Another "journalist" proves that journalists are freaking idiots.

Thank you Brian Williams, for showing how ignorant you are.

What did you get in American History 101? Or did you have a Ward Churchill type professor, whose twisted version of history you accepted hook, line and sinker.

What would make you say something so completely indefesible as a supposedly educated person? As an American?

Via Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: annika at 08:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

And i don't mean idiot in the sense of a person with whom i have a disagreement.

i mean literally, an idiot, a person of subnormal intelligence, slow-witted, an imbecile, a moron, a cretin, affected by a profound mental retardation.

Stupid.

i want to post in full this exchange between Nancy Pulaski and a reporter, reprinted by The Corner, so i can refer back to it whenever i need a good laugh.

Reporter: Later this 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?

Ms. 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.

Reporter: 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.

Ms. 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.

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

Ms. 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.

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

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

If i wasn't so disgusted by Pelosi, and the fact that the House Democrats consider her fit to be their leader, i would almost feel sorry for her. She's so completely in over her head, it's a joke.

Posted by: annika at 06:50 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

Fox News is reporting that Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement is imminent. The announcement is expected Friday.

Although Justice O'Connor was on the right side in Kelo v. City of New London, she has been the swing voter in so many crappy Supreme Court opinions, i am glad to be rid of her.

In fact, she was my submission to this poll for that reason.

i hope that a solid conservative is nominated to replace her, although i guess the conventional wisdom would be that the Senate would only support a moderate to replace a moderate. And with the minority party feeling its oats lately, who knows what "moderate" means. They'll bend Frist over and have their way with him no matter who is nominated.

Correction, Frist will grab his own ankles willingly and invite the Democrats and RINOs to bang away to their heart's content.

This should be ugly.

Posted by: annika at 07:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.