancy Pelosi, is a Catholic. And no, you or I, until such time one of us is named to the bishop of the diocese in which she lives–you or I do not have the authority to determine that she is not a Catholic. Mouthpiece of Satan–the name-calling gets more ugly and unbefitting of followers of Jesus.

  4. Harold, you seem much more concerned about the fact that I accurately refer to the Lying Worthless Political Hack as a Lying Worthless Political Hack than you do about the misdeeds of the Lying Worthless Political Hack, which includes being one of the champions of abortion in Congress. I think your priorities are upside down.

  5. As to name-calling not befitting followers of Jesus, actually Our Lord was quite fond of calling a spade a spade as any member of the “Generation of Vipers” could attest.

  6. Speaker Pelosi – a Catholic, as Harold reminds us – is calumniating her political opponents as Nazis and fomenters of violence, and is doing so on a much bigger stage than what Don has here at American Catholic; but it is Don who is a big ‘ol meanie for calling her out on it.

    Nice set of priorities you have there, Harold.

  7. Okay, so let’s retract the mouthpeice of Satan wording, if that makes everyone feel better. The fact remains that Speaker Pelosi is trying to short-change public discourse and short-cut our Freedom of Speech just because she feels its violent. As the article points out, the only real violence came from those for Obama Care and she publicly called everyone who opposed this plan Nazis.

    Nice work for a communion-receiving Catholic. We need to pray for her – she seems to be quite a mess these days.

  8. There is a Catholic description of Pelosi: a fountain from which all fecal matter springs.

    If you folks truly believe Pelosi’s program of vicious Pro-abort initiatives is actually ‘Catholic’, then you don’t know exactly what that word actually means!

  9. Harold says, “The name-calling does grave disservice to the church in that you identify this blog as Catholic.”

    This is one of the underlying reasons why we should eject the entire corpus of Pauline writings from the New Testament.

    Who can trust somebody with a foul mouth as his who himself did curse at people?

    1 O stupid Galatians!
    3 Are you so stupid? (Galatians 3:1,3)


    Obviously, this “name-calling does grave disservice to the church”.

  10. St. Paul was a self-proclaimed sinner. We imitate their holiness, not their sins.

    Our Lord tells us, “You have heard hard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…for if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you only salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (cf. Matthew 5:43-48)

    Just a week ago, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who was pro-choice. She has now rethought her position and is going to attend the Texas Right to Life Gala (on my invitation) and seek to learn more about the pro-life movement. Even despite her originally very “radical” positions, I did not take liberty to insult her. And this is no testament of self-proclaimed holiness. I am in front of St. Paul as the foremost of all sinners.

    But, what does it gain us to return evil for evil? What do we gain morally? And how does it make us any more like Our Lord and perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect?

    It seems to become very petty and childish. At the end of the day, when you call Speaker Pelosi a “Worthless Political Hack” there is not one unborn child saved from that comment nor is there any amount of justice restored or reconciliation between divided sinners brought about. It just reaffirms much of what is wrong with our society.

    We all do it. We are all guilty. But this is no way establishes justification.

  11. And yes, Christine. Let us pray for her. I’m not sure how going through a litany of Pelosi’s sins — except but to establish correctly a false sort of thinking that we admonish other Catholics not to follow — really will solve anything but to reaffirm our only self-righteousness. I’m not accusing anyone of being sanctimonious. It is very subtle. And before we are so sure that we can correct judge Nancy Pelosi to be “worthless” and a “hack,” it wouldn’t hurt to do an examination of conscience. We’re all just as guilty and we all have sins too many in number to account for on the Day of Judgment.

    Division is the game of the Devil.

  12. Charity does not consist in not being bluntly honest to those wielding power. In her public capacity I fear my description is not blunt enough. Of course I addressed these points in the comboxes in the first post in which I referred to the Worthless Political Hack after she was denied a photo-op by the Pope.

    Pelosi is a born and bred Catholic. She does not have the benefit of a rank ignorance of the Truth that actually causes me to have some sympathy for Mr. Obama, believe it or not. She was educated at Catholic schools and her family long prided itself on its Catholicism. In spite of that, throughout her career she has been at war with the Church in regard to abortion, escr, euthanasia and other issues.

    She has deliberately mistated Catholic teaching in defense of her positions:

    If I were to be completely honest in my assessment of Ms. Pelosi, my statements would be considerably stronger than Lying Worthless Political Hack.

  13. “Just a week ago, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who was pro-choice. She has now rethought her position and is going to attend the Texas Right to Life Gala (on my invitation) and seek to learn more about the pro-life movement.”

    That is wonderful news, Eric.

    You have done a great thing!

  14. Career and Special Interests Politicians, Sebelius, Mikulski, Pelosi, Biden, all I’m sure raised Catholic.

    They sell their soul a bit to do this, you know, I’m not against the individual personally but their stances on the issues.

  15. What is really sad is that whenever someone tries to disagree with the current bills based on facts ( I have read them ) they are called racist or anti gay in this case. Each of us can voice our opinion civility, but this pseudo Catholic uses her rhetoric as a political tool to enhance her position instead of defending her stance with facts and this is what makes her a disgrace to her position.

  16. Harold, you are my kind of Catholic. As I have tried to explain to other commenters before, this blog is actually the Republican American Catholic,
    very often, the Catholic part goes out the window if it doesnt line up with the Republican part.

  17. Any Catholic who isn’t horrified by the abortion advocacy of the Lying Worthless Political Hack is a Catholic who needs to read this section of the Catechism:

    “2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.(71)

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)

    My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .(73)

    2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

    You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish .(74)

    God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(75)

    2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ (76) ‘by the very commission of the offence’, (77) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . (78) The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

    2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
    ‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.'(79)

    ‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.’ (80)”

  18. The title of the article is unnecessarily offensive. From this distance (the Caribbean)the language used on Fox News, and reports in other media,all seem to point to a desire for violence to get rid of Obama. The fears of the Speaker are shared by many – don’t blame her. She may not be a “good Catholic” and the U.S. may not be a good country for leagalizing abortion (which the Constitution clearly supports)But do try to be civil while working hard to persuade both Catholics NOT to avail themselves of the legislation (after all it is permissive not mandatory)and the wider population that abortion is murder by another name. It is very sad to admit ther’s some truth in the statement, made long ago by a European, that the “U.S. moved from primitive to modern without passing through a period of civilization”. Please do not confuse a strong conservative Catholicism with either religious fundamentalism or downright incivility. These attitudes only turn people off our pro-life cause, which we SHALL win, because it is the truth about the human person NOT because we maligned our enemies. J-P II’s Peace Message a few years ago on Ro. 12:14-21..”do not let evil defeat you, but conquer evil with goodness”.

  19. “and the U.S. may not be a good country for leagalizing abortion (which the Constitution clearly supports)”

    You say tomatoe, I say tomato, right?? You will not slide this aberration by. Only per legislating from the judicial bench, does this lie fly. Without wasting time on such a cruel view: The Constitution protects life and extends rights to all living, so therefore a pre-born should have rights.

    Cheers for the Tories in England who brought out how Ted Kennedy supported horrid partial birth abortion in discussing whether he should receive Knighthood. This horridly offends most of the English, late term abortions who have a very liberal policy already. But figures, with the liberals, the constitution protects it. Pathetic.

  20. I discussed in a prior post, that the debate is often couched in such terms of which I often do not approve of between what the Left and the Right says, it gets to be a vicious circle and I tend to shy away from saying such things, often. At times, unfortunately, it seems to be saying the truth as well.

    To another subject and adding on to my last post, great to see LA Lett’s word on this, I guess Slaves were 3/4 of a human being as well under the constitution.

  21. “She may not be a “good Catholic” and the U.S. may not be a good country for leagalizing abortion (which the Constitution clearly supports)”

    From the dissent of Justice White in Roe:

    “With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

Comments are closed.