Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
Larry Everest made an interesting comment on a panel we did in Memphis last weekend. He said that if Nancy Pelosi, who claims her top priority is ending the war and who claims to support democracy, were to ask people to come to Washington, D.C., on January 27th to march against the war, probably 20 million people would come. Such an action by Pelosi would not require that she take any controversial position, merely that she lead.
Rev. Glenda Hope sent around an Email that was forwarded to me and a lot of other people. She has a ministry in Pelosi's district and recently met with Pelosi's office. Hope was joined in the meeting by the President of the University of San Francisco (a Catholic priest), the pastor of Calvary Presbyterian Church (the largest church in San Francisco), the Senior Rabbi of the largest synagogue in San Francisco (Congregation Emanu-el), and Richard Smoak, a Presbyterian minister and founder/director of San Francisco Network Ministries (a 34-year-old ministry among the poor in San Francisco's Tenderloin). They met for 45 minutes with Pelosi's District Director Dan Bernal and Deputy District Director Melanie Nutter in Nancy Pelosi's office.
Here's the Email:
Subject: RE: Meeting with Pelosi Staff in SF
I began the conversation by saying flatly that I believe we must cut
off the funding immediately, as that is the only effective way to begin
the process of withdrawal of troops and US disengagement. All of the
others agreed. Dan, her Dist. Director, argued that the votes are not
there for that, even if Nancy voted "no", and such a cutoff would be
widely regarded as "not supporting the troops." I stated that I believe
Nancy has enormous influence and others would follow her lead. Also
that "if something keeps being said then in the mind of the larger
public it becomes true." Therefore, Nancy should quit saying that and
tell the truth: that we are not supporting the troops by leaving them
there but are only making targets of them more and for longer. Also
said that I know there is enough money already in the pipeline to
continue the war for 6-7 months and that is enough to make a continuing
but losing effort to prepare Iraq to take over and to bring our people
home.
Dan said Pelosi, Murtha, et al are preparing strings to be attached to
the supplemental and other legislation which "will have the force of
law" and will force a disengagement. Wouldn't Rev. Hope accept that
approach rather than cutting off the funding? I replied that I do not
believe anything will work other than cutting off the funding. Dan
labeled that a "symbolic gesture," a response which I found mind
boggling. Rabbi Pearce spoke eloquently from the position of the Hebrew
and contemporary prophets, stating that there are times when one must
quit the "political plotting, psyching out, and maneuvering and take a
stand: do the right thing." Dan replied with an insulting little
lecture about the difference between being an activist and working
within the system. (All of us have been working for social justice a
lot longer than he has been around. For example, I am 70 and my first
involvements were in the Deep South in the Civil Rights Movement)
This went on about 45 minutes which was astonishing and I think one of
our number might have been won over to the gradualist approach, though
he may have changed back since recent events. The rest of us held firm.
I took in a letter to Pelosi, who I know personally, and the dep. Dist.
dir. (who said little but later indicated that she agreed with me)
said: "Oh, good!" and snatched it up.
We also talked, myself especially since I have worked in the Tenderloin
for 34 years, about the domestic impact with reduced funding for
programs such as our own SafeHouse for Homeless Women Leaving
Prostitution (ll% cut in HUD funds in the last 2 years). And I spoke
about the memorial services I do for homeless people and people living
in the TL, noting that a large number of them are veterans (a
particular concern for Pelosi) suffering from PTSD, homelessness,
addiction and mental illness related to combat. I said we expect a
"surge" of additional vets onto our streets now with similar
afflictions and the longer we stay in Iraq the more there will be. I
noted the absence of effective and adequate treatment for them. I also
said that Nancy knows I work with drug addicts and I have learned that
no matter how passionate my pleas, how eloquent and clear my reasoning,
or how dire my threats, if I keep giving an active user money he will
continue using. I connected that with cutting off the funding.
If we were going today, I would also talk about the number of Iraqi
refugees, esp. middle class people who are essential to "building a
democracy." I hope this doesn't sound like we were ignoring what is
happening to the country and the people of Iraq. we were trying not to
spread out over everything but to stay focussed on cutting off funds.
NB: in Wednesday's SF Chronicle there will be an OpEd piece by Cong.
Lynn Woolsey. You should alert all your email contacts to read this.
Oh, Dan also said "we need progressive Christians to get involved in
speaking out against this war." I pointed out that he should have said
"and progressive Jews, such as Rabbi Pearce" (!). I said that I preach
this every chance I get at a pulpit or other speaking engagement and
have contacted people across the country urging them to speak out for
cutting off the funds.
Amazingly, he also said "Nancy doesn't need and isn't helped by
demonstrations, etc., by people calling for cutting off the funding.
She thinks their plan is the only workable one and, again, cutting off
funding will be widely perceived as not supporting the troops."
I could draw conclusions and strategy from all this but I think you
can, too. Thanks for your efforts. Keep the faith!!
Rev. Glenda Hope.
______________
So, Pelosi claims to support majority positions that are unpopular
within the Beltway (like ending the war), but she opposes
demonstrations. Pelosi claims to be blocked by the idea that cutting
off the funds for the war somehow hurts the troops we would thereby
bring safely home, but she is herself a chief proponent of that
nonsense. Pelosi wants to end the war, but wants to fund it. Pelosi is
the new leader but considers leadership merely symbolic. Can we get our
votes back? Maybe we should have taken a vacation on November 7 instead
of voting. Maybe we should all march on January 27th BECAUSE Pelosi
doesn't want us to: http://www.unitedforpeace.org
the wrong person in the wrong job and precisely the wrong moment in history. The country needed a leader. Pelosi is a sold-out hack. I knew it two years ago. She isn't hard to spot.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Rampant Corruption written by a guest,
January 19, 2007
Obviously Pelosi is a part of the corruption problem in US federal politics. Who knows which corporate or special interest lobbies are getting her to do their dirty work for them. In this case, running interference for the war seems to be the ploy.
The Democrats want the war as much as the Busheviks, but must keep up the pretense of there being a democratic system in the US. Thus they provide a minimum show opposition while supporting the corporate party line.
Writings 
Larry Everest made an interesting comment on a panel we did in Memphis last weekend. He said that if Nancy Pelosi, who claims her top priority is ending the war and who claims to support democracy, were to ask people to come to Washington, D.C., on January 27th to march against the war, probably 20 million people would come. Such an action by Pelosi would not require that she take any controversial position, merely that she lead.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
