Showing posts with label Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2011

Impeach Obama The Warmonger!

I have it on good authority that Dennis Kucinich (D-Pluto) is made from clown concentrate and processed chicken parts. So it won’t surprise you that he’s now wondering aloud whether Obama should be impeached for his war mongering in Libya. Yeah, that Obama. . . the one who spent the weekend in Brazil cancelling press conferences so he could samba. Does he have a point?

For some background, the French and British decided something needed to be done about Libya, where Michael Jackson’s evil clone (see below) has been killing his own people. They went to the United Nations and somehow got the UN to agree to institute a no fly zone over Libya. Russia, by the way, agreed to the resolution and then promptly turned around and condemned it. Weirdos.

With UN approval in his pocket and the French leading the way. . . Field Marshal Obama fled to Brazil as our navy started launching cruise missiles at Libyan air defense installations to protect coalition forces.

Enter clown boy and his posse of “hard-core liberal House Democrats” (as Politico describes them). This group of hard-core fans includes nine House members including noted intellectual luminaries like Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee, and our friend Dennis.

As a group, they question whether Obama has the constitutional right to launch missiles against Libya (after all, the word "Libya" doesn't appear in the Constitution anywhere). They’re also upset that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack, and they’re upset that this would lead the US into a third war in the Muslim world. Said one Democrat on the conference call:
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress.”
Kucinich goes one further and says this raises the question of impeachment. Kucinich, by the way, is an impeachment hobbyist, having tried to bring impeachment articles against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

So let’s look at a few points.

First, they are wrong about the “requirement” to advise Congress before blasting some foreign country. Only Congress can declare war, but under the 1973 War Powers Act, the President can commit US troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. So their point is garbage. . . and uppity Belgium better watch its back!

Secondly, this pretty much kills any claims the Democratic left flank has to legitimacy on war issues. They claimed they opposed Bush because he acted without genuine UN approval. Obama got that. Yet, they still complain. They claim they opposed Bush because he only wanted Iraq’s oil and Afghanistan’s. . . dirt. They said we should only fight when US interests aren’t at stake, like when an evil dictator is killing his own people and it has nothing to do with us (yes, they said that). Well, that’s exactly what Gaddafi is doing in Libya, and yet they still oppose the use of force. In fact, at the same time these Democrats were holding their conference call of stupidity, anti-war protestors were protesting at the White House gates.

What does this tell us? It tells us the left is lying when they come up with specific reasons for opposing particular military actions. The truth is they simply object to military action of any kind. Hence, we should start treating their objections as irrelevant.

Third, this tells us the left is unhinged and probably will field a candidate against Obama in the primary. Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders says a primary challenge would be a good thing (sounds like Martha Stewart... "it's a good thing"), though he won’t do it himself. Our boy Dennis Kucinich says a primary challenge would make Obama a “stronger nominee,” and seems intent on jumping in where Bernie fears to tread.

But wait, what about Hillary, you ask? Well, for one thing, Hillary no longer has progressive street cred, so she might as well be Son of Bush. For another, Hillary essentially took herself out of the race this week, saying that she will not run for President, will not take another government job and will not serve in Obama’s second term. I suspect this is actually her attempt to bail out before the rats start abandoning the A.S.S. Obama once the writing on the wall gets clearer in 2012 -- which makes it a brilliant move. But whatever her reasons, she out.

So Kucinich is in. And since Kenya Boy proved that you don't need to be a US citizen anymore to become President, I think we need to expand the field of possible contenders for his VP spot. Thus, I give you....
Kucinich/Kaddafi 2012
. . . you heard it here first.

[+] Read More...

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Liberal Case Against Pelosi

So I’m cruising the net yesterday and what to my wandering mouse clicks should appear, but a rather entertaining bit of leftist fratricide. Over at Salon.com, a fringe sleaze site, between articles comparing Glenn Beck to a Nazi, explaining that Bill Clinton was right to abuse FBI files, and shriekings that Disney “princess” movies “turn little girls into bedazzled pod people” was a fun little article called “The liberal case against Dennis Kucinich.” Let’s discuss, and let’s see if the same case can be made against San Fran Nan the Pelosi.

Now before you get all excited that you may get some real analysis here, let me warn you right up front that like all diatribes written by leftists, this isn’t really much of a test. It’s more of a “find some fact that supports a prejudice” than it is anything you could call an “argument,” but it’s fun nevertheless.

The Accused: Dennis “Barking Mad” Kucinich

Occupation: Hero of the Left, Congressional Mascot

The Question: Despite spending seven terms in Congress, what has Dennis Kucinich ever done for the cause of progressivism? Like seriously. . . and stuff.

The Normal Liberal Answer: He has such good intentions that he’s almost pure goodness and above reproach. He’s like finding an extra pound of tofu under your commune’s Prius. He’s a sunny day without princesses, where everyone has free health care and peace and happiness reigns and those who disagree with you are murdered in their sleep by angry mobs. :-)

This Liberal’s Answer: Nothing, that’s what he’s done.

The Proof: A quick search of the Congressional website reveals that since he’s been in Congress, from January 7, 1997 to the present, Kooky Kucinich has sponsored a total of 97 bills. Of those, only 4. . . yes, FOUR, made it out of committee and only 3 were enacted.

Conclusion: He’s an ineffective embarrassment to progressives and should be put to death. . . or someone should run against him, which ever comes first. No further proof or argument needed.


Wow! So that was the liberal case against Kucinich. Well, that got me thinking. . . a very non-liberal thing to do. What if we applied the same test to others?

What? Yes. Yes, I know that. I know that liberal arguments aren't meant for general purposes, that they should never be applied to people we like. . . just those we've already judged guilty. But dammit, I feel frisky. Let's do this thing!

I can think of no better target for this new test than that most progressive of progressives, the botox queen herself. Let’s see how she fares under the Kucinich Standard:

Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi sponsored 86 bills since 1987, making her much lazier than Kucinich (she’s running about four per year, while he’s running about nine per year). Of those, only 15 made it out of committee and only 6 made it into law -- about one every four years. That’s right, every four years one of Nan’s bills creeps into the legal books.

That’s way worse than Kucinich’s one every three years!

That’s also much, much worse than John McCain who got 33 bills enacted in the same time, or about 1.4 per year. Or Charlie Rangel who got 30 in the same time. Heck, Hillary Clinton got 11 bills enacted in seven years, that’s like 1.6 bills a year!

Thus, there can be only one verdict. . . Guilty, and ugly. No princess here. Off with her botoxic head!


Oh, and for those of you wondering about the princess-hate, apparently today’s “thinking” feminist is upset (1) that Hollywood thinks that “boy stories are for everyone, but girl stories ‘alienate half the potential audience’” -- ah yep, truth hurts, and (2) that you “females” allow yourselves to be “conned . . . into spending $3.7 billion on princess-branded crap last year.” For shame ladies, for shame. You should know that princess crap is not as good as nondenominational Miracle Grow.


[+] Read More...