During times of trials and tribulations, many people turn to Christ to help them through. It seems Sister - I mean Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi is no different. With speculation brewing that Democrats are poised to lose big in the fall midterm elections and the balance of power at stake, is Nancy Pelosi turning to Jesus for political salvation?

Her recent religious revival started shortly after the passage of the health care bill. Tasked with selling the unpopular overhaul, Pelosi opted to appeal to a higher power for help. She asked members of the clergy to make the case to their congregations in support of her legislation, with little criticism from the secular media.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is prepared to sacrifice her members like lambs to the slaughter. Literally.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) is so desperate to get health care passed this week before members take a break that she will likely employ the "Slaughter Strategy" - a very appropriately named, arrogant abuse of House rules that would allow members of Pelosi's caucus to simply vote on changes to the Senate bill and "deem" the bill passed without a member ever having to choose "aye" or "nay."

Think of it this way: You don't want to take a test because you know you'll fail. So you just give yourself an A without even picking up a pencil. If it sounds outrageous, that's because it is. (Funny how real life examples so deftly expose the absurdity and arrogance of Washington.)

This tactic is another blatant, last-gasp abuse of the legislative process. And it's one that Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-Buffalo) were against before they were in favor. It would permit Democrats to manipulate the truth when discussing the health care bill from now until Election Day without technically lying (Be prepared to hear: "Oh, I didn't vote for that stinker of a health care bill. Nope. Not me.")

To break it down, Pelosi has two options: pull the bill or (in her own words) "kick it through the door."

Bailing on the bill now would be a double-barreled loss. It means she loses her speakership because Democrats will presumably lose dozens of seats, and the party won't be able to claim victory on health reform.

Instead, she'll blaze forward, recognizing that Democrats own this bill and can't turn their backs.

Pelosi figures that if she must deal with all the heartache that will ensue no matter what, then why not do what it takes to win and hope the country loves it? If she's arrogant enough to move ahead with unpopular policy, she's arrogant enough to believe she can prove the voters wrong and make them love this legislation by the time the midterm elections come. Good luck with that.

With the nonvote vote, Pelosi is once again siding with her liberal base rather than seeking to preserve a reasonable majority and reflecting the will of the people who oppose this lunge to the left.

Together, Slaughter and the speaker are a tag team that represents the tyranny of the majority - they'll flout laws and forge ahead without restraint to win at all costs, demonstrating that public trust means nothing. They've lost their minds. Next up? The House of Representatives.

Politically, Pelosi understands that she will lose the liberal base unless she strong-arms the bill into the end zone, and if she loses that estimated 20% of her party at the polls, November will be a bloodbath.

A nice thinning of her ranks could do her some good, she figures. She could stand a few less heads in her caucus, especially if she doesn't have to spend hours knocking those heads around so that they see things her way.

Still, pro-life Democrats, Blue Dogs and moderates like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) have caused Pelosi major headaches. Stupak's stink about the abortion language early on ignited a media firestorm that hasn't died down.

Stupak's opposition - along with about a dozen other moderates - is preventing Pelosi from hitting the magical number of 216 for passage. The rebellion continues to play out in the headlines, undermining Pelosi's argument that she could pass the bill if brought to a vote and cement people's confidence in her as a leader.

Moderate Democrats are the thorns in her side. If she had a more homogenous lefty bunch - a bunch of mini-Pelosi's - she wouldn't have to resort to such egregious legislative procedures, her weaknesses wouldn't be exposed and many people could stop questioning her ability to lead. She could spend more time getting her hair done at the Ritz, and less time stressing out over a bucket of ice cream for breakfast.

As President Obama encourages all of us to have "courage" to move forward on health reform, Pelosi is saying the same thing to her moderates, who happen to be standing in front of a cliff. If I were a House Democrat, I'd be petrified. That includes you, Ms. Pelosi.

andrea@andreatantaros.com

Upon assuming her Speakership, Nancy Pelosi assured Americans she would “drain the swamp” and still to this day boasts of that notion as an accomplishment. Sadly, the swamp is winning.
 
In perhaps the most appalling display of “cronyism,” a word Pelosi herself used almost incessantly when Republicans were in power, she has allowed her good friend and political ally, Charlie Rangel to retain his powerful post as the Ways and Means Committee Chairman, despite calls for him to step down on both sides of the aisle and a litany of unethical transgressions, including:

- Evading taxes on $1.3 million in income derived from multiple properties and failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets and income.

- Accusations of taking a $1 million contribution to the Rangel Center at City College from a wealthy businessman who later got a lucrative tax break for his company.

-Accepting a Citigroup-funded trip to the Caribbean in November 2008, when the bank was bleeding the bailout funds dry.

- Unreported rental income from a vacation villa in the Dominican Republic that Rangel failed to acknowledge when filling out financial disclosure forms.

Instead of applying the same guidelines on impropriety that she did for the GOP, Pelosi has largely remained mum, opting instead to duck, deny, and ignore the gravity of the situation in front of her.  Not surprising as this isn’t the first instance of her favoritism.

She’s stuck by her closest congressional cohort, John Murtha, who now faces an investigation for misdeeds including no-bid contracts awarded to a nephew’s company and $38.1 million in earmarked appropriations for clients of the PMA Group, which employ former Murtha staff members and contributed to his campaign.
 
When asked about attempts to strengthen congressional standards, the Pennslyvania Democrat responded that he thinks it's “crap.” Apparently his buddy Pelosi agrees.
 
Despite finding photos of $90,000 in cash tucked inside containers of pie crust and Boca Burger from an FBI raid of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson’s house, Pelosi tried to gift him (ironically) with a Homeland Security committee assignment. He would later be convicted of 11 counts of racketeering and bribery.
 
Someone call Joe the Plumber. The drain on the swamp is awfully clogged.
 
Some Democrats agree. Two of her members broke with ranks and voted against Mr. Rangel, a sign that the Speaker will soon have to answer for her actions, or lack thereof. Many are calling for him to resign, realizing that not only is this hypocrisy in its most audacious form, but also that Republicans will make hay of this issue until the leadership on the left, mainly Pelosi, call for him to step down.
 
When the ultra liberal New York Times editorial page wags its finger in disgust for one of their own and a hometown son, one can measure the severity of this mistake. The NYT writes:
 
“It is time for Democrats in Congress — who once justifiably complained about the corruption of the Republican majority — to demonstrate to Americans that someone in that august body has ethical standards.
 
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi, maintaining her tunnel vision on behalf of a powerful colleague, led the majority to defeat the Republicans’ latest call to depose the New York lawmaker. She does the nation no favor.”
 
But many still refuse to see what damage it is doing to their credibility because he’s “a likeable guy.”  Mark Foley was also a likeable guy. But he had to go. More obviously, a chilly demeanor isn’t the charge.
 
Mr. Rangel is the big cheese when it comes to writing federal legislation that impacts our tax code.  To not only shield a member of her caucus as political payback for Rangel’s past support of Pelosi -- but also reward that member -- displays that she is willing to risk losing her entire caucus, and what’s left of her almost non-existent credibility, for the sake of a few. That’s not just bad politics. That’s bad judgement.
 
 
If she hopes to survive a bloody battle in 2010, one where her own words and actions will be used against her, she must insist Rangel resign immediately.
 
To The New York Times who concluded their scathing rebuke by assuring that the protection of Mr. Rangel as chairman “is a grave misstep” that can only hand the ethics issue back to Pelosi’s political opponents, I would argue that it’s far too late. The issue has already been returned to Republicans. We can only hope control of the U.S. House is next.