Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Blames US Policy for Benghazi Attacks

October 11, 2012

Obama Has Been ‘Very Good’ For Israel

September 6, 2012


(breitbart.com)In Kucinich’s head he probably feels that way


Cuckoo praises CAIR on House floor

April 24, 2012

(Carl) Dennis Kucinich, the Democrats’ version of Ron Paul, praises the terror fundraisers at CAIR on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Ohio Chapter.
CAIR is a nationwide, nonprofit organization whose mission is to “enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” For the past ten years, CAIR Ohio has played an instrumental role in helping to bridge the divides between Greater Cleveland’s diverse communities.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Council on American-Islamic Relations Ohio Chapter for their tenth years of outstanding achievement. May their efforts to promote dialogue and create a more inclusive world continue to endure.

I wonder if there’s a place for him in a second-term Obama White House.

This guy was a serious candidate for President in the Democratic party. The only type of Republicans that he has relations with is Ron Paul or Chuck Hegel. This is no friend of Joe Lieberman.


Does US Military Action Against Qaddafi Require Congressional Authorization?

March 21, 2011

This has been bouncing around over the weekend, but somehow I missed it until now. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, December 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

So Obama agrees with Dennis Kucinich that his authorization of military action against Libya was unconstitutional. Presumably he disagrees with Kucinich’s suggestion that he should therefore be impeached.

Still, as we have noted a couple of times, it is very odd that Obama did not seek Congressional approval of the Libya mission. He certainly could have gotten it. And Obama’s statement that “military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch” is one with which most people–George W. Bush, for example–would agree. So why did Obama launch a military action under circumstances that he himself describes as unconstitutional and unwise?

Maybe he just couldn’t be bothered. One gets the feeling that Obama doesn’t want to invest any more time or energy than necessary in his presidential duties (as opposed to his presidential perks). Otherwise, I’m stumped.

via powerlineblog.com

…Several liberal Democratic members of Congress are claiming that President Obama’s decision to use force against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi requires congressional authorization:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses….
Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

Andrew McCarthy, a prominent conservative legal commentator, makes a similar argument here.
This is another of those rare cases where I agree with Dennis Kucinich though I would not go so far as to advocate impeachment, . Unlike Kucinich (and Andrew McCarthy), I tentatively think that Obama has chosen the right policy on Libya. But whether right or not, military action on this scale surely does require congressional authorization under the Constitution.

interesting point, but I disagree that going into Libya was prudent.

Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the president, the “power… to declare War.” The Founding Fathers sought to avoid a situation where one man had the power to commit the nation to war on his own initiative.
It’s arguable that some small-scale uses of force don’t rise to the level of a war and therefore can be undertaken by the president acting alone under his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. President Reagan’s 1986 airstrike on Libya might be an example, as were Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile strikes against Al Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan. If all the Obama administration intends is to launch a few Tomahawk missiles, perhaps this action would fall in the same category. However, it seems highly likely that the president plans to go well beyond this. Military operations are likely to continue for some time, perhaps until Qaddafi has either been overthrown or at least compelled to leave the rebel-controlled parts of Libya unmolested. If so, it seems quite clear that congressional authorization for military action on that scale is required.
Congressional also might not be needed if all the president is responding to an ongoing or imminent attack. However, Qaddafi has not attacked the US in recent years (though he did sponsor numerous anti-American terrorist attacks in the 1980s and early 90s) and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he had any immediate intention of doing so.
As Andrew McCarthy recognizes, congressional authorization need not specifically use the words “declaration of war.” It is enough that it clearly authorize large-scale military action against the enemy in question, as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban did in 2001.
For all the hoopla about the supposedly overwhelming growth of presidential power, presidents have in fact gotten advance or nearly simultaneous congressional authorization for almost every major military intervention the United States has undertaken since World War II. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, the two Iraq wars, and many other cases. Bill Clinton’s 1999 military action in Kosovo was the one time during that period when a president entered into a major conflict in the face of actual opposition by the majority in Congress. In part for that reason, Clinton strictly limited the scale of American involvement, avoiding the use of ground forces and ensuring that US troops didn’t suffer any combat casualties. Perhaps Obama plans to do the same thing with Libya; but if so, he will be in a difficult position if more coercion is needed to succeed.
In addition to constitutional reasons, presidents also have strong political incentives to seek congressional support for military action. Without it, the president will have to take the sole political blame if anything goes wrong.
In this case, I have little doubt that Obama could get congressional authorization if he tries to do so. There is considerable Republican support for the Libya intervention, and Obama can also count on the support of most of his fellow Democrats. The Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate is backing him, despite the opposition of some House liberals.
For both constitutional and political reasons, the administration should seek a congressional vote as soon as possible.



oh noes… I agree with Kucinich

March 20, 2011
An F-18 jet and Rep. John Larson are pictured. | AP Photos
John Larson wants the president to seek approval on U.S. enforcement of a ‘no-fly’ zone. | AP Photos Close

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.” “Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation. they are right here. what are we doing. who are we defending? what is our goal. this is crazy. the Democratic party has no grounding or reason. They one an election as pacifists and they are entering Libya with less reason then Iraq.

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

they are right here. what are we doing? who are we defending? what is our goal? this is crazy! The Democratic party has no grounding or reason. They won an election as pacifists and they are entering Libya with less reason then Iraq?

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa

via politico.com
By
JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 3/19/11 4:27 PM EDT

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

February 27, 2011
Buddhist Hell via J TAYLOR

Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said. via reuters.com

the way Google does it is called the Double Irish to Ireland and Holland. Corporations don’t get taxed… only the middle class does.. (the middle class that provides 95% of jobs in the United States and are technically called millionaires). Ever wonder why GE financed MSNBC before they let go to Comcast or why most media companies have no worries about taxes. if you are in the media your main interest is in defying eminent domain and getting friendly with government who makes those decisions. Honest corporate executives unlike Bill Gates who is a fraud and a liar know that taxation does not effect them… especially if the majority of the revenue is from advertising or if they are practically the government already… aka Time Warner…  Time Warner… hmm Time Magazine? CNN? hello? wake up LIBERALS!

The problem with guys like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul… (who are really one and the same internationalist agenda… one for corporatist internationalism and the other for socialist internationalism) is that it doesn’t matter what they say. They hurt the reputation of the average American and they don’t represent local interests. The modern debate over government is based on offering Americans a choice between two minority monopolies of power. Government controlled corporations or corporate controlled government. Two extremes, both of which monopolize power in the hands of a small number of powerful and influential people. And deprive ordinary citizens of their rights. Because a tyranny of the minority is still a tyranny– regardless of what its guise is. And either corporate controlled government or government controlled corporations mean a totalitarian state serving the interests of a small group. The only debate is over which small group will benefit the most from the oppression of the majority. The debate between government controlled corporations and corporate controlled government is mostly irrelevant. Because we have both.

Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” — helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries. 


Ron Paul kicked off YAF board

February 14, 2011

It’s a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative/libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security then our current socialist presidential regime, said Young Americans For Freedom national director Jordan Marks.


–  Politico

The dispute between Paul and the the group seems to stem from Paul’s anti-war activities and the prominence of his supporters at conservative events like CPAC.
“Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office. YAF is starting the process by removing him from our national advisory board. Good riddance and he won’t be missed,” added Marks.  via americanthinker.com

listen to this Paulbot go at anyone who criticizes his guru. btw… there were WMDS in Iraq… saying that there weren’t won’t change the truth. Or was Saddam not a CIA operative?  yeeehah the truth comes out. It is a no brainer, but the segment bite of no WMDs registers with the sheep. Even Noam Chomsky said there were WMDs because we gave it to them.

blaming America – and Israel – for most of the evils in the world. It didn’t fly in 2008 and it will be even less popular in 2012 if Ron Paul were to embarrass himself and run for president again.

the problem with guys like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul… (who are really one and the same internationalist agenda… one for corporatist internationalism and the other for socialist internationalism) is that it doesn’t matter what they say. They hurt the reputation of the average American and they don’t represent local interests.

The modern debate over government is based on offering Americans a choice between two minority monopolies of power. Government controlled corporations or corporate controlled government. Two extremes, both of which monopolize power in the hands of a small number of powerful and influential people. And deprive ordinary citizens of their rights. Because a tyranny of the minority is still a tyranny– regardless of what its guise is. And either corporate controlled government or government controlled corporations mean a totalitarian state serving the interests of a small group. The only debate is over which small group will benefit the most from the oppression of the majority.

The debate between government controlled corporations and corporate controlled government is mostly irrelevant. Because we have both.

…and Here is Noam Chomsky on WMDs. I know he is a liar, but even he does not agree with the idea that there were no WMDs

Chomsky: “This is even sometimes discussed. You can find it in the strategic analysis literature. Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We’re told that they didn’t find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that’s not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn’t tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.” via Chomsky info