Farrakhan: Your Record America Stinks In The Eyes of God

How did he get out again? He should have been sitting in a padded room wearing one of those nice trench coats with the long sleeves that tie into a knot around the back. But somehow the slug from the Nation of Islam, one of the biggest purveyors of hateful venom in the world Louis Farrakhan, must have escaped again.

The Muslim leader who was recently quoted as saying America will be bathed in blood, and told Al-Jazeera that 9/11 was planned by the US because “America was looking for a New Pearl Harbor.”

On June 15th Farrakhan joined such “luminaries” as Ramsey Clark and the always-crazy former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a press conference near the UN to speak out against the US action in Libya. No, Farrakhan is not suddenly concerned with the constitution and/or the war powers act, his concern was that no one knows Moammar Gadhafi like he does and the Libyan tyrant is a real nice guy (he didn’t mention it but I bet Gadhafi calls him mom every day).

Farrakhan gave a speech that lasted more than an hour, praising Libya and bashing the West.

He began by saying that NATO is using the Security Council as a pretext to assassinate his good buddy “Brother” Moammar Gadhafi and promote regime change in Libya. He says the UN fostered the revolt and created a Civil War in Libya as if Gadhafi’s tyrannical rule had nothing to do with it, nor did the fact that he was shooting his own people have anything to do with why NATO went into Libya.

The loony leader predicts that this action will destroy both the UN and the Nations involved.

United Nations and its 15-member Security Council, who he referred to as “the terror council,” have no legitimate right to exist for passing the resolution that has allowed NATO to take military action in Libya. He claims  the reason why the action was taken was to Punish “Brother Leader Gadhafi” for nationalizing Libyan Oil forty years ago.

“What has Moammar Gadhafi done to deserve what this united coalition of demons is putting on him?” Farrakhan said to murmurs of approval from his supporters. “They say he has lost the moral right (to rule) because he has killed his own people. But you have never proved that charge. Check the record.”

Hey Crazy Louie…we saw it on TV, we saw it on the internet, maybe the asylum didn’t give you video privileges those days.

Farrakhan went to spew a list of everything done by the US, England, France and Italy that Crazy Louie considered bad, including trying to oust those other “nice guy” tyrants Castro in Cuba and Papa Doc in Haiti.

Farakhan went on to compare life in Libya today to the West saving the harshest criticism for his home country, the United States. Apparently according to Farrakhan, Libya has no poverty,or homelessness. But as for America, “Your Record America Stinks In The Eyes of God”

What is hard to understand is that if Libya is perfect and the US is so awful, why doesn’t crazy Louie move to Libya and help out “Brother” Moammar Gadhafi.
Outside of the progressive community,  Farrakhan’s attempt to prove the US is worse than Gadhafi falls on deaf ears. The reason for the progressive support of Gadhafi is he is an ideal for”successful” progressive leadership.

The Libyan government eliminated all private property rights and most private businesses in 1978. The renting of property was declared illegal, and ownership of property was limited to a single dwelling per family, with all other properties being redistributed. The judiciary is not independent, the private practice of law is illegal, and all lawyers must be members of the Secretariat of Justice. There is little land ownership, and the government has the power to renationalize any property that has been privatized.

Corruption is perceived as widespread. Libya ranks 130th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2009. Government integrity is undermined by favoritism based on personal and family connections. The Gadhafi clan exercises near-total control of major government decisions.

Unemployment and underemployment are chronically high. The labor market is tightly regulated and subject to government directives. Labor law specifies minimum wage rates, the number of work hours, night shift rules, and dismissal regulations.

It looks as if Crazy Louie needs to do a bit more investigation of life in Libya and a lot less hatred of his own country.  He continues to forget is that if he made the same speech in Tripoli, but condemned Libya instead of the US and the West, it would be the last speech he would ever make.

If you have the stomach for the entire hour and a half presentation it is embedded below:

Boehner and Obama Heading For War Powers Act Showdown Over Libya

Ten days ago, on June 4th speaker Boehner gave President Obama some breathing room.  A privileged resolution introduced by a member of his own party Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)  directing the President, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya was pulled from the floor at the last minute by Speaker Boehner because it was about to pass.

Instead Boehner offered  a resolution that directed the president to explain “in detail” the U.S.’s “security interests and objectives” that justify supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s bombing campaign against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. The resolution gave the President two weeks to reply . Boehner's resolution passed the House by a vote of 268 to 145




Those two weeks are over this Friday. And the speaker wants answers.  He sent a letter to the President warning Obama that he will clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act as of this weekend as the POTUS did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

"Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution," Boehner wrote. "The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made."

Boehner pointed out that the  that the administration  provided briefings for lawmakers but he never sought formal authorization. Seeking an explanation, he asked Obama for answers to constitutional and statutory questions by Friday.

The White House maintains that it has been in compliance with the War Powers Act and has called the Boehner resolution unhelpful and unnecessary. But the truth is Boehner's resolution saved the President from an earlier showdown.

On the Senate side, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John (why the long face) Kerry, D-Mass has been trying to pass a resolution in support of the action, but the resolution, officially known as the Please Will You Make Me Secretary of State When Hilary Quits act of 2011,  hasn't yet made it out of committee.

Separately Jim Webb, D-Va., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., introduced a resolution last week, similar to the Boehner bill in the house that demands  Obama seek congressional consent for continued U.S. military involvement in Libya, provide a detailed justification for the decision to go to war.

Last week the White House will comply with the Boehner resolution but as of now there are only three working days left.  A major confrontation is brewing.

Boehner's full letter follow:

June 14, 2011

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. President:

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. On June 3, 2011, the House passed a resolution which, among other provisions, made clear that the Administration has not asked for, nor received, Congressional authorization of the mission in Libya. Therefore, it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.

Since the mission began, the Administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action. It has simultaneously sought, however, to portray that its actions are consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The combination of these actions has left many Members of Congress, as well as the American people, frustrated by the lack of clarity over the Administration’s strategic policies, by a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of the Congress, and by a refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution.

You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009 in which you swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution. The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.

Therefore, on behalf of the institution and the American people, I must ask you the following questions: Have you or your Administration conducted the legal analysis to justify your position as to whether your Administration views itself to be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution so that it may continue current operations, absent formal Congressional support or authorization, once the 90-day mark is reached? Assuming you conducted that analysis, was it with the consensus view of all stakeholders of the relevant Departments in the Executive branch? In addition, has there been an introduction of a new set of facts or circumstances which would have changed the legal analysis the Office of Legal Counsel released on April 1, 2011? Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011.

From the beginning, the House of Representatives has sought to balance two equal imperatives regarding Libya which have been in direct contradiction: the House of Representatives takes seriously America’s leadership role in the world; our country’s interests in the region; and the commitments to and from its steadfast allies. At the same time, strong concern and opposition exists to the use of military force when the military mission, by design, cannot secure a U.S. strategic policy objective. The ongoing, deeply divisive debate originated with a lack of genuine consultation prior to commencement of operations and has been further exacerbated by the lack of visibility and leadership from you and your Administration.

I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief, though I remain deeply concerned the Congress has not been provided answers from the Executive branch to fundamental questions regarding the Libya mission necessary for us to fulfill our equally important Constitutional responsibilities. I believe in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East. I sincerely hope the Administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution and the requests made by the House of Representatives, and that you will use your unique authority as our President to engage the American people regarding our mission in Libya.

Respectfully,

John A. Boehner

Source: ABC News

MADNESS! On Iran TV Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney Says Congressmen Required to Sign Allegiance Pledge To Israel

Former Congresswoman, and professional nut job Cynthia McKinney is at it again, McKinney, who was once arrested for slapping a US Capitol Policeman who asked her for ID, decided to take a little trip to the Middle East trashing the Country she once served where ever she went.

In Libya she appeared on state-run TV to complain about US Middle East and economic policies, and in Iran she claimed that every member of Congress has to sign a document promising allegiance to Israel.

The venom she spewed during her Libyan interview included:

"I want to say categorically and very clearly that these policies of war ... are not what the people of the United States stand for, and it's not what African-Americans stand for," she told state TV.

The former Georgia representative also slammed the economic policies of U.S. President Barack Obama and said the government of the United States no longer represents the interests of the American people.

"Under the economic policies of the Obama administration, those who have the least are losing the most. And those who have the most are getting even more," she said. "The situation in the United States is becoming more dire for average ordinary Americans, and the last thing we need to do is to spend money on death, destruction and war."

But it was the Iranian leg of her trip where McKinney really went bonkers (if you can't see video below click here)


Source Breitbart TV

Press TV: I just want to get into this pledge a little bit more. So this is basically something that is mandatory, that every Congressperson has to sign saying that what Jerusalem as you said is the capital of Israel, and what else?

McKinney: You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel that the economic assistant that Israel wants that you would vote to provide that.

Press TV: This is not a question for the Congress people serving that they are representing or they are supposed to be representing the people of the United States not a foreign country and yet they have to pledge allegiance to a foreign state? No one questions this?

McKinney: That is what I was asked to do and I made it public.

Madness! Not only is what the crazy McKinney saying false, but there she said it  on Iranian Television providing the totalitarian regime and enemy of the United States a propaganda bonanza.

I don't know of there is a law where this woman could be put in Jail for a treasonous act of lending support to the enemy, but if there isn't she should be given one of those trench coats with the extra long sleeves that tie in the back and gently placed in a padded room to prevent her from hurting herself and/or other people because this lady has "issues."

America: Once A Leader- Now Brags About Being A Follower

By Barry Rubin

I'll bet your mother said to you at least once: "If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it also?"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Libya reminded me of that kind of admonition:

"I would point out that Europe led the way in our response on Libya, and they were fully supported by the Arab League. So with respect to Libya, the United States is very willing to be part of this coalition, and we have contributed a great deal. But it was concern from Arab leaders and European leaders at the United Nations that really moved us forward with respect to Libya."

This is a very unusual U.S. government. It is eager to show that it isn't a leader. The underlying belief is that America must prove it isn't a bully so that the rest of the world will love it. What's important, however, is that in international affairs the strong are criticized but also get respect.

There is a strain in American political culture, from the founders, of not wanting to be too pushy in international affairs. At times in history this could shade off into isolationism, though that's pretty unlikely in today's world. Before the United States entered World War One, there was a slogan explaining that policy: Too proud to fight.

What the assassination of Usama bin Ladin proved is that America can get things done when it wants to do so. And also that it can act alone when necessary. It is less proof of President Barack Obama's brilliance and courage than it is of America's ability.

The question that must be foremost is whether a given action is in U.S. interests NOT whether it polishes the U.S. image. A willingness to be unpopular at times is a necessity for any country that wants to survive and prosper.

Just because the Arab League says it's ok is not a sufficient criterion for U.S. foreign policy to do something.

To be fair, I understand that this isn't precisely what Clinton is saying. I'm sure she would add that the intervention in Libya is in U.S. interests. But I still don't think that's true.

Moreover, this argument about what everyone else does becomes the rationale for not doing more about Iran or Syria. And one fears it will shape mistakes yet to come.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.