Is Obama a looter or a dictator or both?

There seems to be contempt growing against the President of the United States lately and there is a laundry list of reasons why many Americans are becoming angry.

While President Obama probably deserves an Academy Award for his performance, (since that is what politics are all about, performances) it is high time for this man to start accepting reality and get serious. People in this country are suffering horribly from just about everything. Tens of millions of people are out of work, while the Federal Government continues to throw out false numbers of unemployment and that the economy has been recovering. More recently, the record breaking flooding and tornadoes that have been sweeping throughout the South and Mid West has affected an estimated 80 million people.

The residents in Joplin, Missouri have spent this last week digging through wreckage for deceased loved ones. Meanwhile, President Obama has spent the week vacationing throughout Europe drinking beers in Ireland and dining with the Queen of England, and making a complete ass of himself in the process.

Remember President Bush’s disgraceful response to Hurricane Katrina? Obama already had that similar experience with the BP oil disaster in the Gulf Coast last year. The natural disasters that have occurred recently in the South and Mid West may come back to haunt him come the 2012 election. True, he will be visiting Missouri on Sunday, but if you ask me, Obama should have stopped his European tour for the sake of the nation.

On another note, the President has also violated Federal Law. Under the War Powers Resolution, it requires Congressional approval to continue any further attacks on a country. In this case, it involves the two month long NATO attacks on Moammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. Under the law, the operation should have already stopped, but due to Obama’s little excursion to Europe, no action has been taken.

This is because the plan in Libya was to seize oil and it was concocted by Obama and his instigating little shrewish adviser, Samantha Power.

However, some members of Congress are more than a little concerned and calling this as nothing more than ripping the Constitution apart. Remember when Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich questioned Obama’s actions as an impeachable offense? Well this certainly should sum it up now.

This is also the first time we’ve had a U.S. President engaged in an apparent “conflict of interest” because he is also serving as Chairman of the United Nations Security Council. In President Obama’s fantasy land, he believes that these powers under the UN allow him to do whatever he wants with regards to other nations, without Congressional approval.

It’s no wonder why so many Americans are becoming so fed up with this man.

Seems like we have a President acting both as a looter and a dictator.

President Obama tonight

Tonight, President Obama will be speaking to the nation and offering some clarification as to why he sent troops into Libya, following the United Nations authorized "No-Fly Zone".

Since his decision to sent troops without the approval of Congress, the President has generated overwhelming heat from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington as to why he violated the U.S. Constitution.

This is the same President Obama who was quoted in the Boston Globe from December 2007 that "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."

Apparently, then Senator Obama had knowledge about the Constitution. Obama as President? Not so much.

So tonight, the President should offer some answers to the American people as pertaining to his decision in doing so. Isn't it interesting that no U.S. military was needed in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Syria? Some of these countries have used force against their people as well, but a "No Fly Zone" was never called upon by the United Nations.

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich made a valid point. We have spent far too much money in the Middle East with Afghanistan and Iraq. Now funding a war against another Middle East nation like Libya is something this country simply cannot afford. Kucinich is proposing a resolution to cease funding military action in Libya. Good!

But I'd take it that the real reason we're in Libya is to "protect European energy" since Italy and France want oil contracts. Interesting that President Obama's vacation in Brazil, he was promoting off shore oil drilling, but he won't promote that here in the United States.

While military action was taken on Libya, this President spent last week hopping all over South America for a pre-Spring Break vacation, and here at home we still have no federal budget because Republicans and Democrats have nothing to do and the country has for the most part, gone broke.

So tonight when the President speaks, you're going to hear a bunch of blathering as to the "real reasons" on Libya and it will not make any difference. From my viewpoint, whenever this President speaks, it is the equivalent of Charlie Brown's school teacher.

Congressman Kucinich suggests impeachable offense?

If there are any two members of Congress that typically do not always side with their own party, it is Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. You know, they actually do what they're elected to do and set policy for the American people, instead of acting like rubber-stamps for their own party.

At the height of the United States participating in the air assault on Libya following the United Nations resolution for a no-fly zone, Congressman Kucinich suggests President Obama's decision to go into Libya is an impeachable offense because the President did not get formal Congressional approval.

Kucinich also introduced impeachment proceedings against President Bush in 2007 after the mismanagement of the War in Iraq, but it was turned down by Speaker Pelosi. Now any impeachment against President Obama is probably unlikely, however there is admiration for the liberal Congressman Kucinich, because, unlike the rest of the left who keeps cheer leading the President on just about everything he does, this particular situation, Kucinich claims "He didn't have Congressional authorization, has gone against the Constitution, and involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way."

An argument could be made that President Obama as Commander in Chief does not need Congressional approval to take military action into another country if there is an immediate danger. Kucinich says otherwise. Libya simply does not pose as an immediate danger to the United States.

Insofar, Congressman Kucinich does point out the grave reality that the no-fly zone could cost U.S. tax payers between $400 to $800 million. Iraq and Afghanistan combined has cost trillions of dollars. Furthermore, Kucinich insists the United States does not have the time or the will to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the Middle East for the third time, while the United States continues to go broke.

Now, Kucinich is anticipating on introducing a resolution to defunding military operations in Libya.

No question that Moammar Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people as we speak and a resolution by the United Nations to try and stop his despicable actions was necessary. However is it necessary for the United States to continue to take action in the Middle East every time there is an uproar? After all, other countries in the Middle East like Lebanon and countries in Africa including Liberia and the Ivory Coast have engaged themselves in civil wars and action from the United States was limited, if any.

I think the bigger problem is going to be the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood after the chaos in Libya is finally over... 

Pelosi kept on as Democratic House Leader?

Before Republicans took back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, there was substantial discussion among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that they wanted to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, regardless of either party winning the majority.

Now that John Boehner has taken over her job, many in America can have at least a sigh of relief that we no longer have to listen to her anymore. But now that does not seem to be the case.

What has become a surprising turn of events is that House Democrats are now defending Nancy Pelosi and have decided to keep her on as the Democratic House Minority Leader when the new Congress resumes in January. Looks like the American people will still have to put up with the same horrible grinning mouth, and those eyes that look like a deer trapped in headlights, and refusing to move the hell out of the way.

Mrs. Pelosi has probably been the most ineffective Speaker of the House that this country has ever had. For someone who is to have a dialogue on behalf of Congress, the very people representing America, she demonstrated having possibility the worst communication skills of any high ranking politician in this country, maybe with the exception of President Bush after her party took over in 2007. This is the same Nancy Pelosi, by the way, who said at that time to “intend to have the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.” Do any of the House Democrats remember this crap that was spewed then?

It is quite apparent that this Congress has had little honest, open or ethical qualities. The Congress did nothing in the last few years of the Bush Administration, and allowed policies which lead quickly to the financial disaster of 2008, and basically acted as a bunch of sock puppets for the Obama Administration, refused to listen to a majority of Americans that disapproved of this Administration’s policies, and speaking of ethics, Mrs. Pelosi seems to be entirely in defense of Congressman Charlie Rangel.

It would really be interesting to ask why Democrats kept her on as their supreme leader and what is the motive? Despite all of the criticism and disapproval of many Americans, you would think they could elect at least a Democrat that knows how to speak fluently and effectively, someone like Dennis Kucinich, who is not a rubberstamp like most of the other members of Congress.

But that was not the case. Instead, Democrats raced to her aid and recycled her into their ‘old/new’ Minority Leader. Oh my, do I feel sorry for House Democrats…