NANCY PELOSI ELEVATES HER HYPOCRISY: WANTS PRESIDENT'S POWERS CURTAILED.

ICHEOKU says she is the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party's far left liberal wing and she suffers no fools about it, projecting that undiluted and near absolute authority which she wields with ruthless efficiency. She says it and so shall it be, and it does not matter for her that she serves others what she will not accept nor take. 

As usual, what is good for Nancy is never good for others, and as the undisputed, acclaimed mother superior, who makes the rules and decides who gets what, only Nancy can keep her powers but no one else. She is the George Orwell's Animal Farm's personification of "some animals are more equal than others" as she is particularly privileged and cannot share the same platform of expectations with we lesser mortals, including the president. She is again driving this point home, that everyone must understand it clearly, that there is one set of rules for Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi and another set of rules for everyone else. 

Just a few days after her interview on CNN alongside her British counterpart, the Speaker of House of Commons, Lord Lindsay Hoyle, information has come out that her controlled House of Representatives is working on a bill to reduce, minimize, curtail and diminish the powers of the office of the president. But in the said CNN interview, when she was asked about her own powers as a political speaker and whether she will ever think about reducing the powers of her office and become an impartial speaker like her British counterpart, she flatly said absolutely no.  

She said that there is no chance in hell she will ever contemplate that, especially not now when a woman is the speaker of the House of Representatives, questioning why it should be now that a woman is the speaker that such a thing is being brought up. Paraphrasing her, she said that she enjoys her powers as an executive speaker with overwhelming powers, and that she will continue to use it to try and fix many inequities in America, improve the odds of American women and women everywhere, towards forging a better American society where men and "white supremacy" will no longer lord it over everyone. She also blamed "white supremacy" for everything that is wrong in America. 

Her British minion, Lord Lindsay Hoyle, effortlessly nodded in agreement to every syllable that came out of her mouth. The House of Commons fella painted a picture a puppy beside its owner and was just lapping it up, casting a shadow of a specimen of the conquered Western male whose testicles have been locked away in a testicular lockbox by feminist crusaders. He rarely made eye contacts with Madam Speaker Nancy and on the few brief occasions he stole them, just to gauge her countenance that he has not gone off the rails.  He was a completely emasculated male and it showed. 

Anyway, the Brit is not the reason for this article, so we must forget the little digression and steer back on the road by moving on to Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi effort to diminish the powers of the presidency but guarding the powers of the Speaker so jealously. Why does she always protect her interests with every fibre of being in her, but readily trounces other people's interests. If she is the president will she ever contemplate curtailing the powers of the office? Of all the reasons she and the California congressman Adams Schiff are using as reason to reduce the powers of the president, does she think that some other people cannot make similar arguments for why the powers of the Speaker should be reduced? 

But no, the rule is always different for Madam Speaker than for others, including the president of the United States of America. She is always quick to remind everyone that she is the peoples speaker and was sent to Washington DC by the people as their representative; and you ask yourself, is the president not also sent by the people to Washington DC and who exactly does the president represent other than the people of America. But for Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it is only her being sent to Washington DC that really matters and in the same vein, only her representation of the people in Washington DC counts. Is she saying that she has never ever abused the office of the Speaker and that everything she has ever done could pass muster. 

Is she saying that were a man the Speaker, may be such power reduction could have been considered? Why the many impeachments and why use impeachments as a political weapon or does that not sound as a reason to curb some powers of the office which she currently occupies. If she has her way now with limiting the president's powers, how about the next speaker? So, Trump caused it, but how about the next future presidents and why must their powers be impacted because of whatever she accused Trump of doing that warranted her action. But it is Crazy Nancy and some of her actions are spontaneous and emotions tinged. 

It was the same way she did her hair during the coronavirus pandemic when the entire nation was in a lockdown with an acute lockdown imposed on San Francisco but that did not deter her from getting her hair done because what Nancy wants Nancy gets. Meanwhile millions of women in America as well as their esthetically conscious male counterparts went without visiting their hair dressers for nearly one year; but not Nancy, because she is mother superior and must always have her way. Then, her impeachment shenanigans and her repeated false claim that President Donald John Trump is mentally incapacitated, begging the 25th Amendment be invoked to remove him from office. 

The same Speaker Nancy Pelosi has largely remained silent ever since Joe Biden came into office and steadily manifesting a clear case of sputtering neurons which are not firing on their best cylinders. It would seem that the 25th Amendment has now become the 'N-word" and suddenly prohibited? Speaker Nancy Pelosi who always gets what she wants has now become more emboldened to go after the powers of the president. But why does she want a diminished presidency or does she intend to totally and completely subsume the presidency and have an absolute power over the office. Her seeking to diminish the powers of the president but not that of the speaker is a self serving power move, which might end up making the office of the presidency merely ceremonial. But is this what the founding fathers intended and is anyone listening?