248 Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

I guess some Dems aren't poll-obsessed after all:

Using unusually intemperate rhetoric even for a Democrat, firebrand Congresswoman Maxine Waters is blasting President Bush and Vice President Cheney over their conduct of the Iraq war, calling Bush "a liar" and Cheney "a thief."

After attending a mock impeachment hearing two weeks ago staged by House Democrats, Representative Waters told cheering onlookers, "Finally Congress has come alive and decided to take on this President in a real way."

"Congress" has "come alive"? Think she got a tad carried away in playing to that small gaggle of "onlookers"?

"The President is a liar," she continued. "Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief."

Wait for it, wait for it....

She accused Cheney of helping his former company Halliburton rake off illicit war profits in Iraq.

Lift-off, we have lift-off....

But that's not the punchline:

Waters' comments went unreported by the [Extreme] press, only to be picked up by the People's Weekly World Newspaper - a Communist publication.

Ah, what a luxury it is to have opponents who fisk themselves.

Want a postscript?

Speaking alongside Waters, Representative Lee vowed to apply "street heat" to Congress to bring an end to "this illegal war."

"Street heat"? Glad I didn't say that, or Congresswman Lee would no doubt denounce me as a "racist." Which would interfere with asking her how a war that both Houses of Congress voted to authorize could be "illegal."

And just think - all of the above was just the preliminary act.

Q: Later [Thursday] morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Mrs. Pelosi: As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision. [emphasis added]

Boy, doesn't that make you wish you were that reporter? This woman is the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives and not only does she have no clue of the nature, let alone the details, of Senator Cornyn's proposal - which hasn't exactly been flying under the media radar over the past week - but appears unaware of his eminent domain bill altogether.

As though talking to a small child, the reporter tries to help Crazy Nancy clean up the mess she just spit up on her already-soiled public image:

Q: Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Can you imagine what was going through this reporter's mind at this point? The original question wasn't "framed poorly"; it was just assumed that the top House Democrat would know about a prominent bill introduced in the wake of a SCOTUS decision that ignited a firestorm of public outrage and protest. Now the poor schlep is having to spoon-feed the details to this empty-headed cunt. He (or she) must have been biting his (or her) tongue in half.

And she STILL didn't get it:

Mrs. Pelosi: Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church - powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Oh...my...God. How did this idiot ever get elected to Congress, much less her party's leadership? Any grassroots Democrats with an ounce of self-respect had to be jabbing ice picks into their ears to spare themselves the agony. Either that or shouting, "Nobody's withholding funds for the enforcement of anything, you withered old crone!" into their TVs. Kelo was a local dispute involving private citizens and municipal government; "enforcement" wouldn't be funded by Congress, but at the same local level. All the Cornyn bill would do is deny federal funding to "urban renewal" projects that seek to misuse eminent domain in the way that the SCOTUS approved in Kelo. That ruling doesn't require Congress to fund such projects - in fact, it couldn't on the very separation-of-powers grounds that Pelosi obviously doesn't understand any better than she does the Kelo decision, eminent domain, the Cornyn legislation, or the modest application of makeup so as not to resemble a circus clown.

And, though no logical mind could have anticipated it, there was a reason why she brought in the utter non sequitur of "church-state separation," though fathomable only to her, apparently:

Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Listen to how Crazy Nancy's questioner is beseeching, almost begging her to come up with something, anything, that makes her sound the slightest smidgen more intelligent that the drooling moron she's displayed to this point.

She didn't grant that wish:

Mrs. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

"...almost as if God has spoken"??? Ladies and gentlemen, you will never get a more candid view into the mindset of the contemporary Left than what Mrs. Pelosi has provided us with those ten words. Never mind the roaring irony with her earlier snarky Establishment Clause crack - the truth of her comments couldn't be any clearer: Congress is irrelevant, the Presidency is irrelevant - the United States of America is not a republic, but an oligarchy under the absolute rule of nine men and women, nine secular popes for whom people like Crazy Nancy have appointed themselves their "College of Cardinals."

They say history comes full circle, and now we see what that means. This is almost an endorsement of the old monarchist doctrine of the "divine right of kings." Provided, of course, that the SCOTUS keeps faithfully churning out rulings that are faithless to the Constitution all federal officeholders are sworn to uphold:

Q: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Mrs. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

She doesn't understand the decision, but she supports it because it came from her "gods." Got it.

Did I say "violently allergic to discretion" yesterday? Better make that "congenitally allergic" as well.

Bet that reporter is putting in for reassignment to another beat.

Wouldn't you?

[HT: CQ]