When we last visited on the subject of Nancy Pelosi, we discussed four reasons why she should resign as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives:
- Extraordinary and unnecessary bias and partisanship
- Authoritarian and partisan tactics to silence the truth and promote misinformation
- The disdain with which she refers to American citizens, her constituents as ‘Speaker’
- Pelosi’s communist allies, history, and background.
Pelosi, as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, certified to the Nation that Barack Hussein Obama met all of the qualifications of Constitution for the Presidency. In certain states, Pelosi’s certification of Constitutional eligibility without fully knowing whether Obama was eligible may constitute election fraud. That this possibility even exists casts a cloud over her capability to lead.
As Speaker, Pelosi has the ability to influence the direction of all legislation, which invites scrutiny as to how she personally benefits, the noble servant that she is. Here is Tom Brokaw, confronting Speaker Pelosi on her ties to the natural gas industry where she stands to benefit by steering legislation through the House:
I remember Representative Pelosi complaining about ‘two oil men in the White House’ during the Bush-Cheney years. I guess they weren’t into enough natural gas for Nancy.
Just Muckety Around
Naturally curious, I constructed a muckety of Nancy Pelosi, her investments, and her connections. If you go to the muckety, expand “Clean Energy Fuels Corporation” and then “T. Boone Pickens”, the ultimate ‘power and influence’ map leads you to the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clean Skies Television Network, and Al Gore. Expanding any other of the connections leads you to a ‘who’s who’ of the ‘environmental movement’.
To me it looks like a ‘spider web’ of companies, programs, universities, businesses, environmental organizations and Congressional members designed to enrich themselves and spun under the guise of ‘clean skies’ and carbon dioxide reduction. Ultimately it replaces the ‘old oil guys’ with the ‘new oil guys’, making gas off the old oil fields. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Cap and Trade and the Speaker’s Role
How interesting that the new Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade legislation, if passed, is an ‘unexpected boom’ to the natural gas industry, both at home and abroad! :???: Anything that regulates carbon-dioxide will boost natural gas. Cap and Trade legislation will replace diesel fuel with natural gas, and favor natural gas power plants over coal-fired plants.
Here are my questions:
- Should the Speaker and her staff recuse themselves from writing any part of the legislation, scheduling debate or adding amendments?
- Should the Speaker be forced to disclose her personal financial interests in the outcome of Cap and Trade legislation? How about other members of Congress?
- Should the Speaker recuse herself from voting on said legislation?
- Why should Americans believe the Speaker is being truthful about the benefits and costs of this legislation?
The Obama ‘agenda’ of tax and enslave Americans is pretty clear right now. Can the “Speaker of the House” truly speak for the people?
We know its a trick. Now who really gets the treat?