The American Spectator : One World Government Obama

Robbins Mitchell| 3.22.11 @ 6:13AM

Well,that's the "Chicago way"....if you don't like it,then Barokeydoke will send somebody around to 'persuade' you to change your mind

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 8:10AM

You are all more worried Obama will succeed than he will fail in Libya.

Red Bubba| 3.22.11 @ 8:16AM

Define "success".

Doorgunner| 3.22.11 @ 8:55AM

Why, it's whatever Chris Matthews tells him it is!

tj| 3.22.11 @ 9:20AM

I like that one doorgunner!

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 2:29PM

We're definitely worried Obama will succeed, Alan. The question is, what does Obama want? Haven't you been paying attention?

It is clear that Obama is not pandering to his base. Since the whooping of 2010, he has become just a stooge of Soros. The question becomes, "what does Soros want?".

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 4:28PM

"Since the whooping of 2010 he has become just a stooge of Soros."

So you admit that before Nov. 2nd he was not?

Chalkdust| 3.22.11 @ 4:34PM

No...He was just a mindless stooge before that.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 9:19PM

Clinton also told ABC that people close to Gadhafi are making contact with people abroad to explore options for the future, but she did not say that one of the options might be exile. She said they were asking, "What do we do? How do we get out of this? What happens next?"

You will all be disappointed if the action against Gadhafi turns out well. You will use Libya as a pawn in your gane against Obama.

William| 3.23.11 @ 9:36AM

Yes. We are all very worried that President Obama might do something successful. It has nothing to do with his simply declaring a war based on nonexistent authority, in contravention of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with his saying, in response to a question in El Salvador, that we will have clarity about the command structure for the Libyan operation "in a couple of days", even though we will have been at war for a week or more by that point.

No, it's all about the political points we want to score against him in 2012.

Wanda| 3.25.11 @ 7:16PM

So you can put some brain-frozen idiot like Sarah Palin in there? Now thats real smart! You probably didn't have any quams when BUSH invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, that were not there. Did he and congress ask us and the men and women who have sacrificed their lives if we wanted that war?!!!!!

LW| 3.25.11 @ 8:02PM

Wanda, dear. At least Bush went through the proper channels to go to war. He received a "yes" vote just as he needed to. You are an a**hole liberal and you need to WAKE UP! If you like socialism then move to Libya and be a whore to Gaddafi! I am sick of you uninformed people!

isnrblog| 3.23.11 @ 11:41AM

No Alan, he is now the Stooge of Soro's and previously he was the candidate of Soros. Now he is executing Soro's plan.

pat duran| 3.22.11 @ 10:02PM

OBH has his shadow government in place.

Jeff| 3.22.11 @ 8:37AM

So it appears that Alan's mommy has let him out to play. As is usually the case, no one wants to play with him. Poor liitle Alan........

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 10:05AM

Obama is a saboteur whose ideological background is anti-colonialist, Marxist, and radical. His background is documented in best selling books. His actions and inactions are understandable if one accepts his being a saboteur. He wants to make America weak without his being suspected of treason. His cause is aided by leftist elites and beneficiaries. We need a leader on the right, like Ronald Reagan, who will name Obama as the leader of the evil Marxist fifth column within the United States. Obama was groomed as a ONE MAN SLEEPER CELL who is a stooge and mouthpiece for the fifth column. Obama is a SMILING LIAR.

Constance Nunes| 3.22.11 @ 10:50AM

You are correct. Obama is beyond contemptible.

Bill Diebold| 3.22.11 @ 10:57AM

Dear Mr E Rope,
You have nailed it extremely well...When I was much younger I saw a film "Manchurian Candidate" our islamo terrorist in chief makes me wonder whats fictional and whats factual...

mames| 3.22.11 @ 11:28AM

I do not normally believe in conspiracies, they are just to complicated to pull off. Obama is however a special case. Someone has funded his Kenyan/Indonesian ass for some time now and he is in fact pissing on the constitution everyday; after all he himself said it is too limiting!

Ben seems to be quite lucid on this issue.

Jackie| 3.22.11 @ 4:17PM

Where is our Congress..??.Why isn't anyone saying anything? I believe that the people are going to have to start demanding that there Senators and Representatives stand up. I am very concerned about where this is going. I don't believe Obama is worried about 2012 elections. Does he suspect that there won't be any elections? That we will be in a state of emergency declared by Obama.

Lunar| 3.22.11 @ 5:49PM

Actually, Dennis Kucinich, of all people, has a problem with it, based on the interview he did with O'Reilly, last night.

Cincinnatius| 3.22.11 @ 8:22PM

The republicans are all cowering in the same corner they've been in; worrying about their re-elections and trying to be good little compromisers. The dimowits are all too invested in this Marxist wack-job to say anything (those that have an idea that we even have a Constitution) and the rest are cheering on the demise of the Constitution. They are all for it. IF we want to return to a Constitutional Republic, we will essentially have to replace the entire congress with "citizen" legislators who are more concerned with America than themselves and riding the gravy train of prestige, perks, and money. Join and support GOOOH.com.

Man from Illinois| 3.23.11 @ 3:41PM

Cincinnatius...YOU NAILED IT !! For all you Obama bashers out there take note of the above comment...from Nixon to Obama, Republicon to Democrat, it doesn't matter who is in the oval office. The system is fixed and the common man is getting the proverbial shaft right where it counts.

niteowl| 3.23.11 @ 12:49AM

Jackie, The Republicans are running with their tail between their legs. I have had it with the Republicans going by the rules when the Dems are acting as if rules are made for other people. We need to elect people who will stand up for us.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:50PM

WOW. And I thought my conspiracies about 9/11 were batshit crazy.

Thinblu| 3.22.11 @ 2:41PM

Your 911 musings ARE crazy!

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 2:54PM

Mr. Lucas,

How do Obama's actions and inactions differ from those of a saboteur who is POTUS?

Fred Mash| 3.22.11 @ 4:36PM

Enough Rope,

Your analysis is completely off the mark. As David Frum has so elequently stated, Obama is your garden variety liberal. How does he differ from Walter Mondale, or for that matter, Bill Clinton? The idea that he is some type of saboteur based on your readings of books designed to sell the red meat for extreme conservatives leaves me to be concerned you might some day plot Obama's assasination.

beebop| 3.22.11 @ 6:04PM

What parallel universe do you reside in? You conclude that there is danger to 0bama from ER because of his writing here? And you think he is off the mark? Seriously?

Nunya| 3.22.11 @ 6:17PM

Mr. Mash, I would say that's jumping WAY out there to some very extreme conclusions. Reading a book about our Communist in Chief and reporting about it, and assassinating the same are worlds apart. How one makes that leap is beyond me.

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 7:10PM

Mr. Mash,

Your last sentence "...you might someday plot..." is a vicious calumny.

I believe in truth, justice, freedom, neighborly love, and the rule of law. At a minimum, I want Obama to lose the 2012 election by a huge margin. When circumstances permit, either before or after the election of 2012, I hope for a thorough investigation by competent and objective authorities with subpoena power into Obama'a eligibility for the Presidency, and his close ties with union leaders, Marxists, and radicals whose purpose is a conspiracy to transform America into a socialist, Marxist, or fascist government and society and to weaken America's economic and military strength far below that of a superpower to the level of France or the U.K.

I claim, based on factual books about Obama's background, Obama's governmental appointments of radicals, legislation that thwarts the consent of the governed, use of administrative agencies to obtain what will not be enacted by Congress, weekly meetings at the White House with powerful radical union leaders, Federal control, by ownership, of industrial and financial companies, deliberate debasement of the U.S Dollar by monetizing the federal debt, and expanding the federal debt "on the books" to equal our GNP, that those actions and other actions are the actions of a POTUS who is inimical to America.

If Obama is guilty of treasonous acts, then I want him to be punished according to the law. I want everyone in our nation and the world to know the truth about him. If he is guilty, I want him to know and experience for many years the knowledge that the world knows the truth about who he is, what he did, and what tried to do to America.

darcy| 3.22.11 @ 11:36PM

ER: And don't forget the O administration's stonewalling on numerous FOIA actions for documents related to Fannie and Freddie -- the corruption of these entities is the number one reason for the '08 financial crisis.

Behind the smiling liar's face is a rotting carcass.

Mike C| 3.23.11 @ 12:11AM

As long as the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, Obama will receive the same punishment that Billy Bubba Clinton (and his wet pistol) got. NOTHING.

Obama may be a traitorous bag of stuff, but he is the Democrat's traitorous bag of stuff and they cannot stand to punish one of their own. For examples see Pelosi, Wrangle, Hastings, Frank, Dodd, and on and on and on .....

Alky| 3.22.11 @ 11:56PM

David Frum is nothing more than a puppet of the left, they pull his strings and his mouth moves. He's a joke!

kevin| 3.22.11 @ 7:33PM

What can you expect?
He was schooled in a radical Muslim school.

Rhonda Lee Welsch | 3.22.11 @ 10:27PM

The man of lying wonders...II Thessalonians2:9-13
like prego-It's in there! The reason he does not have a birth certificate on record is because he was spawned!

isnrblog| 3.23.11 @ 11:42AM

ROPE is right on. Read about it, Cloward/Piven etc.

isnrblog| 3.23.11 @ 11:43AM

ROPE is right on. Read about it, Cloward/Piven etc.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 5:20PM

"So it appears that Alan's mommy has let him out to play. As is usually the case, no one wants to play with him. Poor liitle Alan..."

Is that why five commenters answered my post above? you're the young, inexperienced blogger.

Hrumph| 3.22.11 @ 8:50PM

So, if I read this post correctly, if we just ignore you, you'll go away? If only it were that easy...

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 9:17PM

"Clinton also told ABC that people close to Gadhafi are making contact with people abroad to explore options for the future, but she did not say that one of the options might be exile. She said they were asking, "What do we do? How do we get out of this? What happens next?"

Looks as if the war might end fairly soon; at any rate the US isjanding over control of the air sorties to our allies.

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 8:47AM

Brooksie;
Just apply the "Bush Standard". Whatever barry the thug muslim (Yes, he's earned another adjective after egging the public employee union thugs on to lawbreaking and violence in Madison.) does just has to be looked at as if George Bush had done it. Then imagine what the media morons and enablers like you would be saying; er, excuse me, screeching, braying, yelling, screaming, bleating, and snarling. The word of the day would be "IMPEACHMENT"!

Of course, you'll come up with some statement about how we're just the usual gang of barry hating racists picking on our poor misunderstood president. But, it is clear for all to see: Obama and the dem party he has destroyed and turned into a band of violednt thugs have no use for the Constitution and is doing everything he, and they can to deposit it in the ash can of history. Plus, this is not unusual behavior by a democrat president; look how LBJ manipulated the media and the congress to start HIS own little war in Vietnam. Evidently, JFK didn't kill enough Americans before he got assassinated, so johnston had to increase the body count. Illegal wars are nothing new to democrats. Impeachment is too good for barry; a trial for treason followed by a swift and sure punishment is our only hope. But, we won't hold our breath.

The lying chunks of excrement in our laughingstock media will continue their "Destroy America" campaign in lockstep with barry and the dems. The most interesting day will be when a loaf of bread costs $25.00 and barry proudly tells us that he brought the change; even though all hope will be gone. I wonder if any of you guys on the left will get it THEN. Probably not. Our final reckoning gets closer by the day. Are you prepared?

Regardless of your politics, please watch the video at the link below. It is terrifying, and coming to a neighborhood near you. It's not political, but incredibly frightening. Just think what it will mean for your daughters.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 8:57AM

They are fluoridating your Purity Of Essence (POE)?

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 8:59AM

But thankyou, Mitch- you make me appear almost normal.

Oldefarte| 3.22.11 @ 1:23PM

You're possibly as 'NORMAL' as say Wright's proclamation of GD AMERICA [hey, I'm A RACIST, right?]; or say Bill/Geraldine blowing up buildings during the 60's while give their PEACE hand gestures; or say Ferrakan accompaning Wright down to the Middle East on a religious-speaking tour, huh??????

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 5:23PM

"You're possibly as 'NORMAL' as say Wright's proclamation of GD AMERICA [hey, I'm A RACIST, right?]; or say Bill/Geraldine blowing up buildings during the 60's while give their PEACE hand gestures; or say Ferrakan accompaning Wright down to the Middle East on a religious-speaking tour, huh??????"

I'm as abnormal as you are senile- let's leave it at that, alrighty? but you wont.

SUB_VET| 3.22.11 @ 6:49PM

Mitch....and all that complain about brook's posts you all feed him..........just pretend he doesn't exist.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:27PM

I relish my position on the TAS board as the designated village idiot. My job is to spew propaganda as set forth by my islamic master in white house. I excell at this and demand someone attempt to out do me.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:39PM

"I relish my position on the TAS board as the designated village idiot."

That is you, Clint. In both senses of 'you'.

WRTolkas| 3.22.11 @ 9:58AM

Dear Mitch Angoop,

Good post. Yes, I'm prepared, I'm mean, and I've got a boat-load of resolve. The first rag-top that tries to place a bag over one of my daughters have better be wearing a steel corset. Fairies, girly-men, and liberals will try to be the downfall of this country. There are too many veterans in this country for this to happen, I hope. I'll just wait for France to explode into a civil war and sit back and watch.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 6:58PM

Excellent point, WR, and one to be perused in detail.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:42PM

"The first rag-top that tries to place a bag over one of my daughters have better be wearing a steel corset."

Who would be interested in your daughters when camels are available?

Ray Burke| 3.22.11 @ 3:18PM

How can one ignore the obvious? The Muslim jjuuernaut will roll over us, leaving our mangled remains to be sorted out by God. Is this the heritage we will leave to our survivors, if any?

R. Neville| 3.22.11 @ 3:44PM

True Liberals have no use for facts, proof, or the truth. There is absolutely no logic to their refusal to acknowledge what is fact. Presented with irrefutable proof, they continue to reject reality for their lunatic theories. You cannot convince them because they add 2 and 2 and come up with 5; it's like trying to use logic with a 4-year-old. They are, in short, fools, deceived beyond all hope.
"In the Last Days, truth will become lies, lies will become truth, and the righteous will be imprisoned." I truly believe it will get worse before it gets better. There's no way Obumble's election could have been anything other than part of the World's downward spiral. What has happened since then, I believe you'll all agree, has been sheer madness.

Carpenter| 3.22.11 @ 9:02AM

How dare you tell us what we think?
You poor man, you are locked up with a sense of your own elitist superiority but stuck with a third-rate mind.

vivian bennett-cohan | 3.22.11 @ 10:28AM

I doubt Ben Stein is forcing you to think his way, but he brings up some great points. You have to admit that.
I think Ben Stein is RIGHT ON.... Obama is off the reservation on this on..
No, I didn't vote for Obama... I knew better.
Any Conservative in 2012....

Redstateboy| 3.22.11 @ 9:09AM

Dubya obtained Resolutions from Congress to act in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Still people like you Brooks would've liked to see him Impeached. How say you now about Das-Messiah?

Lagiusmeatius| 3.22.11 @ 2:50PM

Redstateboy,

Actually, Bush declared war in Iraq, but violated the Constitution, as war was never officially declared by Congress (not until AFTER troops were deployed in Iraq). Second, it was a violation of the UN Charter, as it was not approved in the Security Council, nor did the war amount to an act of "defense” in any reasonable estimation. Bush was never impeached for this, and most people either didn't learn these facts, or have long forgotten them. I believe Obama is committing the same acts that Bush did, violating the constitution (perhaps the UN charter as well, but I haven't looked into those details). Both Presidents (Obama and Bush) have impeachable offenses under their belt, and something tells me, Obama won't be impeached either. There's a 3 letter word that comes to mind as to why Bush wasn't impeached, and why Obama won't be impeached for this one either --- OIL.

Peace and love to you Redstateboy,
-Lagius

RWinks| 3.22.11 @ 3:31PM

lag.--You didn't look into the details on any of this. Congressional authorization was obtained well before operations began in Iraq. As for a Casus Belli, Hussein was shooting at our people almost every day and himself declared war on the USA more than once during the Nineties. He had also violated the terms of the cease fire, Etc.

You apparently are like "most people" and have never learned the "facts" or have long forgotten them.

Lagiusmeatius| 3.23.11 @ 11:12AM

RWinks,

Sorry but you are mistaken. The October 2002 resolution passed by Congress only gave Bush the authority "to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States…" This resolution never granted the president authority to declare war on Iraq. Only Congress can declare war for the United States--keep that in mind. This was a violation of Article 1, Section 8 in the constitution (read it). Bush also shifted money from the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq before Congress approved any such transfer. This was a violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the constitution. On top of that, lets look at the reasons Bush used for doing these things...
Bush provided a forged document dated October 2000 (sent to the International Atomic Energy Commission), mentioning the sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger (remember this?), and even used this "sale" in his state of the union address (remember that as well?). There were numerous CIA claims that Bush knew well beforehand that the documents were forged. He used this supposed proof of WMD to initiate the war in Iraq. Can you please tell me where the WMDs were found after all those resources were spent on the war. Where are they?
Bush had submitted a false report and a letter (I believe this was dated in March of '03) to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a ‘pre-emptive attack’ on Iraq (Downing Street Memo, dated July 23, 2002, revealed that by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to launch a war against Iraq with the justification of terrorism and WMD based on ‘fixed’ facts and intelligence.) Where are the WMDs? Where are they?
It was also a violation of Article 6, when he ignored the decisions of the United Nations against attacking Iraq, and this was a violation of the UN Charter. Look up the constitutional articles, look up the Commission Investigation Reports, etc. The facts are out there. Plain and simple.

Peace and love to you RWinks,
-Lagius

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 4:21PM

How convenient to forget that it was the democrats who authorized regime change when Clinton was president. They knew Clinton wouldn't do it, and later insisted that Bush do it then stabbed him in the back for doing it (after 9/11/01) To liberals, it's always someone else's fault.

Lagiusmeatius| 3.24.11 @ 3:42PM

Sue,

I agree with you, so often people point the finger of blame to someone else. It happens all the time, and nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. Every president is guilty of passing the blame on in some way or another, some more than others. It is definitely something that needs to be addressed. So often there are political games played back and forth between parties, omitting information when its convenient, and presenting it when it is. It is a sad, sad charade.

Peace and love to you Sue,
-Lagius

Red Blooded American| 3.22.11 @ 4:56PM

F@@K The UN. And you as well, you libtard B@@@@@D.

Lagiusmeatius| 3.23.11 @ 11:14AM

"Red Blooded American",

Very creative input! Peace and love to you!

-Lagius

faithkills| 3.22.11 @ 5:56PM

Lagius,

I agree in principal but there's something you apparently are not aware of. Technically we we had been at war with Iraq since Desert Shield. We had a cease-fire agreement that contingent on Saddam complying among other things with WMD inspections. It was in fact only that threat that bought any compliance at all. In the end it was judged he was in substantive violation of the cease-fire and thus the cease-fire was void.

It's legalistic. It's also a question how far a 'cease-fire' situation can go without it being de-facto no longer a war. Still it was the situation that obtained.

I'm no Bush apologist btw. Despised the man. It's only in comparison to Obama that I can see any redeeming quality, and that's still minimal and only extends to the fact that he was destroying American liberty at a slightly slower pace than Obama.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 10:36PM

"Second, it was a violation of the UN Charter, as it was not approved in the Security Council...."

Okay to violate the Constitution but not the UN, huh? Congress was caught asleep at the wheel on this one. I hope that's because they were concentrating too hard on cutting programs! They better get a clue.

Next election...

Lagiusmeatius| 3.23.11 @ 8:56AM

Impeach Don't Wait,

Yes I agree with you, Congress was definitely asleep at the wheel on this one. They've been asleep one too many times over the past several decades--this definitely isn't the first time. When resources are at stake (oil, minerals, etc.), it's seems they fall asleep more often. It's quite disturbing, yet not surprising. I can only hope serious campaign finance reform and other measures can get the special interest politicians (left and right) out of office and start having representatives that actually represent the people! It's been far too long since we've actually been represented. Once corporations and other wealthy contributors can no longer pay off politicians or out-spend another candidate, we will have leveled the playing field and can actually expect a politician to truly represent the people. I think many of our founding fathers would be disgusted with how money has corrupted politics, elections and thus what's in the best interest for the masses. Hopefully one day, we can be a democracy again--rather than voting for the lesser of two evils and given the illusion of our "choice" to vote. In the mean time, hopefully all the politicians wake up and realize their will be a revolution one of these days. People can only take so much of a pinch before we pinch back!

Peace and love to you "Impeach Don't Wait",
-Lagius

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 9:35AM

Has Obama succeeded at anything other than getting elected & writing a book about himself??
(Not counting destroying the economy)

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:03AM

He got a Nobel Prize for peace, whatever the hell that is. He stands along side such notables as Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Yassar Arafat. He's done that. His golf game has improved, throws lavish parties at his white house crib, and has established the teleprompter industry in this country.

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:04AM

And most important made Chris Matthew's legs tingle.

vivian bennett-cohan | 3.22.11 @ 10:31AM

So right. Maybe we should be glad he does stay away from the white house so much... Imagine if you can the trouble he could cause if he were indeed there every day.... coniving, planning....
Too horrible to even consider. :)

ShortNSweet| 3.22.11 @ 12:34PM

LOL!!! I'm rollin' in the flo bro!

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:44PM

I'm sorry, Mr. D, but, while I agree with your comments on the Small o completely, I've got a question for a Marine whose opinions I trust: is this intervention doing the USA any good at all? Are not the Rebels worse than Q?

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 10:44PM

Yeah, like, whose side are we fighting for? To keep Q from killing his people sounds good, but are we gonna do that in China? How about Iran? I don't believe Obama really wants to police the world and make it a safe place for all. Sounds to me more like the only reason is because the UN said to do it. I think that's the deciding factor. We are now a the beck and call of the UN. Simple.

Next election please...

Dave H| 3.22.11 @ 11:52AM

What makes you so sure Obama wrote his books himself? Textual analysis (vocabulary, sentence & paragraph length, etc.) reveals they were apparently not written by the same person and that whoever wrote the second one writes almost exactly like whoever wrote Bill Ayres' book.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:51PM

Hey guess what! There is a whole website devoted to this.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

mountaintoppatriot| 3.22.11 @ 5:43PM

when'd he write a book?

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 10:04AM

Obama is a saboteur whose ideological background is anti-colonialist, Marxist, and radical. His background is documented in best selling books. His actions and inactions are understandable if one accepts his being a saboteur. He wants to make America weak without his being suspected of treason. His cause is aided by leftist elites and beneficiaries. We need a leader on the right, like Ronald Reagan, who will name Obama as the leader of the evil Marxist fifth column within the United States. Obama was groomed as a ONE MAN SLEEPER CELL who is a stooge and mouthpiece for the fifth column. Obama is a SMILING LIAR.

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:11AM

Can't agree more, but whats frightening is how many ignorant nitwits got in line to get him into position to put a knife at all our collective throats and start pulling. thats what's frightening. Complete inability to recognize an agent of disaster marching down Pennsylvania Ave at the head of a marxist marching band playing "The East is Red" trailing right behind him.

Teaghan| 3.22.11 @ 1:06PM

obama will succeed? WTH? It is our soldiers, airmen and sailors that succeed. Not barry you progressive nut. If this were Palin, Bush or any other conservative in office they would have been screaming from the tops of their leftist lungs that this was another illegal war!!!!!! Ahhh, the hipocracy on display.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 2:33PM

Obama is using America's soldiers to further his own ends. Or rather, to further Soros' ends. The question is, "what does Soros have against Gaddafi?". Did Gaddafi refuse to play with Soros?

beebop| 3.22.11 @ 6:09PM

Maybe he wants the gold?

Oldefarte| 3.22.11 @ 1:13PM

He was, is and forever will continue to be a FAILURE, immediately after November of 2008. A Chicago community organizer with a law degree from Harvard [and whose law license has now been revoked by the state of Illinois] DOES NOT A PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.MAKE, not now nor ever!!!!!!!!!!!

Lori Jorstad| 3.22.11 @ 3:02PM

We would rather see success....the point is how dare he not follow the laws of our country...then scamper off for vacation.... he's an embarassment !!

Ray Burke| 3.22.11 @ 3:25PM

He is busy leading us to our demise. Goodbye.

George F.| 3.22.11 @ 4:56PM

Alan Brooks, where on earth are the good manners you used to have? Have you forgotten how to disagree agreeably which is required on this blog. Please.

idalily| 3.22.11 @ 7:17PM

So, Alan, seriously, what is the liberal rationale for Libya? I'm waiting to hear a liberal, any liberal, take a stab at a legitimate argument for Obama's actions here. I'm also waiting for the other side, for a liberal like you to condemn him with cries of, "Daddy's War!" and, "War for Oil!" and "Money for Halliburton!" And, "Illegal War!"

I guess neither is going to happen, so Alan, were you a hypocrite before, or a you a hypocrite now? Pick one, because you can't be neither.

QuestionItAll| 3.22.11 @ 8:38PM

Wow - your rose colored glasses seem to be permanently fixed to your face! If you've been slightly awake for the past 3 years you may have noticed that Obama - just another puppet - has kept ZERO of his campaign promises. In fact he has quietly done more harm by continuing Dubya's dirty work - now on steroids. You are seriously deluded to think this is anything but another OIL grab and destabilization of a sovereign country who's affairs we should not be meddling in!

NJK| 3.29.11 @ 12:05PM

Alan,
Could you explain if giving Gadhafi back the Lockerbie Bomber is part of that success? He did that or didn't you know that? So much for the murdered citizens and their families.

I get the sense Obama really enjoys the killing he is doing. My hope is that Gadhafi send someone to get Obama. I would get a good nights sleep for the first time in two years.

Bob From District 9| 3.22.11 @ 8:27PM

No, that's the New York way. In Chicago we just knew you were not significant, so we ignored you.

Dan| 9.25.11 @ 10:09AM

Totally missed the point!

gsr| 3.22.11 @ 6:24AM

This action against Libya, like other actions, the fake genocide in the Balkans which caused BJ Clinton to act, and what the two the wars in Afghan. and Iraq turned into - social programs, were/are about LIBERALISM (small 'l").

The proof is simply this: You can't fight a war while allowing the enemy to immigrate to your country at the same time. Since 9/11, Muslim immigration has sky-rocketed into our country. What does that tell you?

These wars are also related to mass immigration. Same basic idea - the idea that everyone should be able to move everywhere and have their culture, language, religion "celebrated". In other words, nations are no longer allowed to be Christian, or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu, etc. while also not allowing or even not encouraging every other culture, religion, etc.

These are liberal wars. War used to be to destroy your enemy. We could have if we wanted to after 9/11. The enemy is Islam. The correct strategy would have been massive punishment in Afghanistan to find and destroy bin Laden and his cohorts, even if it meant chasing them into Pakistan. But also, we should have stopped all Muslim immigration into our country at the same time.

These wars are not serious.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 9:02AM

"to find and destroy bin Laden and his cohorts, even if it meant chasing them into Pakistan."

They are in Pakistan.

Oldefarte| 3.22.11 @ 1:40PM

No one knows where he is, if he's alive, or is buried somewhere. Bush was correct in that Afganistan was/is nothing but an isolated desert-wasteland, and was only a AL QUIDA TRAINING GROUND for Muslim terrorists which migrated to same from ALL OVER THE WORLD for their war training maneuvers in Afganistan [and after same, these Muslim cockroaches scattered back to where they originally came from]. Any middle eastern country could have been selected as the beachead for our assault upon these radical terrorists, as there is no country with an established governmental policy of terrorism. All middle eastern governments secretly support their surrounded populations of terrorists in order to maintain their hold upon political power, and they do so with the control/threat of the might of their military-armies. What will eventually happen in the middle east with all of this political unrest is that eventually the radical Islamic groupings that are now established within each country will subversively gain popular political power/governmental control through elections [as with Iran post the Shah]. They will eventually be Iran-like, and Mubarek/Kadaffi, etc will then appear on advertising billboards exclaiming MISS ME YET???????????????

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 2:36PM

Alan B - you need to wake up and realize that Obambi is not as "anti war" as he made himself out to be. Michael Moore woke up, why can't you?

Clinton went to war occasionally to get the attention off of his lusts. What is Obama doing it for?

Ray Burke| 3.22.11 @ 3:56PM

Perhaps not, but Islam is!!! It's adherents are absolutely determined to forcefully dominate, subjugate, and either convert or kill all non-believers worldwide. Islam is a lethal threat to our nation.

Bob From District 9| 3.22.11 @ 8:30PM

"Perhaps not, but Islam is!!! It's adherents are absolutely determined to forcefully dominate, subjugate, and either convert or kill all non-believers worldwide. Islam is a lethal threat to our nation."

Not Islam, Wahabism. You should have noticed by now, all significant threat to the US from the Middle East comes from Wahabism, not Islam. IOW, Saudi Arabia is the enemy. Focus boy, focus.

Bob From District 9| 3.22.11 @ 8:29PM

"The proof is simply this: You can't fight a war while allowing the enemy to immigrate to your country at the same time. Since 9/11, Muslim immigration has sky-rocketed into our country. What does that tell you?"

It tells me you are a bigot. Islam is not the enemy. Now, had you said, "Wahabi" I would find it hard to disagree with you. However, since Wahabi is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is the official state buddy of the right, you can't say that can you.

Central Scrutinizer| 3.27.11 @ 12:43AM

A bigot, really? Islam is the common denominator in this equation. To puke the bigot, crap is just that crap. We should do everything in our power to secure our country from all threats. Even if it hurts someones feelings. As far as Saudi Arabia goes you are preaching to the choir. We need to cut the middle east off at the knees and start going after our own resources and kick them to the curb. It would solve so many of our current problems in one fail swoop.

Carol| 3.22.11 @ 6:33AM

Blame the limp wristed Congress on both sides of the aisle.

You have the liberals that don't dare question Obama because he is half black and conned a nation of morons to be president.

You have the GOP (Government of P(fill in the rest of the word if you know what I mean) who are afraid of Obama because he is half black and conned a nation of morons.

As Glenn Beck said - as he has predicted almost everything about the evil Obama Regime - Obama has made Congress irrelevant with their blessing.

If I were in Congress I'd be the first one to start impeachment proceedings against the punk playing president.

Walking Horse| 3.22.11 @ 9:12AM

Decent summation, ma'am. One other thing that cannot go without mention: the folks in Congress only mention the Constitution when it suits their prejudices and summarily ignore it on other occasions.

Witness yesterday, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich bleating about the Constitution with regard to this adventure in Libya. When is the last time you heard this strange little man speak of that document?

Most of these folks betray their oath of office within the first week of a congressional session, and find it a matter of no consequence, so it becomes accepted practice. That, folks, is our fault for not holding them to account. It is also worth mentioning that too many of us are too unaware to keep up with the carnage.

Bob From District 9| 3.22.11 @ 9:29PM

"If I were in Congress I'd be the first one to start impeachment proceedings against the punk playing president."

Where were you when Bush was the punk playing president?

Dee See| 3.22.11 @ 6:36AM

"When an ideal, ANY ideal, takes hold of the
real levers of power ---you get pure evil."
-D H Lawrence
letters
1922

---Globalism, "Free Trade' (i.e. economic TREASON) and, most hideously, EUGENICS
---are IDEALS.

I-----DEALS indeed.

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 9:05AM

You have been listening to too much of Alex Jones' Stasi Borg palaver; it is Michael Moore meets Austin.
it is infotainment-- Rush Limbaugh without the substance.

Oldefarte| 3.22.11 @ 1:43PM

Does your T-shirt proclaim your hatred of white people [that Jones lamented about in 2005]?????

PaulD| 3.22.11 @ 6:46AM

What? Obama ask for permission to do anything? That's not within his very limited skill set.

Bob From District 9| 3.22.11 @ 9:31PM

GW Bush made it clear, a president in wartime doesn't need anyone's permission.

Ray| 3.23.11 @ 11:38AM

And Obama made it very clear that he would never commit the military to any action without Congressional approval.

Joel Raupe | 3.22.11 @ 7:00AM

These were the same questions a lot of us were raising over the weekend. Lady Graham comes out of a briefing by Pentagon and White House "briefers" last Thursday saying he's "comfortable" with their strategy, and that should have been a red flag for everyone. And among the many other disturbing elements in this drama is the dismissive attitude so many have to the constitutional questions. Even if the president has a loophole in the War Powers Act, and I'm not at all sure that he does, the Constitution is the bedrock charter that gives all of the players on our team their titles and mandates. It defines the Executive and requires he uphold and defend it, spelling out his existence and his duty.

It's no small issue. Without the Constitution and full respect for the Constitution, instead of looking for wiggle room around its so-called "negative rights," we have a Caesar and not a President.

Remember the concern about President Nixon and the threat of an "Imperial President," trotted out endlessly by the Washington Post forty years ago? Presently we seem not to have to worry about an Imperial Presidency as much as we do a weak Imperial Presidency.

By the way. Just who is this Samantha Power? What are the origins of this "new norm" the Secretary General of the U.N. was talking about before the "conflict" began? Just what is the origin and, perhaps more importantly, what is the eventual intended purpose of the "Responsibility 2 Protect" doctrine?

crooked wren| 3.22.11 @ 8:34AM

Speaking of the Constitution being laid to rest, how about the rather alarming levels of UN infiltration into our communities via Agenda 21?

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT AGENDA 21. WHY NOT?

Last I looked there was even a website for Dems against Agenda 21.

Bush Sr. signed onto it. Clinton got it "going" through an Executive Order.

Communities are signing onto it -- leaching away at sovereignty.

I know. Sounds crazy. But it's for real. The people here in Virginia are beginning to wake up to it.

Agenda 21 is a real and present danger.

Abingdon, VA signed on to it. Without understanding what it is.

NGOs such as the ICLEI are sneaking past well-meaning, college-educated people -- with nice phrases such as "sustainable development" and "smart growth." Sounds great.

But if you read on in Agenda 21 mission statement, you will find that they detest -- DETEST -- things such as private ownership of property.

LOOK INTO IT, FOLKS.

Virginia has had some past legislation passed that have created MANDATES for this thing in communities when they reach a certain size. It MANDATES the stealing of private property in certain areas; MANDATES building crowded housing that will be more expensive -- for those on limited incomes (which means the construction groups are wanting to keep this legislation going); MANDATES wilderness areas for really wild creatures ----

They want to see a world where only the ruling elite have private vehicles and their own homes.

It's coming -- if we don't stop it.

Bob From District 9| 3.22.11 @ 9:35PM

"They want to see a world where only the ruling elite have private vehicles and their own homes."

At first I wasn't sure what you were talking about. Now I see, it's the Republican Party.

KyMouse| 3.22.11 @ 7:15AM

The Constitution has been laid to rest, but how many Americans have noticed? How many are truly angry about it? This should be torches-and-pitchforks time, but very few people I know are doing anything more than shrugging and saying, "What else would we expect from Obama?"

So -- what CAN we do? Write another letter to our legislators? Vote Obama out in November 2012? What else?

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 8:53AM

Make sure you're armed and prepared. If you don't know now, learn to be an expert marksman/woman. Start building up a reserve of NON-PERISHABLE food and liquids. Don't forget to make provision for a source of heat for cooking food. Plan on living independently for a minimum of 3 months, but a year is better. Stock up on ammunition for your protective firearms.

Then go to the link below and watch the video. This is incredibly frightening and important!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY

Fairbanks99| 3.22.11 @ 12:50PM

https://www.lifelibertyetc.com/Products/Books/Patriots-Surviving-the-Coming-Collapse

Along those lines, this book is an excellent read about financial collapse and living through it.

me| 3.22.11 @ 7:20AM

thank you mr. stein.
clearly the presidents oath of office has no meaning, nor does the oath that all members of congress take.
all americans are required to take american government to graduate not only from high school but college or university. is that not so we all understand our rights and responsibilities as citizens?
as things stand the entire government, by not acting to correct this violation of the constiution, has violated thier end of the social contract with its citizens. the window of opportunity is quickly closing to correct this breach.
should we not all fear that this is the end of the great experiment called the United States of American, not because of some horrible war, but because of complacency.

Nevin| 3.22.11 @ 7:29AM

Is it really a surprise? It’s certainly not the first time this president has utterly disregarded the Constitution.

I think the saddest part is how many people stand behind this guy – would it be fair to say that the Constitution is dead to these people as well?

And who exactly is responsible for protecting and upholding our beloved Constitution? The courts? The legislature?.........The president?

Hopefully the voters will decide to uphold the Constitution in 2012……otherwise, what then?

Brumby| 3.22.11 @ 9:04AM

Mornin mates,
Down here in OZ none of us can figure what you Yanks are doing! The word used around here is "Vietnam". More than 5,000 Aussies and Kiwis died in that war along side you, our longest and strongest ally. What are you thinking?

Every newspaper is saying that the missiles you yanks are shootin cost a MILLION BUCKS EACH! Our bankers are tellin us that the U.S. Dollar is gonna drop like a cement emu. What is your president thinking?

More and more of us are starting to understand why you need obama out of power. Too bad you don't have a parliament like ours. We could boot his skinny arse out in a election as soon as he started actin loony tunes! We're still takin in good blokes! C'mon down! It's safer here and we have us-selves a tough PM who just told the towel-heads to go home if they don't like Oz the way WE made it.

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 9:39AM

May take you up on that offer mate, my grandmother was born near Sydney in the late 1800's. Must be sad and stunning watch a once great country destroy itself in living color from afar. History has seen this trend hundreds of times over the centuries, ignorant humans seem to see it only when it kicks down the front door and parks its @ss on the living room couch. People in this country have no idea whats coming down the pike. You Aussies have always had that independant, individualist spirit, don't lose it, its becoming a priceless comodity. Cheers.

David T| 3.22.11 @ 10:35AM

Brumby--Hey, I'm just an ignorant Yank, but wasn't it former PM John Howard (the "man of steel," as W called him) who told the Muslims to shape up or ship out? I don't know much about your current PM, Julia Gillard. She may be a fine leader, but I doubt she could fill John Howard's shoes. I wish the US had a leader like John Howard.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:04PM

Hey Brumby.
Sorry, I wrote Australia off my bail-out list when you guys outlawed and collected repeater-fire long guns.
I may go down, here in Texas, but I'll go down shootin'! (plural)

Fairbanks99| 3.22.11 @ 12:58PM

Down Under looks better every day.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:47PM

Not Godzone---Oz.

And we'll get the Us back to Right.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:49PM

Brumby, the book you were looking for:

Terra Australis: Matthew Flinders' Great Adventures in the Circumnavigation of Australia: Matthew Flinders' Great Adventures in the Circumnavigation of Australia
by Matthew Flinders, Tim Flannery (Editor)
Available on the alibris website. Happy reading!

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 4:22PM

Occam,
Since Brumby mentioned that he was written into the book, I'd think it would be more contemporary. I found one titled "CIRCUMNAVIGATING OZ"; which is about a cruise around the Island Continent in 2008. It's an 'E-Book" and can be found at this site: www.theozcruise.com I think Ken also found it. Brumby! Have you found it yet? Did you say that you were written into the book?

Nunya| 3.22.11 @ 6:44PM

Hey Brumby, you're spot on. I'd consider moving down there, but they won't let me keep my .45's, my .40's, and probably my .308 or .223. :-)

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 7:36AM

I'm no fan of Obama and I do not believe this military action is justified but the American people put this guy in office and I don't recall the War Powers Act being repealed. If congress doesn't like what he's done or the way the law is currently set up I suggest they ammend or repeal the War Powers Act and quit the partisan grand standing. Obama can debate if Libya was a threat or not until the cows come home but if Bill Clinton can question the meaning of the word "is" then Obama has plenty of wiggle room. Mr. Stein usually has thoughtful articles this is pure partisan sniping.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 8:31AM

The war powers act is repealed by the US constitution. Such a re-delegation of authority is not allowed under the USC.

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 9:37AM

SCOTUS has never ruled the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional. The comment you left is simply your opinion and not a matter of fact.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 10:02AM

Ah, the old SCOTUS decides what is constitutional canard. What a joke. Of course you agree that every decision SCOTUS has made is correct, right? If not you are a flaming hypocrite.

Here try this, it is simply your opinion that SCOTUS gets to decide what is or is not constitutional.

The plain facts are these however, that certain powers were delegated to the federal government through the instrument of the US constitution, and that the power to declare war was given to the congress, and done so in a specific denial of the long practice of the power of war being an executive power. In this the founding generation was very clear that it would be too dangerous to let the executive hold such power.

It then being the case that the congress alone has power to make war, and not just make war, but determine the location of bases....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever....and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

There being nothing in the US constitution authorizing a re-delegation of a power that is lodged in one branch to another, then the War Powers Act is clearly unconstitutional.

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 12:48PM

No need to start calling me names. Regardless of how I view SCOTUS decisions. You apparently do not understand how the goverment actually works only how you would prefer for it to work. Congress passed the War Powers Act over a Presidential veto. I'm not advocating for the resolution simply mentioning the fact that it exists and is the current law of the land. Congress has the power to change the War Powers Act and the SCOTUS has the power to rule it unconstitutional if they so desire. Neither has occured as of this point in time and so it remain the law. Under the War Powers Act the president has 60 days to go before congress and 30 more days after that to get out if the use of force is not approved. Those are the facts plain and simple. If you have a problem with that I suggest you contact your congressmen and or women and have them change or repeal the War Powers Act. Rather than rail about how unconstitutional it all is.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 1:02PM

I'm well aware of how it government works.

I've contacted my Senators and reps many times, realized that I was only ever going to get boilerplate responses.

Who was railing? I made a simple comment concerning the WPA, and then pointed out what the USC says in comparison to the WPA. I think it far more effective to use the power of communication with others than rely on a corrupt system that has long abandoned the US constitution, to transform itself.

It is the fact that people either don't care about the abandoning of the USC, or actually believe that this government is legitimate that is the problem. If the people don't care then if my rep or senators or SCOTUS ignores the USC then it doesn't matter.

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 3:47PM

In answer to your question as to whether or not SCOTUS gets to decide if a law is constitutional or not. If the law involved is effecting the enumberated powers given to the federal government under the US Constitution then yes they do get to decide if a law is constitutional or not and they are the final arbitor of the constitutionality of said law. However if the law is outside of the enumberated powers given to the federal government then they can and should have a say as to whether or not a law is constitutional but they should not be the final arbitor.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 5:22PM

That's a circular argument. Who then decides if a law is outside the enumerated powers? Who gets to decide who has standing?

I do agree that SCOTUS is not the final arbiter, as there are the states, then juries, and finally the people in revolution.

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 6:29PM

State governors and State legislatures should be able to make a determination whether the federal government has over stepped it's constitutional limits. Check out the excellent book from Thomas Woods "Nullification". It gives several ways in which federal over reach can be checked without relaying on the SCOTUS.

Len | 3.22.11 @ 9:38PM

Make up your mind, first you advocate supremacy in SCOTUS, then you recommend Thomas Woods, who I happen to be very familiar with for support of the states being an arbiter, AS I ALREADY STATED.

I hate to take an approach whereby I may seem arrogant, but I will nonetheless; I have been studying these matters for a while and read many, many an author and the records of the federal convention debates, newspapers of the time, some (admittedly not all) of the state ratification debates, and I have a good understanding of what the founding generation was doing in creating the USC and an even better understanding of just what rights are and what a legitimate government may do, so someone like you coming along telling me that I am only giving an opinion in regard to the constitutionality of the WPA comes across as merely another uninformed, johnny -come-lately, naive newbie acting as if he is the font of all wisdom.

I know, I know, if I was really such an expert (not claiming to be one), then why am I not a recognized authority, or writing articles at some political site? Well, frankly most of these sites, both liberal and conservative, and to some degree libertarian, are dumbed down and populist in nature, but rarely deeply analytical or actually historically informative...eh anyway, I know what I'm talking about but I realize that I'm a minority (being a minarchist for one) and that regardless of whether I'm correct or not, it is really only popular opinion that matters, and as such I'm just another joe schmoe who cannot point to an absolute standard to prove my correctness.

Nullification, read it, along with Who Killed the Constitution - Woods and Gutzman

Thomas Woods
Kevin Gutzman
Raoul Berger
John Locke
Jefferson, various books on him
Federalist Papers
Akhil Amar (progressive)
Rob Natelson (the best constitutional scholar I know of)
various state ratification records
Madison, letters
Louis Fisher (if you really want a good treatment of the War Powers Act)
Rothbard
Mises
various records of SCOTUS decisions (you know what? there is not one true originalist, although Thomas comes close)
Andrew Napolitano
St. George Tucker
Abel Upshur
Robert Murphy
Randy Barnett
Thomas DiLorenzo
various constitutional law articles
a good number of other authors

And you know what?I have people telling me they are constitutional conservatives, and revere it, yet have not even bothered studying it? How can someone be a constitutional conservative and revere it when they haven't even endeavored to study the USC?

confedgal| 3.22.11 @ 11:07AM

It doesn't matter whether or not SCOTUS has declared the War Powers Act constitutional. It doesn't give the president broad powers to send our troops anywhere.

"SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

We have not declared war, nor has it been officially declared on us, Congress has not given the consent in legislation for him to do this, and we have not been attacked.

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 1:03PM

If a law is passed and it is not ruled unconstitutional then it is a law PERIOD. Regardless of whether or not you like it OR not and regardless of whether you or I think it constitiutional or not. And "IT" the War Powers Act does indeed givc the president broad powers to send troops and commit the military. Work to get the law changed or repealed. Or file a law suit and hope the SCOTUS takes it up. This is not a states rights issue so the SCOTUS is the final arbitor.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 4:30PM

So you mean the libs had no legitimate gripe when W went into iraq? That he didn't have to bother with congress after all?

George S| 3.22.11 @ 5:48PM

Not only that, but the WPA requires the President to consult with Congress BEFORE introducing military troops into hostilities. I, too, don't see any wiggle room in Obama's actions.

Big Tony| 3.22.11 @ 6:23PM

That is not true it requires congressional notification within 48 hours.

George S| 3.23.11 @ 11:21AM

No...

Section 3 states "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. "

Even though Section 4 states that the President notify Congress withing 48 hours, that does not relieve him of consulting with Congress if it is practical.

Why is Libya's situation exempt from "every possible instance"? We saw it coming for weeks. You think the reporting requirements trump the notification requirement? Again, no wiggle room.

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 4:24PM

Tony, the War Powers Resolution only gives the President the authority to attack if there's been an attack on the United States, or if an attack on us is imminent. So I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

By the way, the War Powers Act smacks of unconstitutionality, as the Constitution gives sole authority to go to war to the Congress.

We have three branches of government and a seperation of powers for a reason.

idalily| 3.22.11 @ 7:20PM

A reason we haven't seen much of lately, alas. Our three branches are morphing into one very quickly, my friend.

Hillel| 3.22.11 @ 7:38AM

Presidents have been "pushing the "envelope for some time. Actually one of the most egregious was President Clinton in Bosnia. If memory serves, he even transfered (with the blessing of the supreme court) a US soldier into the UN army.

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 4:52PM

Very true, and beyond bizarre.

Dee See| 3.22.11 @ 7:40AM

BTW ---Glenn Beck is a total front for the Murdoch/Globalist agenda
and gets all his best stuff by ripping off ALEX JONES.

UNDENIABLE ---now deal with it

A. C. Santore| 3.22.11 @ 8:53AM

Really? Wow!

Approximately how many minutes - total - have you watched Glenn Beck? Any at all?

And how many of the works he that cites for his sources have you read?

Or does your understanding of him come off a Kool-Aid label?

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:19AM

Whatever Glenn Beck is or isn't, thats the most assine take I have ever read anywhere. Its hard to jam that much ignorance into such a short message, but you done it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:12PM

Dee see is great entertainment.!!!
Don't run him off, folks, but protect your keyboards!

Dee see...go take your meds!

Hook| 3.22.11 @ 7:43AM

Mr, Stein,
The vast majority of the press will give Obama a pass no matter what he does. He could ask Jews to wear yellow stars and they would probably still vote for him--I am only being mildly saracastic.

Richard Cohen has called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so "botched" that they are kind of beyond hope--botched by Bush that is.

He also is critical of Libya which he should be.

Obama ran as an anti war candidate and has pretty much followed Bush's policies to a T. No problem from the media on that one. No problem with Gitmo now.

It is terrifying that our liberal politicians put trashing Bush ahead of the safety of their country because that is clearly what drove the immense anti war sentiment before. Real head cases like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan still protest, but alas they receive no coverage.

I think the hypocrisy of the press should be mentioned by conservatives and libertarians again and again and again.

I also find the liberal obsession with Sarah Palin to be as weird a phenomenon I have ever seen, and I am fully aware that she draws interest, but having about eight articles in Salon in two days trashing her seems to me to be a bit weird. Conservatives are attacking her too I suspect because they fear her charisma and fear for possibly valid reasons that a polarizing figure like Palin might lose (although I am one of the minority of political junkies who thinks almost anyone will beat Obama). I am mostly worried about his Mormonism..

Palin should run if only to keep Huckabee out.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:51PM

You know, I can't disagree with you on my fellow Jews and Obama, no sir, I can't.

Ret. Marine| 3.22.11 @ 7:54AM

Although I was thinking the same thing this past weekend, "where is CONgress" on this matter, I have one thinng on my mind that is more disturbing and equally alarming. What happens if the next strike on this Nation is started by all those peaceful muslims we keep hearing about, you know the ones by the millions this impostor calling himself president is allowing to enter our shores without so much as any fanfare from the progressives multiculturalism freaks, their cohorts the liars-R-we, the alphabet-called slime reporters, and the Patriots stand up in an uprising, does this so-called prez then go to the UN and state a clear and present danger to his democracy, not our Republic mind you but, his democracy, what then? does he now ( precedence now set, without the consent of CONgress) have the authority to then send UN troops against We the People for defending ourselves? The CONgress has made themselves worthless and apparently do not even think this is an impeachable offense, Art. 1 Sect 8 Violation against We the People. Who among us will demand this usurper-n-thief pay the ultimate price for his current treason? Ballot box you say, yeah and I've got a few million acres of land, you know because I am part of the We the People crowd who owns the land ya know and can sell it without the consent of the Congress, get it? I don't care to hear anything other than why this CONgress has not already writen up articles of impeachment, too many violations thus far have been painfully made pubic knowledge, even by the writers of this site and again where is the so-called CONgress, missing of their responsibilities and duties. This does not bode well for this Country in too many ways, never mind the fact this impostor calling himself the leader of the free world is helping a known terrorist organization, the muslim brotherhood, as per. The State dept's list of terror sponsors gain access to other Nations weapons of mass destruction by his acts recently. I don't know about others, but afraid I am not, concerned with what the future holds is very much on my mind these days, and talking about it, well it just seems I've lost the faith in my fellow Patriots to do any meaningful actions against this fraud, let alone defend themselves against a would be tyrant, obamas bin lyn. SCRAM AND HOLLER all I want, but I miss the Country I grew up in. In many ways I feel the need to confront all who just wish my type to go away and leave them to their demise but, I'll have none of it. It's getting close to "payback" time. Gear up, man up and get ready someone has to start it. and it appears as though this so-called prez is just the man for the job.

The Bishop| 3.22.11 @ 8:13AM

It's a sad day for me when I find myself aligned with Dennis Kucinich regarding the military and it's use. We have definitely pushed the "envelope" beyond its breaking point. But, then again, I think the whole Obama administration is a violation of the Alien and Sedition Act.

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 8:16AM

Don't worry, Dennis the menace will return to the fold when it counts. Remember all it took was a plane ride and some "persuasion" to get him back into line.

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 9:14AM

Good Morning Mike D.
Has anybody seen any posts by your echo, MikeD? He seems to have disappeared. I went to that site Brumby was looking for (www.theozcruise.com) and got the book. If you see this, Brumby; I bet your real name is "Kit". Of all the characters in the book, you seem to be closest to him.

Mike D., I don't know if there is any connection with you. Did you write a book about Australia? There seems to be lots of 'Mikes' writing on TAS now; and I can't keep them straight. "Margie" seems to have disappeared too. Maybe she's with MikeD; sunning on a beach on the Gold Coast!

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 11:27AM

I read in another thread Margie was banned from posting.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:17PM

Live Free...
You heard it wrong. Margie just despaired of the constant drum-beat of criticizm.

I don't blame her. Over the years, many fine commenters have come here for a while, but now only "lurk" for the same reasons.
Me?
I'm just going to keep on hacking away at stupidity....for all those lurkers' sake and in their name.

Teaghan| 3.22.11 @ 1:25PM

Thank you Ken. I always appreciate your posts.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:52PM

Well, Margie is a lovely person, Ken.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 3:55PM

I can understand those thoughts. It's all too easy to dwell in the negative. Thanks for the update.

Brumby| 3.22.11 @ 4:44PM

Mitch,
Ya got me! You're right. I did find the book. It is called "CIRCUMNAVIGATING OZ", and I AM in it. And, yup; my name is Kit, short for a really pommie name me mum gave me; "Kitchner", if ya can believe that!

I think Ken found it for me. Thanks Mate! I found it at www.theozcruise.com Even though it has round about a hundred pictures in it, I didn't see one of me. It sure helped me get ready for our next cruise. I bought 30 of 'em for my friends since we're cruising to New Zealand in the winter.

The guy that wrote the book talked about one of my favorite pubs in Sydney, the Lord Nelson. They have a brew there that is so strong they sell off the left overs to a place what clears the paint off old rubbish lorries. Good stuff! Off to work; I don't want to be later than I am!

Cheers!

MikeD| 3.22.11 @ 7:11PM

Mitch,
I AM still alive and kicking (sort of) but can't do too much. You are doing fine kicking the trolls. Keep at it! Regards to Brumby.

john dubose| 3.22.11 @ 8:13AM

When the constitution was written, nation states could define their relationships as either at peace or at war.. Things have changed. Low level sneaky partial war is everywhere. If congerss wants to exercise its authority, it must get geared up to act MUCH FASTER when chrises come along. I do not see that happening. Unless it does, we are stuck with the Pres we got.

Vern Crisler | 3.22.11 @ 10:18AM

This is a good point. Leaders have what is known as "prerogative" powers. They cannot always wait for the sanction of law when faced with emergencies (cf., Abraham Lincoln). However, it is up to the legislature to review the leader's actions when they finally meet (much quicker now than in the day of the US Constitution). They can either affirm them (as Congress did with Lincoln's actions), or revoke them, and subject the leader to impeachment if the leader's exercise of power was unreasonable or inappropriate.

We should be supporting Obama on this issue for now. The Congress can evaluate his actions when they meet to review them.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 11:06AM

Please, there is not one instance of a President needing such power.

Lincoln..the South had already seceded. There was no threat to the safety of the Union.

Libya? Are you serious? You're trying to claim imminent threat or attack? It is in those cases that a president may act without authority.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 11:11AM

I should correct the above, in cases of imminent threat or attack, the president already has the authority under the constitution to act, the authority not needed in such cases is from the congress.

Just to make sure, yes there is prerogative, but no, there is not one instance of it ever being needed.

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 4:57PM

Actually, what you're describing is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, not the constitution.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 5:15PM

Um no, prerogative is understood as being inherent in a fiduciary agent's power, and the founders created the US constitution with the understanding that the congress and the president were fiduciary agents.

That's part of what makes the WPA so ridiculous and illustrates how far we have come from the creating of the US constitution. People don't even understand the context in which the USC was framed and made. During the time of the founding generation fiduciary agents such as guardians, attorneys, factors were common and prerogative did not need to be explained.

Vern Crisler | 3.22.11 @ 8:20PM

The attack on Fort Sumter was not a threat to the safety of the Union?

Libya falls under the category of our national interest. It's in our national interest to support opponents of Khadafi, and they were about to be exterminated. Obama therefore acted rightly in this emergency situation.

Len | 3.22.11 @ 10:50PM

National Interests? I'm really tired of that ridiculous canard. THE USC says nothing about national interests, so quit your damn lying through usage of phrases that attempt to subsume the actual ends of the USC.

The powers granted under the USC are for defense of the states and to enable trade, not national interests, which is another way of saying imperialism.

Equally ridiculous is the attempt to say that an attack on a fort 5o0 miles away from the nearest Union state which was announced 24 hours in advance was somehow a threat to the Union. Not to mention that this fort was in the bay of Charleston, and that Lincoln refused to treat with the South over the return of this fort which was no longer necessary for the defense of any state within the union.

While we're on ridiculous, allow me to quote Lysander Spooner on this unnecessary war.."The principle on which the war was waged by the North was simply this: that men may rightfully be compelled to submit to and support a government that they do not want, and that resistance on their part makes them traitors and criminals."

It had nothing to do with the US constitution, nor slavery, but everything to do with a dominant centralized state imposing it's will on subjects. It was not insurrection or rebellion as no state was made the object of an attempt to conquer it or overthrow it's government. Hey! and you know what, during the federal convention debates, the use of force was rejected even for states that were not in constitutional compliance, let alone any that had withdrawn the authority to act on their behalf.

You continue to attempt to spin a narrative that is false and unsupported by the actual framing and making of the USC. You also blatantly ignore the right of a people to determine the matter of their governance. An instrument that is supposed to preserve liberty somehow authorizes killing 100,000s of thousands, running up a massive debt, destroying cities, salting lands, raping women, shutting down newspapers, imposing conscription, violently shutting down peaceful protests, arresting lawfully elected state legislators and subjugating states toward that end?? No rational person can really believe that.

Oh right to preserve the union, sort of like the Soviet Union and China killing those who are a threat to the state. Statist worshipers like you are frankly frightening as you place state above liberty and rights.

Vern Crisler | 3.23.11 @ 12:27AM

Every country has a national interest Len. It's part of why the Constitution was formed in the first place. And please, get over your hypocritical defense of liberty while ignoring the same rights of the African slaves. You still do not understand the nature of the American system, and I suspect you never will. You are committed to the secessionist, fire-eating line, and only a Shermanesque march through your ideological redoubts could ever drive it out of you.

Vic| 3.23.11 @ 11:18PM

Yep, might makes right. The fact that the south had slaves (perhaps 5% of them anyway) we had the perfect right to slaughter them in mass, burn their cities, and loot what ever is left unburned. Serves them right for dissing our king!

Ray| 3.23.11 @ 11:52AM

"Lincoln..the South had already seceded. "

That's called insurrection and the Constitution has clearly laid out the President's responsibilities in this matter. Only Congress has the authority to call for the military or the militia to repel invasions or quell insurrections, which they gave to Lincoln.

The President doesn't have any "emergency" powers concerning the use of military force without prior Congressional approval, not according to the Constitution anyways. That's why the 1973 War Powers Act was created, to give that power to the president for a limited time without prior Congressional approval. But that Act only applies in limited, clearly defined parameters, and military involvement in a foreign civil war is NOT one of them.

Vic| 3.23.11 @ 11:21PM

The war of northern aggression was NOT a civil war, unless by your reasoning the revolution was a civil war.

Louis Jenkins| 3.22.11 @ 8:30AM

President Obama has done it. Declared a war, although minor, and went on vacation. What a life! All without the approval of our Congress. Now at last we come to the truth of the matter: Obama believes that the United Nations has oversight on the US, its Constitution, and its people. The radio said 50% of the people agree with his decision to launch the air war. Only 29% disagree. I don't understand. I do not understand a majority that goes along with the UN. A war must be debated by the Congress, a war must be approved. Bush followed that route. Obama you are screwing up. You don't let the minor procedures of government bother you a bit do you?

edo| 3.22.11 @ 8:55AM

Who are the rebels and where did they get their guns?

Nunya| 3.22.11 @ 7:23PM

The media will probably tell you they got them at the local gun show....

Peppermint Tea| 3.22.11 @ 8:57AM

We don't protest a new war without a declaration.
Will we protest when the President seizes our property, houses armies in our homes, confiscates guns, takes our children away (for their own safety) and myriad other dictatorial acts?

dnha14| 3.22.11 @ 9:07AM

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Eurasia is at war with Eastasia. Eastasia is at war with Oceania. Endless warfare with no victor? Where HAVE I read this before?

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 9:57AM

Tom Lehrer, in his song

They're rioting in Africa,
They're starving in Spain,
There's hurricanes in Florida,
And Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The french hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles,
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch,
AND I DON' LIKE ANYBODY VERY MUCH!!

But we should be tranquil and thankful and proud,
For Man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lucky day; Some one will set the spark of
AND WE WILL ALL BE BLOWN AWAY!

They're rioting in Africa,
There's strife in Iran,
What nature doesn't do to us....
Will be done by our fellow MAN!"

Many thanks to Dr. Thomas Lehrer; Hahvad, M.I.T.; University of California at Santa Cruz.

And now you know...THE REST OF THE STORY!

dnha14| 3.22.11 @ 11:03AM

I love Tom Lehrer. He's on my iPod.

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 4:32PM

Actually, I cited the wrong song. I was thinking about one that Tom Lehrer wrote about nuclear proliferation called "First We Got the Bomb". This song was done by the Kingston Trio. Sorry 'bout that.

JimH| 3.22.11 @ 5:55PM

There is also 'We'll All Go Together When We Go'. I listen to it while poisoning pigeons in the park, especially during national brotherhood week.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:04PM

I think you're thinking of "National Brotherhood Week," by the great Lehrer, who also wrote the best Hanukkah song ever, "I'm Having Hannukkah in Santa Monica."

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:06PM

There's also "Goodbye , Mom, I'm Off to Drop the Bomb."

I had a friend who took him for math class. No humor there at all.

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:31AM

Yep, we already have the make it up news media in place. Goods news the price of chocolate is down two cents this week and the ration of sugar has been increased brothers.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 10:34AM

This might be the best comment of the day. I recently re-read 1984 for the first time since . . . well . . .1984. Maybe I was too young to understand it back then, maybe the world has changed enough to render it more relevant than ever, but this time around, that book scared the hell out of me.

If anybody out there has never rad 1984, go check it out. It will scare the hell out of you, too, and highly underrated as a good read. If you haven't read in a while, its time to revisit it.

I recently did the same with Fahrenheit 451, and had a similar, eye-opening experience.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:23PM

Hey Big E
You forgot to mention that Texas Said No provoked you to go re-read those classics. My feelings are hurt.
PS: the sequel is complete. Shoot me an e-mail and I will send it to you.
My publishing agent is building it a web-site as we speak.

BCanuck| 3.22.11 @ 9:17AM

The US Constitution is over 200 years old and was written by a bunch of slave owners. How could they possibly understand the responsibilities of a modern government? The Constitution is a living document that the government can interpret to fit current societal feelings. This includes a modern interpretation of the powers of the President. He was a elected as the leader and he is leading.

tj| 3.22.11 @ 10:01AM

Leading NOT! And he will be gone come 2012. Elected by deceit and fraud. We the People now now it!

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 10:09AM

By your 'pen name' there is a chance you might be Canadian. If so, you don't know "JACK" about America OR our Constitution. It is not, and was never intended to be a "Living Document". That's what the lefty/libs/dems whine when it won't allow them to get away with another of their half wit schemes to take money from those who earned it and 're-distribute' it to people who didn't earn in. So, if you ARE Canadian, you have no standing in any of this. (Unless you're smart enough to see that the coming unrest and violence being 'ginned up' by barry and his thugs will recognize no borders when class and civil war break out in the U.S.)

Regarding your comment about barry's election, he is a fraud and a liar, and was certainly NOT honestly and/or legally elected to the office he currently occupies. Between the false vote counts, the cemetery votes, corrupt democrat local and state politicians deciding the election on their desires instead of the actual vote counts; and the biased media who said nothing negative about the emptiest suit to EVER get smuggled unlawfully into the White House; and, finally, through his absolute refusal to reveal ANY OF HIS PAST, barry the muslim is illegitimate, in more ways than one. He needs removal, not support.

Add to his illegitimacy his complete incompetence, he is a breathing (allegedly) example of how to destroy the greatest nation on Earth.

Remember....

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 11:31AM

"The Constitution is a living document that the government can interpret to fit current societal feelings"

Nobody is this stupid. Troll alert!

confedgal| 3.22.11 @ 11:42AM

The constitution is NOT a "living document." It is a contract between the people, the states, and the federal government stating the responsibilities of each and what the federal government is allowed to do and not to do.

darcy| 3.23.11 @ 12:27AM

Briefly stated, the Constitution -- as written -- protects the people from an overweaning state. It's almost completely upside down now, protecting the state from the people.

Nancy in NC| 3.22.11 @ 11:50AM

When attacking the Constitution, folks always attack the founders. They were not perfect people, and the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn close. If one wants to change the Constitution, there are ways to do it...not by bending it to mean what they want it to mean. It's called amendments. But that's difficult and tedious, as it was intended to be. Radical change should be undertaken with care...lest we have more amendments to undo the mistake of the first...remember Prohibition?

If Obama is leading, you are in la la land. He couldn't lead a horse to drink...unless the horse was a member of SEIU.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:25PM

BCanuck,
You are an ass. Why show it here?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:14PM

How was he an ass?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:56PM

The Constitution was designed by the greatest minds of their time; minds that were steeped in the knowledge of every form of government known to man. It led a small and weak country into a superpowered Republic. I think the founders could have conceived of a very complex society, and were preparing for it---Jefferson came up with the idea for the Lewis Clark expedition, for example. BCanuck is quite ignorant of the Genius of the Founders.

That's what Ken was stating in fewer words. Mr. lucas, BCanuck was acting the ass.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 3:01PM

Fair enough.

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 1:04PM

Whether or not they understood the "responsibilities" of a modern government or not is unimportant. What they did understand was how governments go rogue, become outlaw organizations and devolve into tyrannys. That, jackass, happens the same way whether ancient, medieval, or modern and thats why they designed the system we have with its safeguards. Evil governments happen universally the same way, only difference in the modern era is more hi-tech tools to enslave with. A "floating" or "living" document quickly disintegrates into a worthless piece of paper that can be interpreted by the latest johnny-come-lately tin horn dictator as he sees fit. There is a modification process for the constitution , its there for a reason. Its not supposed to be vulnerable to the wim of "modern" day political hacks who have bought into the latest version of utopianism to change it.

Sam Levi| 3.22.11 @ 2:25PM

Would you say the same thing about the Bible?

Nunya| 3.22.11 @ 7:43PM

Excuse me? I don't know of anyone who has stated that the Bible is "a living document" to be changed at the whims of whomever is in charge.

Ray| 3.23.11 @ 12:02PM

"He was a elected as the leader and he is leading."

Well, there's your problem. The President is an administrator, not a King, and he was elected to administer the government, not lead the country. He's not more a "leader" of America than any other single individual. You see, in a representative form of government like we have here in America, it is We, The People who lead, not He, the Person.

Redstateboy| 3.22.11 @ 9:29AM

This is ridiculous... I haven't believed a F'n word Das-Messiah has ever said - apparently a lot of people have and still do. He lost me at Rev. Wright.

TVC15| 3.22.11 @ 9:30AM

Am I missing something? Haven't we been having minor military skirmishes for decades without a declaration of war from congress? Answer: Yes

* Reagan landed a few hundred troops in Lebanon and promptly got our butt handed to us.
* Reagan bombed parts of an Iranian oil installation.
* Reagan bombed Ghadafi's tent
* Clinton landed troops in Somalia. Bad idea.
* Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Africa.
* And now Obama is bombing Ghadafi again

I highly doubt that any one of these limited military actions received a declaration of war from congress. Why is Ben Stein acting like we are suddenly part of an ominous one world government? Because that is the style in use now when writing for the Tea Party crowd. The end of the world is always near.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 10:05AM

Strangely enough folks like Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson have been declaiming this action, so it's hardly .."the style in use now when writing for the Tea Party crowd".

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:27PM

Uh oh, folks
The soros trolls have finally gotten out of bed.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 4:50PM

"gotten out of bed" LOL!

DaPicayune| 3.22.11 @ 9:36AM

Ben: our Zen-Master-n-Chief, our President of the World in waiting, has no need for adherence to that “document of negative rights”, as he describes it - the US Constitution.

His behavior is consistent since 2007, as he authorizes war on Libya, sans provocation, legal threats, required under the War Powers Act, or Congressional approval, while on his way to a family vacation that dovetails with his foreign trip to continue his efforts to sell himself abroad as the next UN Secretary General ( and shill for Soros‘s Petrobas investment).

Hence, he merely sought the approval of the UN Security Council to launch, with a fig leaf proffered by a conflicted Arab League. Of course, Sarkozy was forcing his hand to either get on board, tout suit, or get left behind, with Hil throwing rocks from Penn Ave. Politics is indeed a treacherous endevour.

But for our Mr. Boehner to speak about our obligation/need to respond to humanitarian needs in foreign countries, before scalding BOgus for subordinating the US Congress/Constitution to the UN, is shocking, in the least. Someone please inform Boehner and Company the the Congress is responsible, per the Constitution, first and foremost to the American Voters, not to constituents of other leaders in foreign countries, no mater the supposed urgency, nor the UN! Ironic that Rep Kucinich is probably the best candidate to perform this task, so far, along with Rep Ron Paul. Instead of a “New World Order, lets have a “New Congressional Order!” Are they now taking their marching orders from Farrakhan’s Mother spaceship? What gives?

Then, inform US ARMY African Command's, General Carter Ham who currently claims publicly that he is only tasked per UN SC/ the President of the World (in waiting), to protect Libyan citizens, not cut off the Libyan Cobra’s head, instead, that if MG survives this ordeal by fire, and unless bought off by BOgus to take a permanent hike, General Ham may next be asked by the journalists if he is also tasked with protecting US, French, or English citizens in their Nations, after MG’s terrorists cells start blowing up targets in NY/WDC, Paris, or London? MG has already threatened civilian targets, and with his proven history as the world’s most successful living terrorists, why wait?

While BOgus runs true-to-form, as expected, why on why dose Boehner and the Repubs, and the US Military Command, acquiesce to his illegal acts? They either lack honor, balls, or both. The TEA Party is soon to be heard from, and these politicians probably won’t appreciate the shrill, derogatory, and demanding tones that emanate from America’s biggest voting block. At least GW Bush conferred with and received Congressional approval for his wars, prior to the UN’s 2 cents, a fact that the legacy media and even Boehner seems not to mention!

If Congress will not protect our rights - we must demand that they be respected, or it’s the Mid Term vote again “in spades“, next go round, as it should be! Stop this madness now. Swiftly take out MG and leave the area, or turn over the keys to President Sarkozy immediately. No more payoff deals for MG.

General Ham, are you joking, or are you just another joke? Et tu, Boehner? War and terrorist’s attacks on civilians are not joking matters. Neither are willful, blatant violations of the Constitution, from which the POTUS and Congress derives their titles, raison d’etre and authority.

They are all now playing with fire. “By their deeds, ye shall know them“, indeed! All of them!

Floyd Looney | 3.22.11 @ 9:45AM

A small mound next to the White House basketball court is all that remains of the once proud US Constitution.

tj| 3.22.11 @ 10:05AM

Ain' that the truth Floyd! Very disgusting indeed!

DaPicayune| 3.22.11 @ 10:12AM

Is it true that's its consigned to be mulch for Moochelle's Victory garden?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:08PM

Funny, but how so? I mean it's cool to say one line quips, but to back them up has meaning.

What makes you think we've abandoned the constitution?

George S| 3.22.11 @ 6:06PM

Oh... I don't know, maybe ignoring a court ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, or that unelected czars have executive power and supersede confirmed Cabinet secretaries, or that contract and bankruptcy laws were a speed bump to taking over GM to preserve retiree pensions, or instructing the EPA to regulate carbon apart from federal law, or suing a sovereign state for enforcing federal immigration laws, writing rules for the health insurance industry in lieu of law, going into Libya contrary to the Constitution or War Powers Act...

Need I go on?

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 10:12AM

Forget Congress, just host another beer summit.

DaPicayune| 3.22.11 @ 10:14AM

Steve: Ah, the Farrakhan plan???

Daniel Thompson| 3.22.11 @ 10:19AM

Where are all the leftists now? Can we say impeachment?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:08PM

Impeach him for what?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:58PM

Inappropriate use of military force in a non-emergency situation without the consent of Congress. That's what would be impeachable. Please read your Constitution, Mr. Lucas.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:48PM

I think the senate approved his use of military force.

3/1/2011:
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1075-1076; text as passed Senate: CR S1076; text of measure as introduced: CR S1068-1069)

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 4:54PM

And for refusing to uphold DOMA.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:49PM

Marriage is a religious ceremony - why the government ever got involved in this to begin with, I have no idea.

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 5:16PM

Let's not forget how he throw 190 years of bankrupcy law out the window during the GM deal. Secured bond holders were paid pennies on the dollar, and those with (risky) stocks, namely the unions got their money back dollar for dollar.

Why follow the law when it's so much easier to break it, right?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:49PM

I was pretty sure it was congress that did this. However, go ahead and blame the figurehead.

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 11:30PM

Negative, the Congress was hands-off on this one. The President was out in front on this, making speeches, and directing this "bankruptcy" from its inception.

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 5:19PM

Here's another one. Per the Constitution, the President isn't authorized to hold any other title, whether that of nobility or not.

Yet the President is the Head of the UN Security Councel. That's unprecedented.

yo| 3.22.11 @ 10:26AM

When the entire democratic party and half of the republican party let someone be president who has not proved his constitutional eligibility to be president, what do you expect, Ben?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:14PM

I'm sorry, how has he not proved his constitutional eligibility?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 4:56PM

Well Hamilton
I would not have hired him with his resume' ... or lack of one... to be a janitor.

He couldn't get a job in any branch of the US government with his closed-book bacground. No security clearnce would have ever been granted.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:45PM

Funny - his resume looks fine to me.

cdn.theladders.net/static/pdf/Senator_Obama_Resume.pdf

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 4:57PM

HL: I think yo is referring to the fact that BO has no American birth certificate, and cannot prove he is a "Natural Born Citizen", ie, an American born to Americans on American soil. Even if he was born in Hawaii, his father was not an American and Obama was raised in Indonesia without any claim to American citizenship.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:44PM

Hi. I think you're wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/politics.....ficate.asp

Charles| 3.22.11 @ 10:41AM

http://www.slate.com/id/2288869/

The president's campaign against Libya is constitutional.

Considering how many of the above comments reflect on some superior understanding of American government, history and enlightened patriotism, I'd be interested to hear people rebuke the points in this article.

Overall message: perhaps unwise, but hardly unconstitutional.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 11:25AM

The problem with Mr. Goldsmith's article is that he completely ignores 50 USC 1542, he bases its ENTIRE argument under the War Powers Act on 50 USC 1543.

Sec. 1542 REQUIRES the President to consult with Congress BEFORE committing forces if possible. It does not say he "may," it says he "shall." Obviously, if we've been attacked, its not possible, and I can imagine a few other scenarios where, arguably, it would not be possible.

However, if there was time to debate it in the UN, then there was time to debate it in Congress, and yet Mr. Goldsmith made no mention of sec. 1542 in his article.

I have a lengthy post below on this very subject which includes the actual language of sec 1542 and 1543. So you don't have to take my word for it, you can read it for yourself.

Tim the Enchanter| 3.22.11 @ 11:29AM

Sorry, we are not equipped to deal with severe cases of Reading Comprehension Deficit Syndrome.

Tim the Enchanter| 3.22.11 @ 11:30AM

The above message was for Charles.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 12:06PM

The summary idea of your linked article was: We've not followed the rules so the rules should not apply.

Too lazy to change the rules as it's easier to ignore them. Does this meet your expectations for elected officials? Not mine.

Sure you can make a legal argument for this but is it right? No. Try using that argument in court next time you get a speeding ticket.

DRed| 3.22.11 @ 3:16PM

That's not really the way it works. It would be more like living in a state that created ambiguous speed limits, never enforced them, and then after 100 years of doing nothing gave you a speeding ticket. You could then go to court and have a good argument.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 4:02PM

I knew somebody would nitpick the analogy.

Kanbun| 3.22.11 @ 10:56AM

Folks-The constitution has been trashed in earnest by the usurpation of the office by this scoundrel. All of this could be dealt with if ANYBODY in the media would report on the lack of constitutional eligibility of this dope. He is NOT a natural born citizen and we have now allowed this constitutional violation to set a precedent that means that ANYBODY can now be president. Spread the word that Barry is not qualified - make it an issue before 2012 - make the media report the FACTS!

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 12:07PM

You're obviously a racist who can't stand a black man in the white house!

/sarc

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:03PM

Are you fucking crazy? Not a natural born citizen? Stop spreading blatant propaganda.

When Bush used the supreme court to rig the elections, where were you then?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:59PM

Ahhh, now the profanity starts.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 2:16PM

Profanity like this is what one resorts to when one has nothing intelligent to say.

Try thinking for yourself sometime instead of simply repeating what people who you think are smarter than you have told you to say.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:24PM

Sorry, excuse my use of profanity.

Are you crazy? I'm not sure I understand how he wasn't constitutionally eligible. If someone could point out how, then maybe I wouldn't have been so brazen as to use profanity to express my shock.

DRed| 3.22.11 @ 3:19PM

You can't argue with birthers. They're not dealing with reality.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 4:11PM

He's purposefully refused to release his birth certificate and spent tons of money on lawyers to hide any and every piece of information about him. I'm not going to say he wasn't born here because I don't know. I guess I'm not an official "birther." However, it's very disturbing the lengths he's gone to in order to hide this information and his refusal to release a copy of his birth certificate is suspicious to say the least.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:17PM

Fair enough. Myself, I don't go for the Birther argument. I go for the "Start my Career in the hiome of Bill Ayers," (look up where his first meeting as a Candidate for Anything was held), "attend church with a Pastor who's a known antisemitic loon for 20 years and have him baptise my kids," and "surround myself with self-proclaimed Communists and Mao supporters and appoint them to important positions in my Administration" problems."

Now, all three of those claims are public record, and any one of them would have prevented a less "media-protected" Candidate from becoming President.

That's much more problematic than dancing on the head of a pin over his birth certificate. On the other hand, he's not forthcoming about anything. We know John McCain's Grades at Annapolis, and Bush's at Yale, but not Obama at HLS, or Columbia, or Pepperdine. Lots of info hidden on a figure who will be in the History books (and the data will OUT, one day). I wonder why?

But I don't care about the Birther argument. The man is enough of a swine without it. And the Native Born requirement is going to prevent my genius daughter, adopted as a Mayan Indian from Guatemala, from becoming the 21st Century's greatest President. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to settle for Supreme Court Justice or head of a Department at Mayo.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 3:31PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics.....ficate.asp

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 4:15PM

He's refused to release his official B.C. and refuses to give a reason for it. Why?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:42PM

I mean, of course - this is the internet, there is no way to tell if it's real, but this is what the Obama campaign released:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/pol...../birth.jpg

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 5:05PM

Snopes is on board for Obama. The jpeg released during the campaign was a forgery, to allay the fears of the Dems.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, then that merely makes him a citizen. The requirements for Natural Born Citizen are more stringent: both parents must be American citizens, can't have renounced American citizenship, can't have dual citizenship (ie British passport in Indonesia).

I have my Birth Certificate. Who the heck doesn't have a Birth Certificate?

DRed| 3.22.11 @ 6:12PM

See how it works? First they whine about Obama not releasing his birth certificate. Then he releases it. Oh, but then Snopes is on board for Obama and the jpg was all a forgery. And then there's the invention of the requirements for natural born citizen. There's no point in talking to these idiots. Any proof you offer is just further evidence of the conspiracy.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.23.11 @ 5:22PM

The official BC was NEVER released to anyone so at least be honest. You're being intentionally dishonest or you're incredibly gullible and stupid.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:23PM

Would you need to see the birth certificate in person to believe it's the real thing?

And even then, wouldn't you just say it's a fake?

What further evidence do you need?

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.23.11 @ 5:32PM

Hamilton,

Spend five minutes on google answering your own questions before wasting everyone's time. See the above post. Bottom line is the official, certified birth certificate which is stored at a records office in Hawaii has not been released to the public. DRed is a moron if he truly believes Obama is a natural born citizen without really knowing for sure one way or the other. The fervor with which he attacks those who question it further displays his obvious bias. This behavior is very often overcompensating for the lack of evidence to support a pre-conceived notion.

DG in GA| 3.22.11 @ 11:04AM

This action in Libya has the same stench of Clinton dropping bombs to take the media attention off Monicagate. I wonder if the timing of the attack, just as Barry takes off for South America (for secret meetings with his gang of corporate thugs from the United States) was intended to direct media attantion OFF of what Obama is doing and onto the Middle East - at least until his trip is over and he can come back and call off the military dogs. This guy is even more disgusting than Clinton was.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 11:14AM

I thought it might be helpful to review the language of War Powers Act itself, since that is the law so many of us are discussing today. So here are two relevant provisions:

50 USC § 1542. Consultation; initial and regular consultations

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

50 USC § 1543. Reporting requirement

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) Other information reported

The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

(c) Periodic reports; semiannual requirement

Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

Now, that is the law that is applicable WHENEVER we go to war. I'm no War Powers scholar, but the way I read 50 USC 1542, it REQUIRES the President to consult with Congress BEFORE committing US forces except where extenuating circumstances make that impossible, or arguably, impractical. It seems to me that if there was time to debate it in the UN, there was time to debate it in Congress.

50 USC 1543, as I read it, REQUIRES the President to submit a report IN WRITING and WITHIN 48 HOURS to both houses of Congress detailing why he did what he did, what legal authority exists for what he did, and how much crap he's gotten us into. Reading these two sections together, it seems logical that the gist of the law is that the President must consult with Congress when possible prior to committing forces, and when it's not possible to consult prior to commitment, he has to explain why within 48 hours.

To my knowledge, Obama's done neither of these things.

Now, I know some question the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act, but the fact is that no Court has declared it unconstitutional, and under our system of law, an act of the legislature is presumed constitutional unless, and until, the Courts say otherwise.

The War Powers Act applies in this case. Obama has clearly NOT complied with his legal duties under the War Powers Act. Instead, he has - apparently - acted solely upon authorization of the UN. The UN does NOT have the authority to authorize the commitment of US forces to combat. Only the US CONGRESS has that authority.

In my opinion, by acting solely upon authorization from the UN, Obama has taken upon himself to delegate the sovereignty of the US to the United Nations. Personally, I view this as not merely impeachable, I view it as a form of treason. He has - in essence - turned the might of the US military over to an authority other than the people of the United States. That's about as serious a betrayal of his own people as any leader can ever commit.

The ball is now in Congress' court. They have a Constitutional role here as well. They can choose to assert their constitutional role, or they can choose to abdicate that role, and surrender their relevance. If Congress FAILS to act, and I have little doubt that "fail to act" is exactly what they will do, then what?

I ask again, then what?

THAT, is the relevant question.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 11:54AM

Big E, sincerely..thank you for your post. Every once in a while someone post out here and strikes so clearly and succintly at the heart of an issue , it restores my hope in human beings. Your post should have been the TAS article. You have succeeded in cutting through all the crap, distortion, hyperbole, distraction, manipulative rhetoric, misinformation and confusion with one fell swoop.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 12:07PM

Thank you for your kind comment.

Michael L. Hauschild| 3.22.11 @ 6:50PM

Put me down for an "attaboy" also.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 12:08PM

Obama can't be expected to report to Congress within 48 hours when he's got a vacation scheduled!

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:22PM

We all know about Bush's vacations - so what are you implying? Obama vacations a lot? Convenient timing? I'm not sure I understand.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 4:26PM

First, anything Bush did is irrelevant. If you only judge the current president by comparing him to the last one then you are an idiot, a liberal or more than likely both.

The point was he may have skipped out on his duty to speak to congress because it would have interfered with his vacation schedule. And it was mostly a joke.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:45PM

Certainly was convenient timing, eh? Besides, what makes his trip to South America a vacation? I was pretty sure he was there on official duty - giving speeches and all.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:02PM

he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 2:31PM

If you're going to attempt to quote the Constitution, I advise you to read it first.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That is Congress' Constitutional authority in matters military. Pursuant to the authority granted them in those clauses, they have enacted the War Powers Resolution, also known as the War Powers Act, of 1973, which was passed into law means of an over ride of President Nixon's veto (does that make him one of your heroes now?). That Act is codified in 50 USC 1541 through 1548, and has never been declared unconstitutional, despite challenges to its constitutionality.

Article 2, section 2, clause 1

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

That is the extent of the President's powers over the military under Article 2, which happens to be the article which creates the office of the Presidency and describes the President's Constitutional powers and duties. He is the commander in chief of the military, but he is not given the authority to declare or initiate a war. That power is reserved solely - solely - to the Congress.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:46PM

Thanks for the clarification.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:23PM

How do we know he didn't submit the necessary paperwork?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 2:33PM

Because if he did, but hasn't made that fact public in order to settle the question, then he's a bigger idiot than I thought he was.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:51PM

The text I was looking for is here:

http://www.fairfaxunderground......34379.html

Does this letter make what he's done not so unconstitutional?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:56PM

Couldn't our congressionally approved representative voting yes sorta be considered congressional approval?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 2:35PM

The War Powers Act makes no reference to "our congressionally approved representative," by which I assume you mean the Secretary of the Defense. So the simple answer to your question is - NO.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:46PM

Thanks for the simple response.

jerseyboy| 3.22.11 @ 11:26AM

A trade mission shoring up vital South American allies who were lost by Bush II isn't a "vacation"... I love how every decision Obama makes, the Ben Stein's of the world jump on him as an evil commie or an empty suited idoit... but then when the story unfolds, Obama is always the winner. Rev. Wright, Obamacare, Stimulus, DADT.. He's winning all the battles while the Repulicans scream that he's incompetent. You better hope there's never a competent Democrat in office, or you WILL be in trouble!

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 12:06PM

Hmmmm, have you accidentally slid from a parallel universe without knowing it? Winning? Hey, is this Charlie Sheen? His poll approval numbers are tanking, his obamacare will most likely be struck down by the supreme court, 63 percent of Americans want it repealed right now, impeachment questions are being raised, States all over the nation are moving in the opposite direction of his agendas, and a recent election cycle has swept in hundreds of Tea Party candidates into the offices of governor, state legislatures, and the Congress. Winning?

jerseyboy| 3.22.11 @ 12:51PM

His approval ratings are higher than Reagan, Bush 1 or 2, or Clinton at the same point in their Presidency. Obamacare isn't going anywhere. 60 percent of Americans have problems with Obamacare, but half of that number thinks IT DOESN'T DO ENOUGH... You gotta read past the Drudge sirens and actually look at the numbers. Obamacare isn't going anywhere. Sounds like you're the one in the parallel universe where ignorance is Saintly.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 1:45PM

Its not going anywher? Well, if they keep giving out hundreds of exceptions to various companies and institutions, no one will be participating in it for long. You can spin and lie all you want. A sixty plus majority of the electorate is still a vast majority in the universe I live in and very politically significant. He has 28 states resisting and suing your dictator jackass. I noticed you ignored the other points I raised in response to your assertion of your messiah's winning. You know damn well he is not and is sinking fast. Drudge sirens? LOL. Try Rasmussen. Ignorance? LOL. Its your party that passed a two thousand page piece of crap that they publicly admitted that they did not even read and know what was in it.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.22.11 @ 4:43PM

Approval ratings? Glad you brought that up. A better indicator is the difference between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove. Obama set records in this category. It can be found here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....2_2011.jpg

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:04PM

Winning...he lost the House in a painfully lopsided election that HE called "a shellacking." ObamaCare is about to be destroyed by the Supremes.

Is Obama having an episode of sleeping with some porn stary while doing crack that we don't know about? If that's the case, I guess he's "winning" by Sheen's daffynition.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:05PM

Sorry, "porn star." My confusion. "Winning"... (chuckle).

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 2:23PM

Its seems that some world leaders want their Nobel Prize returned by the Comrade.

Sam Levi| 3.22.11 @ 2:36PM

Competent Democrat? Can you say oxymoron?
have you not noticed that even your beloved party is beginning to turn on itself? A house divided cannot stand.

Al Adab| 3.22.11 @ 11:29AM

For almost fifty years one of the main tenants of The Left has been the danger of nationalism. The belief that nations are sovereign entities and pursue their own interests is anathema to The Left. Now we have an administration which adheres to that (and other) matters of Faith to The Left. That the approach to governing follows that Faith, what Eric Hoffer called, "The True Believer" leaves us all exposed to a dangerous world.

Wayne | 3.22.11 @ 12:01PM

Time for the military to refuse to follow his illegal orders.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:01PM

Are you suggesting that they commit treason?

Len| 3.22.11 @ 1:08PM

It's not treason if his orders are illegal, and while I'm not familiar with military law treason is giving aid or comfort to the enemy, and since Libya is not our enemy there can't be treason.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:12PM

Fair enough. So what exactly makes his orders illegal?

And also, I could see not executing an order considered as "adhering to their Enemies" - but idk.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 1:22PM

As I just said, Libya is not an enemy. Neither our congress nor Kaddafi has declared war.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:36PM

My understanding is that congress ratified the formation of the U.N. and in doing so, transferred some of their powers to levy war to the UNSC. In effect, the UNSC made a "declaration of war" their resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....ution_1973

This resolution is, in effect, congress declaring war, isn't it?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 2:45PM

This is not the first place I've seen the UN treaty cited as justification for the President's actions in Libya, and the short answer to your question, is no.

The Treaty allows the President to make US forces available to the UN, that is true, however, NOTHING in the treaty absolves him of his Constitutional and Legal duties under US law. For example, under sec 1543 of the War Powers Act - which I have included verbatim in an earlier post, if the President were asked by the UN to insert American forces in a non-emergency situation, he would still be obligated to seek approval of Congress before doing so. In an emergency situation, he could send them in, but then would have 48 hours to report to Congress his justification, and they still have the authority under the War Powers Act to set a limit of when they would have to be back home.

The UN treaty does NOT, I repeat that, does NOT, make out armed forces the UN's police force, on call whenever the UN want them, wherever the UN wants them, for whatever mission the UN wants them, regardless of what the people of the US as represented by the Congress want. It doesn't work that way.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:58PM

Thanks for making this clear.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 1:49PM

Treason is cetainly more than giving aid to an enemy..its also not specific to military law..Rosenbergs ring any bell? C'mon, think before you speak.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 2:06PM

I didn't say treason was specific to military law. In point of fact I quoted the USC which would pertain to any US citizen. My point was that in the military there be more stringent definitions of treason.

As for treason being other than giving comfort or aid I will merely cite the USC...

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I don't see room for anything else, do you?

Len| 3.22.11 @ 2:08PM

Correction;

My point was that in the military there be more stringent definitions of treason.

Should be;

My point was that in the military there may be more stringent definitions of treason.

Sam Levi| 3.22.11 @ 2:38PM

According to the UCMJ, an officer is required to refuse any orders he feels are immoral or illegal.

Ret. Marine| 3.22.11 @ 1:14PM

Talk to Lt. Col. Larken about this, he is currently sitting in Leavenworth for doing the right thing by insisting this fraud prove he is actually a citizen, and is not eligible to hold the office he and the demonrat party placed him into. Yeah talk to the Col. soon to be a PFC, as in private *uck'n civilian. He lost everything he worked for for disobeying deployment orders because he took his Oath seriously. This G/damned lying fraud obamas bin lyn. May the fleas of a thousand camels infect his crotch.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:17PM

I'm sorry - I tried to understand how he hasn't proved he's a citizen from your response, but I still don't get it.

Didn't he have a birth certificate? Haven't we all seen the pictures of his high school basketball team?

What's missing, exactly?

Sam Levi| 3.22.11 @ 2:41PM

He may have had a birth certificate, but no one seems to have seen it.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 3:10PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics.....ficate.asp

John Navratil| 3.22.11 @ 3:45PM

hamilton lucas,

You may recall that the "long form" is being protected from view by Hawaii's privacy laws. Why?

I'll stipulate that Obama is an American citizen as I have no reason to think otherwise. I am not a "birther". However, I find two things curious.

(1) Obama could have put this to bed after the election which he won by a simple power of attorney. What's on this document he doesn't want people to see? It strains credulity that it is not politically relevant. How can this be for an innocent newborn? Do the facts of his birth conflict with the narrative of his life? I don't know and he ain't sayin'.

(2) The Constitution lists a "natural born" requirement for the single office of the Presidency. It was done so that in the event of a war the commander in chief would not have divided loyalties. Why doesn't anyone in the U.S. have standing to view this document?

The next election may well see this issue resurface if only because Obama has done nothing to quench this fire.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:47PM

I agree with both of your points, as they are very valid concerns.

It certainly seems that once someone becomes presidents, the documents that validate them meeting the requirements should become public.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 5:13PM

John N: Being a citizen is not enough to be valid material for president. According to the constitution, the President must be a "Natural Born Citizen".

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:51PM

And you're suggesting he isn't? If not, how so?

JimH| 3.22.11 @ 6:01PM

From what I saw in the movie, when they emerge from the pod I don't think they have a birth certificate.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:19PM

P.S. I really disapprove of speaking so poorly of the president, even if you disagree with his policy. Speak poorly of his policy, sure. Or, if you're going to speak poorly of him, do so in an intelligible manner... not, "This G/damned lying fraud obamas bin lyn".

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:06PM

"are you F%$^& crazy?" teaching manners in deportment.

DRed| 3.22.11 @ 3:22PM

Occam-you're obviously a very intelligent guy. You also believe this birther drivel? That would be depressing. I mean, how are you supposed to respond to irrational nonsense?

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 5:18PM

There's nothing irrational about expecting candidates for office to be able to prove their eligibility. McCain was born in the Canal Zone to two Americans. His eligibility was tried in court and found satisfactory. Obama never proved his eligibility, in court or out, and still refuses to.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:54PM

There are other interpretations, most notably that found in an analysis of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's standing as a natural-born citizen conducted by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe in 2008. In their view — "based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal precedent," they wrote — either the fact of birth on U.S. soil or the fact of birth to parents who are U.S. citizens is independently sufficient to confer natural born status.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:54PM

http://urbanlegends.about.com/.....itizen.htm

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:27PM

No, I don't believe the Birther drivel. I really don't care.

I DO care that he was good friends with Bill Ayers; good enough that Ayers hosted, in AYER'S home, Obama's first political candidate meeting.

I DO care that I can't find out what his grades in College were, or in Law School.

I DO care that he appointed Van Jones and Susan Rice to important positions in his administration.

I DO care who his pastor was, and that he was in that SCUMBAG's church for two decades.

I DO care that he has the political morality of a one-eyed, three balled Tomcat.

THOSE things matter.

DRed| 3.22.11 @ 7:59PM

Well, he graduated magna cum laude from law school, so I think we can assume he got good grades there, and I don't agree that Van Jones was appointed to an important position, but I won't bother you about your other opinions.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:22PM

My apologies, Mr. Lucas.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:21PM

Also, what exactly give Lt. Col. Larken the right to demand that proof? I was under the impression that it wasn't like any damn guy could request that information, and not following orders seems stupid.

John Navratil| 3.22.11 @ 3:50PM

hanilton lucas,

I'm repeating myself from a reply to you, above. Apologies.

The Constitution lists a "natural born" requirement solely for the office of President to avoid having divided loyalties as both the head of state and the head of the armed forces. I've not had any of the lawyers in my family or otherwise explain why documentation in support of this requirement to hold office should not be available for all the examine.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:47PM

Thanks for your response, my reply is also above.

Rod Hug| 3.22.11 @ 12:05PM

While Obama made the right decision, his motive was to follow the UN rather than the US Constitution and the US Congress. For Obama, the UN is the important body and authority. He believes in one world government and the UN is the closest thing to it. He never held much esteem for our constitution and he never felt patriotism for America. He is a socialist internationalist.

But America is tired of war. I expect that as the war drags out Obama's popularity will suffer. It will be a factor in his defeat in 2012. The war will drag out no matter what Obama says. And he can't abandon the Brits and French or he would look like a turn coat. Imagine the USA leaving freedom fighting to Europeans!

Obama has no strategy for Libya or the Middle East. He reacts rather than thinks thru a long term plan. It was reported he made the decision to attack Libya during a foreign policy meeting after listening to advisors. It was reported the Brits and French said they would go without the US. Obama was pushed into his decision by the Arab League, the UN, and the Brits and French.

Then he did not get Congress approval, unlike GW Bush prior to the Iraq invasion. Then he announced to the world he would not send in ground troops. That was a foolish thing to say publicly even if true, which is unlikely given that somebody must be on the ground to communicate with the insurgents, monitor the war, and advise on targeting.

Something else Obama has apparently failed to understand: The Arab world is ripe for revolution, and intervention in Libya just encourages revolution. Is an inflamed and on-fire North Africa and Middle East in the best interest of the US?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:01PM

"He never held much esteem for our constitution and he never felt patriotism for America. He is a socialist internationalist."

Dude. You're so full of shit.

Sam Levi| 3.22.11 @ 2:42PM

You forgot to mention that he thinks that France is our oldest, dearest, and most important ally.

Vic| 3.23.11 @ 11:54PM

Oldest maybe.

RCV| 3.22.11 @ 12:08PM

I'm a great admirer of Ben Stein. But I'm having difficulty distinquishing President Obama's commitment of US air and logistical support to the UN authorized action in Libya from President Truman's commitment of US ground troops to the UN authorized "police action" in Korea sixty years ago, without any prior Congressional authorization. Seeing US involvement in the Libyan air assault as some major new "scrapping of the Constitution" seems a little myopic, no?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:38PM

RCV
I have to agree with you. Stein needed a good title because his columns lately have been .....senile?

The problem I have is that after over a year of Dubyah demanding that Saddam 'come clean' on WMD, getting congress' approval, and getting TWO UN resolutions...We heard the screams endlessly about his "rush to war".
PS: The sequel to www.texassaidno.com is being published...wrapped in one cover. No further charge to you for delivery to you.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:09PM

RCV,

weren't American Troops (Task Force Smith) attacked before Truman started the Police Action? You're the Constitutional lawyer, but I believe that the attack on US troops was the casus belli in Korea.

RCV| 3.22.11 @ 3:17PM

Not so, Occam. North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. "Task Force Smith" at the time was stationed in Japan. Truman flew them in in response to the North Korean invasion, and they didn't take up position until July 5, when they began to engage the NKs.

Don't get me wrong - I'm an interventionist and a great admirer of Harry Truman. My only quarrel with Ben Stein -- whom I love -- is acting as if this sort of military action by a US President without prior Congressional authority is some new usupation of the Constitution. Congress had long ago abdicated its war making power. We can debate the wisdom of that retreat and proposals for its reassignment to that branch, but pretending this is some new assault by the President is a real stretch.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 3:38PM

I disagree with your conclusion that the Congress has long ago abdicated its war making power. They asserted that power by:

A. Passing the War Powers Act in 1973,

B. Subsequently de-funding of the Vietnam war,

C. Setting an 18 month time limit under the War Powers Act on the use of forces in Lebanon in the 1980's,

D. Setting a deadline, again under the War Powers Act, for the withdrawal of forces in Somalia in 1993

E. Their authorization of the use of force in the first Gulf War in 1991, and

F. Their authorization of the use of force following 9/11

I would hardly call that record an abdication.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:28PM

Fair enough.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:32PM

Actually, my concern over the approval of Congress (if Mr. Lucas is correct) is secondary to my Wile E. Coyote feeling I'm having---(I think the Rebels will be worse than the Dunce we know.) I've just chased the Roadrunner off the cliff, and it's a loooong way down.

In short, RCV, respectfully, as you know---I don't think O makes his decisions with the interests of the US foremost on his mind. I really don't. Thanks again for the discussion of Task Force Smith.

Sam Levi| 3.22.11 @ 2:44PM

Quite simply, we had American military assets in South Korea. They were attacked thus making it an act of war.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 3:21PM

The Korean War is not really an apt analogy, in y opinion, because it pre-dated the War Powers Act of 1973, which was passed in response to President Nixon ignoring the withdrawal of Congressional authorization implicit in the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The President has a Constitutional duty to abide by the law, and he has not abided by the War Powers Act.

Second, while there was not prior Congressional approval of the Korean War, the Congress did specifically fund operations in Korea. Remember, it was Congress' DE-FUNDING of the Vietnam War which brought that conflict back under Congressional oversight (we may quibble over whether that was the right thing to do at the time - but without question, it was legally effective in bringing the war back under Congressional authority).

The reason the Libyan situation is Constitutionally so troubling is not because Obama took action without consulting Congress, but because he consulted everyone BUT Congress. He took the time to get the approval of the UN, he took the time to get the approval of the Arab League, but he didn't think it was important while he was doing all that to ask the elected representatives of the people of the US for their opinion? And for what? What pressing American interest is there in Libya? I see very, VERY little if any. I do, however, see substantial French and British interests.

In essence, he surrendered control over when and where and for what cause the United States goes to war to someone OTHER than the people of the United States. I'm sorry, RCV, but I see that as a serious betrayal of the people of this Country.

Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that Obama did this as part of some nefarious plan. I think he did it for very practical (in his mind) political purposes, specifically, if he went to Congress, they would have questions.

They would have questions about his handling of the Libyan situation, and indeed the entire situation in the Middle East, about why he was so eager to force out Mubarak, and yet unwilling to do anything to force out Ahmadinijad.

They would have questions about exactly who we are supporting in Libya, whether they actually represent a democratic movement, and whether they would have the ability to consolidate enough power to rule, or whether Libya would fall into chaos (which of course might require a long term commitment of troops on the ground).

Now, personally, I think those are the sort of questions which SHOULD be asked, and answered, before putting American forces in harm's way. Their questions the President obviously doesn't want to have to answer, probably because the answers are politically inconvenient for him.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 12:08PM

Impeach this impostor now.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:00PM

What for?

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 1:50PM

See Big E above. Stop the spin and apologizing.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 12:13PM

I offered this at the end of Obama Goes to War but it fits here too.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 3:06AM
LIBYA & USA>>HOW IT CAME DOWN

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), “a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

“Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government,” he said.

Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America’s core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P — over the objections of Donilon and Gates.

Remember that until Tuesday, the consensus around Washington DC was the US would not intervene in Libya. Obviously UN SecGen Moon’s communication of this new “principle” (R2P) isn’t something that he thought up that morning. Apparently it was communicated (and one assumes, agreed upon) well before then and, it would seem, may have played an important part in the decision to participate in a place in which which we have no real national interest at stake.

Read that last paragraph very carefully. Well, read the whole thing carefully, but you have to ask, what does agreeing with this “principle” mean in the future?

Do we intervene in Sudan or the Congo? Ivory Coast? And if not, why not? None of them, like Libya, put our core national interests at stake. But all certainly fit the new R2P principle. How about Bahrain and Yemen? Nepal?

Instead, what we see here is precisely what the left has decried for years – the US along with others who can afford it and are willing to do it –agreeing to police the world. However, in this case, it would be at the behest of the UN. We are agreeing that the UN can determine when and where we commit our military forces simply by invoking this principle. Invoke R2P and, by our precedent in Libya, we agree to respond.

This is far and away different than case by case agreements among member nations to intervene with peace keeping troops in troubled areas around the world. This is a “principle” that Moon says is a “new international security and human rights norm” apparently is interpreted as a “right” to intervene with military force.

Funny – I don’t remember us agreeing to this “new norm”, do you? Did we negotiate and sign a treaty saying all of this? Or did we just hand over our power to make sovereign decisions concerning the use of our military to a world body?

Think about it – the new principle, this new “norm”, essentially gives the UN the ability to decide when we should deploy military force in support of this new “norm”.
Fascinating – and not in a good way. Remember Hillary Clinton’s words about “venue”. It wasn’t proper to talk about action against Libya at the G8 conference. That was a topic for the UN only. Now we have an inkling of why
.
I’m not much on conspiracy theories or other grand schemes, but if what Moon is saying is true and given the action by the Obama administration that reversed its presumed course on the subject of Libya, I am indeed concerned about the “why” of the decision and if it was in support of the principle Moon outlined above.
If it is, we need to renounce it immediately. I don’t want any world body making decisions about where our military should be used, especially when we have no abiding national interest in the area of concern.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 3:45PM

Tanks for that information. I had assumed, and even argued in response to RCV above, that Obama's decision was purely one of political expedience - i.e. - the need to avoid answering congressional questions. Now, I'm not so sure.

This is really scary. For example, the UN has often had issues with Israel, and the current Administration has shown little interest in protecting that long-time ally. What if, in the name of this "new principle," the UN decides that US forces need to go into Israel to protect the right of Palestinians?

The more information I learn about the way this decision was made and the motives behind it, the more I become convinced that at a minimum, the President has indeed committed an offense for which he should be impeached.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 11:10PM

"What if, in the name of this "new principle," the UN decides that US forces need to go into Israel to protect the right of Palestinians?"

Bingo!

Rod Hug| 3.22.11 @ 12:17PM

If Obama were savvy, he could have done this in a much better way. He could have sent one cruse missile into Qaddafi's compound in a supprise attack. I would have been all over. There would have been no need to consult the UN or to start a protracted war.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:59PM

International assassination is a bad idea.

Vic| 3.24.11 @ 12:13AM

That is EXACTLY what we are doing with the war on terrorism. International assassination via military. The targets don't have to be heads of state to qualify.

NeilBJ| 3.22.11 @ 12:19PM

Ben Stein is one of the many commentators today who point to a particular circumstance and say this is evidence for the death of the Constitution.

The reality is that the Constitution has died a death by a thousand lashings over many, many decades.

We are for all practical purposes no longer a constituional republic. Sure, we call on it every now and then when it would seem to benefit a particular cause (if the ruling goes our way), but this selective constitutionalism is mere window dressing.

When decisions that expand the power of government contrary to the intent of the Constitution get enshrined in case law that becomes the basis for future decisions, we are doomed.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:58PM

++

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 1:25PM

All the more reason to INSIST that the constitution is respected and followed and people are HELD ACCOUNTABLE when it is infringed and usurped!

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 11:25PM

"When decisions that expand the power of government contrary to the intent of the Constitution get enshrined in case law that becomes the basis for future decisions, we are doomed."

Yep. Best to deal with it now while folks are still alive who recognize this as a "problem".

Joe D.| 3.22.11 @ 12:25PM

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!!!!!!!

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:58PM

For what, exactly? Faithfully executing the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his Ability, preserving, and protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States?

Len| 3.22.11 @ 1:16PM

It's called a high crime, or malfeasance. He has in fact violated the US constitution by directing our armed forces to actions not authorized under the US constitution, let alone in the manner directed by the US constitution.

1) Congress alone has the power to declare war, or direct the actions of our military when not engaged in war.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

2) Our military is for our defense, not other nations. provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. And no, the treaty power does not supplant this.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:27PM

Ok, cool - Thanks for a reasonable response.

Looking with the wiki page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States) we haven't declared war since WWII.

So, how is this different than every other military engagement?

Len| 3.22.11 @ 1:34PM

The US constitution has been meaningless for a while in regard to military actions. Oh geez, really in regard to anything, but in this instance it's a little clearer than say Iraq where there was congressional"authorization" and claims (spurious and proven false) of threats to the US.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:40PM

Ok cool.

So my understanding is this:

Congress ratified the formation of the UN.
Congress approves the ambassador.
The ambassador voted yes on the UNSC resolution.

Could this be considered congressional approval?

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 1:58PM

NO! The fact that you would use such a freaking lame and ridiculous logic tells me you socialist trolls REALLY are scared shitless. You know your boy screwed up BIG, BIG time this time around. Yeah, enough of the commander-in-chief bullshit qoute. Try "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:04PM

Hey sorry if I came off as a socialist troll - as I'm neither socialist, nor a troll. I'm just really trying to understand :)

That "lame and ridiculous logic" is my attempt at understanding. If you could make it more clear to me instead of just bashing me, that might help.

So, I asked this earlier, and I ask again - how do we know that he didn't seek to consult with congress?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 3:55PM

"So, I asked this earlier, and I ask again - how do we know that he didn't seek to consult with congress?"

Where is the evidence that he did? Where was the vote tally? Where is the report in the Congressional Record? This was not some top-secret operation that came out of the blue. The possibility of such action has been in the press for weeks. The fact that Obama sought approval from the UN, and the Arab League, was in the press when it occurred. Are you saying that somehow the press neglected to cover the debate in Congress?

There are people (barely) in the President's own party who are calling for his impeachment over this. If he had gone to Congress and got their approval first, don't you think he would now be rebutting their claims by pointing to copies of the authorizing resolution?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:55PM

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.g.....n=retrieve

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 3:49PM

The ambassador to the UN is an executive branch official, appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.

Are you saying that all the President has to do is seek the approval of someone he has the authority to fire?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:28PM

Oh - P.S. It's called Operation Odyssey Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....yssey_Dawn

Al Adab| 3.22.11 @ 2:23PM

Anybody remember what happened to Odysseus?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:34PM

Yeah, it took him forever to get home, and assholes were trying to force his wife to marry them. I think that's the Odyssey I remember.

Rowdy Boots| 3.22.11 @ 12:29PM

Obama has another war on his hands:

The war against the American People and our documentation that gives us Freedom.

He really is what you see folks...YOU WHO ELECTED THIS CRETIN ARE TO BLAME.

ROWDY BOOTS

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:57PM

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.22.11 @ 12:41PM

Rowdy,
good one...all the right words!

May I re-arrange them: YOU CRETINS WHO ELECTED THIS DISGRACE ARE TO BLAME.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:56PM

See, I'm not a cretin. I'm educated. And I don't understand? Were you to blame for 9/11 and the war that followed because you elected bush?

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 2:39PM

9/11 was somehow Sarah Palin's fault. Reasons to be clarified by liberals if she runs in 2012.

Strudwick Wickerwire| 3.22.11 @ 12:43PM

Obuckethead's decision should have been made 3 weeks earlier if it were to be most effective. Is it asking too much for the anointed (oily one) to make a timely decision???

Concerning Obama's respect of the constitution, his opinion is, it's too limiting of his imperial powers and commented Chinese leaders have the ideal leadership situation, without the voices of dissent!!!

Demand Obama's resignation, yesterday!!!

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:56PM

Actually, waiting was wise. We don't need to involve ourselves in another country's liberation when it seems like they might win.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 12:55PM

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 1:26PM

Being CINC only means that he leads the military in military engagements, not that he may unilaterally decided to do so.

The founding generation quite clearly placed the power of declaring war in the congress just so as to avoid such actions as taken by Obama.

1) Congress alone has the power to declare war, or direct the actions of our military when not engaged in war.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

2) Our military is for our defense, not other nations. provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. And no, the treaty power does not supplant this.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:37PM

Thanks for your patience and wise responses.

Al Adab| 3.22.11 @ 4:00PM

The point is not whether the President has the authority, he does. It is rather that his party, his followers and he spent eight years complaining about his predecessor using the same authority- even after a Congressional authorization- to pursue the war in Iraq. That defines not only hypocricy but self-serving actions as well. Now as they saw the chickens have come home to roost. So where are the moralist anti-war protesters yelling "No blood for oil"?

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 1:38PM

However you slice or dice this situation, it is becoming increasing clear that Obama has absolutely no clue what in the hell he is doing.

Objectives unclear, rules of engagement unclear, allies disjointed, plan to hand over control in tatters (nobody wants it, least of all NATO), Obama tours South America & talks about glaciers. It is a freakin dog & pony show. Amateur hour.

marilyn| 3.22.11 @ 1:39PM

Obama has shown for months how much he dislikes having to be an adult. It's just easier to not have to make difficult decisions or deal with the messiness of people who don't agree with you. This is just another example...he let the UN make the decision for him. He positioned himself to either take credit for success or point the finger elsewhere if things fail. Typical adolescent behavior.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:42PM

I think it was a bit more complicated than him wanting to be child-like.

I'm fairly certain that someone who chooses to be an adolescent doesn't also choose to take on such great responsibilities .

If he wanted to shirk responsibility - do you think he'd run for president?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:12PM

I don't know---haven't examined the man.

But being a "Former" President of the US is a great job. You do have to go through a few years of hell beforehand, but less than a Neurosurgery resident, with considerably more sleep and physical comfort.

Al Adab| 3.22.11 @ 2:22PM

O T:
Just a personal note of thanks for the kind comments yesterday. Most I think miss the name. Did you look it up?

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:35PM

Yup.

Oldefarte| 3.22.11 @ 1:47PM

Hey, He don't need no stinking Constitution......He's EL CHOSEN ONE [after all, GD AMERICA, right?]!!!!!

cindy brooks| 3.22.11 @ 1:51PM

marry me? Please, you are one of the few sane men left

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 1:54PM

Hamilton,

Let's look at some facts:

A full year into his term, he had spoken to the CO in Afghanistan a total of 1 time.

Months into the Gulf Oil spill he had not spoken to the CEO on BP as he claimed "I know what guys like him would tell me."

Members of his own cabinet have not had a direct conversation with him in 2 years.

He now launches a strike vs. Lybia with a plan to hand over control to a non-existent successor, goes to South America & talks about glaciers.

This guy is simply out of touch with reality. He lives in a fantasy world with his own ego at the core.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:58PM

Hey, well put. I would say "out of touch with reality" is about right. Thanks for conversating - I'm just trying to understand what all of the fuss is about.

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 2:07PM

h l, Sure thing, same here. I wish I had a better answer, but unfortunately, I think as "they" say, it is what it is....

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:16PM

Well, if you do not understand what the fuss is about..you never will no matter what is presented to you. Steves description is spot on. It does not bother you that we have a person in the most powerful office in the world that is incompetent and living in a fantasy world of his own ego and is completely out of touch...?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:20PM

Yeah, that sorta bothers me :)

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:21PM

It bothered me worse with the last president, however ;)

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:40PM

You know, the last President I REALLY felt comfortable with was Reagan. Bush I---no vision or communication skills, Clinton---Tiberius Caesar is a good analogy, Bush II---fiscal idiot, NO communication skills, and Obama---eeeps.

The big problem is that Mr. Obama only feels truly comfortable in using US military force when there is no gain for the US.

By the way, HL, not a bad job today. Welcome to the Blog.

hamilton lucas| 3.23.11 @ 9:53AM

Thanks OT.

lizzie| 3.22.11 @ 2:01PM

I'm all for impeachment...until I remember Biden will then become president. Talk about between a rock and a hard place. Sheesh!

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:09PM

Think how much worse the dems must have felt when impeaching Bush meant Cheney :D

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:10PM

To all our prog trolls today:
You know your boy screwed up BIG, BIG time this time around. Yeah, enough of the spin, lies, distortions, apologies, hypocricy, and commander-in-chief bullshit qoutes. Try "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
Your post today scream, "we are scared shitless and we got to get out to these conservatives sites and back peddle as fast as we can, sound logical, not use our typical name calling strategies, and distract as much as possible away from the FACT that our boy failed even in following the 48 hour notice rule. He screwed up really bad and displayed an incredible level of incompetence and unprofessionalism from start to finish. When a libertarian conservative and a far left progressive liberal are on the same exact page, he is in trouble.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:14PM

TO ALL YOU "IMPEACH HIM" PEOPLE, GEEZ HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POINT OUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO YOU FOLKS?

Both Wayne and Dixie Pixie picked up on the ostensible illegality (yesterday, was this too long for some of you?) of the US aiding in these Libyan air strikes. Ever since the War Powers Resolution was passed it has been an ignored resolution by almost every president. The constitutionality of the resolution has never been ruled on by SCOTUS so presidents have felt in their capacity as CINC they are entitled to utilize the armed forces when they deem it is in the national interest to do so. Most all presidents have complied with certain provisions of the WPR but not all, most feeling it is an over reach by Congress. Most presidents feel their oath of office bestows upon the President the power to do whatever is necessary to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which is indeed the wording in the oath.
At the same time the Constitution grants to Congress the right to declare war, so there exists a chasm, an ambiguity in who may act and when.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 70 put it in part this way:
Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?
The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.

So for brevities sake I will conclude by saying we have an unresolved conundrum regarding who gets to do what when. The energy in the Executive Hamilton refers to is for cases where a 3 AM call comes in that one of our aircraft carriers or military installation in a foreign land, is under siege, engaged in battle, the facts not fully known, but the limned information is grim. Clearly some action must be taken. Does the President authorize an immediate dispatch of all vessels and aircraft available to strike the opposition or does he wait for Congress to assemble and debate the situation? A conundrum.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:30PM

There was no 3am call, he dithered for weeks, he gave no notice or consulation with congress in any form, and there were no vital US national interest involved. This was not an emergency nor was vital American interest at stake or were we attacked. How many times do we need to explain this to you? Finally, the supreme courts do not make the laws. They are there to uphold them and litigate cases where the law is either challenged or violated and people are seeking justice. The 1973 law was created to clarify the constitutional references and is clear, not ambigous.
Unresolved conundrum? LOL.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:39PM

joyce,
An what would the indictment be against the president?

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:29PM

For failure to explain and justify the executive actions taken without consultation or approval of Congress and not fully following either the laws or constitutional parameters defined when taking such actions. Failure to uphold and follow the Constitution of the United States. Who is joyce?

Len| 3.22.11 @ 2:33PM

Not that I'm a Hamilton fan (quite the opposite), but he also said this in Federalist 69.."would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”

So when a monarchist like Hamilton admits that the executive power is limited in any regard, then it's safe to say most of the founding generation were further toward limited powers for the executive in this particular capacity.

And as Madison said...“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:52PM

Len, you are right on this one. Political analyst have been studying and complaining about the growing, unconstitutional power of the executive branch for nearly a century.
And as Madison said...“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”
Exactly. Thus, the passage of the 1973 law for further clarification. Thus, the actions of Bush to at least respect this and seek congressional approval and input before approaching outside nations and bodies before acting.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:18PM

Now maybe some of you don't give a damn about the Federalist papers or the separation of the three branches of government...but you damn well should and know this...Congress cannnot tell the Executive what to do when and vice versa . They are CO EQUAL BRANCHES...comprende?

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:38PM

Really, that's odd...hmmm..I wonder why it says that the Congress can remove and impeach a standing president, can over rule his veto with significant majorities, etc. The rule of government lies with the people and there representatives. This is not a question of telling people what to do but rather a division of responsibility and power and rules relative to process. He did not follow the rules of process. Go back and reread the federalist papers.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:44PM

Actually, Congress united is the MOST POWERFUL of the three branches, and can easily dominate the other two if it wishes through purse power or impeachment---but it is also divided 435 ways, whereas the Presidency and the Judiciary are centered in much smaller masses. Again, when I read it the first time as a kid, I admired the proportionality of the thing. It had an elegance to it.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:30AM

SAimon,'You know only enough to barely stay in the conversation...are you really saying that the three beanches of government aren't co equal? That would be news to every Political Science Department and scholar in this country

The structure of government in the United States is laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution describes three co-equal branches of government:

•The national, or federal, legislature is called the "Congress." It is made up of elected officials from each state. These officials are responsible for enacting the laws.
•The executive branch, headed by the President, is responsible for running the government and enforcing the laws that Congress enacts.
•The Judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the laws and settling formal disputes between people or between people and the government.
Legislative branch. The Congress is bicameral, which means it has two chambers. The Senate is made up of two elected representatives from each state, for a total of 100 members. Each senator serves a term of six years.

The other chamber, the House of Representatives, has 435 members. There are more members in the House than the Senate because House members serve smaller groups of people. Each state is divided into sections, called districts. The number of districts varies greatly from state to state. Each district elects a member to the House of Representatives for a two-year term.

The Congress enacts federal law. The Executive administers and enforces the law.

Executive branch. The executive is the President, who is elected for a four-year term. A President can serve only two terms. A Vice-president is elected with the President. The Vice- president assumes control in the event the President is unable to govern.

The executive branch is made up of various departments and agencies, which see that the law is implemented. (For example, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) administers the environmental laws the Congress enacts. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) administers immigration laws.) A department or agency will accomplish this task by writing "regulations" and enforcing them. Regulations are rules that have the effect of law. Department directors are appointed by the president.

Judicial branch. The federal courts deal with matters involving U.S. law or disputes between people of two different states. Federal law is limited to matters of national importance, such as immigration, environmental law, federal taxation, civil rights, federal criminal law, and U.S. Constitutional law.

The federal judicial branch has three levels. The district courts are the trial courts. Because each state has one or more districts, there are ninety-four district courts in the United States. Maine has only one district. The federal trial court in Maine is the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The district courthouses are located in Portland and Bangor. There are also specialized courts within the district court, such as the US Bankruptcy Court.

Decisions of the district court can be appealed to a "circuit court." There are twelve circuit courts in the United States. The role of the appellate courts is to determine if the law was applied correctly. Maine is a part of the First Circuit, which also includes New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico. Appeals from the First Circuit are made to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The highest court in the United States is the Supreme Court. It consists of a Chief Justice and eight associate justices. Each year the Court hears a limited number of cases. Most of these are taken at the Court's discretion. The cases can originate in federal or state courts and usually involve issues of constitutional law.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:07PM

You should go back and read what you just wrte VERY SLOWLY.

Congress . . . cannot . . . tell . . . the . . . Executive . . . what . . .to . . . do

Are you sure you want to stick with that position? Are you sure that you think the President has unlimited powers between elections? That he spend money the Congress has not appropriated? That he can enforce laws the Congress has not passed? That between election cycles he is, in essence, an absolute monarch? Because is that what you just said. Read it and think about it again, then get back to me.

Congress . . . cannot . . . tell . . . the . . . Executive . . . what . . .to . . . do

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:35AM

Big E.....your lack of understanding of co equal branches of government and definitive processes were build into the COnstitution. ie.
The Congress cannot simply tell the President he has no more Cabinet or can't enforce the laws....get it right dude.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:24PM

Separation of Powers, US Constitution

The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient.

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.

Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

Historical Examples

Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.

Aristotle favored a mixed government composed of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, seeing none as ideal, but a mix of the three useful by combining the best aspects of each. In his 1656 Oceana, James Harrington brought these ideas up-to-date and proposed systems based on the separation of power. John Locke, in his 1690 Civil Government, second treatise, separated the powers into an executive and a legislature. Montesquieu's 1748 Spirit of the Laws expanded on Locke, adding a judiciary. The framers of the Constitution took all of these ideas and converted the theories into practical applications.

When discussing Separation of Power, is it helpful to contrast the American System to the governments of other nations. This list below is far from a representative sample of nations or systems. The United States, Britain, France, Canada, and Mexico are actually more similar than they are different, especially when the whole range of nations is taken into account. However, sometimes the smaller differences between similar systems can be interesting and illustrative. It is left to the reader to conduct studies of more disparate systems.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:46PM

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist.
This is a complete historical revision and lie.
The purpose of the seperation of powers was to create a balance of power, a built in check on this power, and a divided government so as to PROTECT the PEOPLE from this government and its historical tendency to evolve quickly into a tyranny of elite. This is grammar school stuff here..do you really think we are that stupid out here?

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 3:07PM

simon templar,
Not necessarily stupid but there is an easily observable lack of understanding by many of how our Constitution was put together and how it operates...
Hell, I'd bet 90% of our population believes we live in a democracy.
So stupid, no, uninformed and unschooled to a large extent...that handwriting is very plain.

Don't get me wrong, I truly believe because of the usurpation of powers by all three branches of government and the way a secret cabal, THE FED runs our money that we are getting perilously close to a violent second revolution...and I believe the fight will be to return to what the Constitution was created for and not Czars and a Federal Register of encyclopdic size...which of course has the full rule of law.
Our entire government is out of control.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:21PM

You just proved my point. The entire government is out of control. The seperation of powers was developed for the sole purpose I gave you. You are correct in your statement when it applies to the way Congress, the House and Senate, was created. There that purpose was in full swing and the sole reason for the way they constructed this legislature. You will not find anyone out here believing that we live in a democracy. You are correct in that many Americans think this is a democracy as opposed to a Republic as it has been promoted for the last century by the media and the ruling elite.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:38AM

Simon is your first name Simple? You are truly way off base. I have a BA and an MA in Political Science.
How were your meat science courses?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:13PM

The purpose of separation of powers was to insure that no one branch (person - i.e. - a king) had the authority to do things which should not be done without approval from some other elected representative of the people - things such as going to war.

Each branch acts as a check on, and balances the power of, the other branches. That's called checks and balances. Ever heard of it? Or are you interested in it only when it provides those with whom you agree the power to check those with whom you do not agree?

Harrison | 3.22.11 @ 2:27PM

War Powers Resolution

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:48PM

Harrison,
I'm about as far from a obama fan as one can get but this discussion is about which branch does what when.
obama did inform Congression leaders who spread the word as is SOP.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:19PM

That is NOT SOP, and not in accord with with the War Powers Act. I have copied the relevant provisions verbatim in another post, but suffice to say, the WPA requires the President to seek congressional approval BEFORE using force whenever possible.

OBAMA DID NOT DO THAT.

This was not an emergency situation, where he can use force and report about it later. He had time to debate it in the UN, so he had time to debate it in Congress.

Furthermore, merely informing "Congressional" leaders is not adequate under WPA even when the 48 hour provisions applies. The requirements are specific as to WHO has to be notified of WHAT and in WHAT form. I won't recite the details yet again, so go back and read my other posts and you'll either see the problem or else continue to live in denial of reality.

joyce| 3.22.11 @ 2:29PM

What are we to do -- our own congressional leaders are doing nothing -- this man needs to be impeached. We are just the little people with no power at all -- the only power we have for our leaders is the monies that we are forced to pay day in and day out -- out of our paychecks. Since when did any of us ever ok social security payments/medicare-medicaid/unemployment/ fed. taxes/ state taxes / and other unknown? Have you ever added all of these taxes from your pay check? Please do.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:33PM

Hey forum,

After reading the main article and subsequent comments, I have to agree with your assessment of the situation. The president acted outside of his constitutional limits.

So now the question I have is why hasn't anyone in congress done anything about it? Or, I suppose that will come next?

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 2:56PM

Well, this is truly amazing. There is hope after all that we as a nation just might be able to come together if we can be honest with each other and reason this out. Thank you.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 3:22PM

Try to be patient with me :D

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:22PM

And in your new-found understanding, you, sir, have also hit upon the question of the day. The question I posed in my original post. When Congress fails to act, what then?

To that one, I either have no answer, or find the answer so horrible I do not want to admit it to myself. I'm honestly not sure which it is at this point.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 11:50PM

"So now the question I have is why hasn't anyone in congress done anything about it?"

They're stunned he even did this... That "UN" thing lends a veneer of sanction that's hard to get past... Congress is too busy arguing what to cut... We're still praying for Japan... In short: There's a lot going on. Besides, who can argue right out the gate against stopping a murderous tyrant? It's gonna take a while for them to sort it all out. By then another country will be in upheaval or we'll be involved in another conflict. Gonna be a raucous year.

guthriej| 3.22.11 @ 2:35PM

Perhaps it's not a war but a UN "Police Action"? But Stein is correct: POTUS and Congress should be burning the midnight oil on this.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:36PM

Separation of Powers Provisions in the Constitution
Article I, Section. 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article II, Section. 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article III, Section. 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Article I, Section. 7:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law....If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:26PM

If you're going to cite the Constitution, please cite the relevant provisions (as I have done earlier), Namely Article 1, section 8, clauses 11 through 15, and Article 2, section 2. Those are the provisions dealing with war, and how the war powers are divided between the legislative and executive branches.

The provision you cited, are not relevant to the discussion.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:42AM

Oh, so you object to an inclusive discussion of the constitution which you alread held court on so that is the definitve word?.

Better to site who can do what such I have done in the Separation of Powers post...you lose.

MAJWD1| 3.22.11 @ 2:40PM

Spot on Mr. Stein, as always. Keep up the good work.

joe| 3.22.11 @ 2:41PM

worse than fdrs 2nd bill of rights and harry hokins advice to fdr concerning american public keep them stupid

MikeBee| 3.22.11 @ 2:42PM

It's simple to stop this warmongering of Obama's. Congress (run by Republicans, now) should simply refuse to fund a single dime for this action.

MarkR| 3.22.11 @ 4:23PM

Sure the BRAVE Boehner and Cantor are right on it! Just like the budget- these guys are a different breed! Yea right!

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:43PM

simon templar, You're either being inteentionally obtuse or horribly misunderstood THE EXAMPLE SCENARIO pointing out the meaning behind "energy" in the Executive ...

But lets say the scenario happened....would you wait for Congress to deabte the issue while our men fought without support? The Founding Fathers didn't want that to be the case.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:05PM

I understood it very clearly. Once again this was not the case where our men were dying, being attacked, nor one of vital national interest. Of course, if the country is under attack or a foreign nation is planning to do harm to us in the immediate future or has consistently threatened us and is instituting plans to attack us, a president has to act quickly..but even in these cases he must stay within the guidelines developed in this fast acting situation. Notice, war plans, military specifics and objectives, and continual reporting to Congress must be GIVEN even in these cases. What do you not get about this?

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:45AM

Nor would it be case of our men dying if an ICBM was going to hit us within ten minutes...would you convene Congress and have them debate whether the President has the authority to launch aN ATTACK? dUH

Len| 3.22.11 @ 3:46PM

Thomas Jefferson in 1801, said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

RichardsDay | 3.22.11 @ 2:44PM

Libya was just a trial balloon. Next stop: Obama takes his revenge on Israel via the U.N. and "R2P"

Erik Osbun| 3.22.11 @ 2:46PM

Do not give in Mr. Stein. This ursurper will be out of
office probably sooner than he thinks.

Dr J| 3.22.11 @ 2:49PM

"I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off on vacation. Has that ever happened before?"
What a great point!

Jason Baugher | 3.22.11 @ 2:50PM

This wholesale usurpation of the Constitution by the Obama regime can hardly be a surprise to anyone paying the least attention to our recent history. This is just another step in the destruction of America as we know it.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 2:52PM

Hey, why don't we raid the SCOTUS, have a sit in and demand they decalre war or rule on the War Powers Act so things can get calrified?

Why..because all three branches in concert since the War Powers Resolution was passed have found it prudent NOT to take it to court and they have had plenty of opportunities.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:08PM

Look the law is clear, we do not need to go to Mount Olympus to consult the gods of the supreme court for every breath we take as a self governing nation. Enough, you made your point.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:48AM

THE SUPREME COURT CAN TOUCH THIS BECAUSE IT IS NOT A JUDICIBLE ISSUE..I know you'll habe to look up judicible...probably never even heard of it.

You lose

Gilbert Zimmerman, Jr.| 3.22.11 @ 2:52PM

Without question, this President finds the very idea of our Constitution problematic. He wishes it were a statement of positive rights for the propel and all other powers resident in the state, rather than the other way around. His fundamental disregard is apparent in the Health Care law and the mandate. The auto industry bailout and refinancing disregarded the federal bankruptcy code. The list goes on and on. The decision to disregard the Defense of Marriage Law? Various rulings on drilling in the gulf? This guy simply figures he's Barack Obama and he can do anything he wants. Period. Real simple. And he's got to go. Big time.

Gilbert Zimmerman, Jr.| 3.22.11 @ 2:52PM

Without question, this President finds the very idea of our Constitution problematic. He wishes it were a statement of positive rights for the propel and all other powers resident in the state, rather than the other way around. His fundamental disregard is apparent in the Health Care law and the mandate. The auto industry bailout and refinancing disregarded the federal bankruptcy code. The list goes on and on. The decision to disregard the Defense of Marriage Law? Various rulings on drilling in the gulf? This guy simply figures he's Barack Obama and he can do anything he wants. Period. Real simple. And he's got to go. Big time.

Eddie| 3.22.11 @ 2:54PM

I am a Republican but I blame the moronic GOP members of Congress as much as anyone! Why hasn't EITHER side said anything? Is this why we decided to get control of the House back? Just to have blubbering idiots look the other way? This country is REALLY going to hell in a handbasket now!

The Bruce| 3.22.11 @ 11:41PM

Oddly enough, Eddie, it turns out that liberal democrats are fuming over this, with Kucinich (sp) and Nader calling for impeachment.

I couldn't have imagined siding with Kucinich on anything, let alone the impeachment of the President of his own party.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 2:54PM

Hey forum,

This is the full text of Obama's letter to congress regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn:

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi’s Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi’s defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 3:07PM

Does this make what he's done constitutional, or not?

Maybe a better question to ask is, does this satisfy the requirements of the War Powers Resolution?

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:10PM

No. And you know why.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 3:19PM

So if I understanding correctly, even if he reports according to the WPR and consults congress before levying war it would still be unconstitutional without congressional approval, right?

So, long story short, without congressional approval levying war is unconstitutional.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:41PM

Once again this was not the case where our men were dying, being attacked, nor one of vital national interest. Of course, if the country is under attack or a foreign nation is planning to do harm to us in the immediate future or has consistently threatened us and is instituting plans to attack us, a president has to act quickly..but even in these cases he must stay within the guidelines developed in this fast acting situation. Notice, war plans, military specifics and objectives, and continual reporting to Congress must be GIVEN even in these cases. Did any of this happen aside from a lame, vague letter of notice right after the action taken.
And yes, So, long story short, without congressional approval levying war is unconstitutional unless you have damn good reason and imminent threat. Why in the hell do you think Bush bent over backwards and waited 8 months to invade Iraq and get congressional input and approval? Hell, he sought it after 9-11 when we determined it was Afghanistan that trained the terrorist and a key nation behind the attack. I thought you said you understood?

J. J. | 3.22.11 @ 4:18PM

"Why in the hell do you think Bush bent over backwards and waited 8 months to invade Iraq and get congressional input and approval?"
He was hoping that during the 8 months someone would actually find a WMD, or evidence of nuclear proliferation, or a connection to 9/11, or litter, or pictures of Iraqis kicking puppies......anything that would justify the 100,000+ lives that were about to be lost.

MarkR| 3.22.11 @ 4:21PM

Your going to confuse them with details- be careful. --Obama sends a letter and goes on vacation- there he GOT congressional approval. Wow if Bush had done that- impeachment proceedings would begin tomorrow at noon.

J. J. | 3.22.11 @ 4:35PM

Guess you guys don't remember Kosovo, Somalia, Vietnam (both under Johnson and Nixon after the repeal of the Tonkin Resolution). A land based army and airstrikes are two different things, and try not to make this partisan......you just sound dumb. I guess you guys also missed the Republican congessional members interviewed while leaving the President's briefing who almost universally voiced their support. Ahhhhh nevermind......who needs facts when you have so much opinion?

J. J. | 3.22.11 @ 4:36PM

Oh yeah I forgot....add Korea to that list.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:32PM

I think I do understand, and what you've just said agrees with my understanding completely.

I also think we can all agree there was no imminent threat.

Thanks for the summary.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:35PM

Partially correct. Levying offensive war without congressional approval is unconstitutional. Clearly, were we under military attack, the President has the power to do whatever he must to defend the US. Equally clearly, this is not the case with Libya.

Otherwise, yes, levying war without Congressional approval is unconstitutional. Only the Congress has the power, granted to them in Article 1, section 8, clause 11, to declare war. The President does not have that power.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:50PM

In the absence of an emergency, HL. Obviously, if nukes are coming, he acts. Pearl Harbor happens, he acts immendiately but then asks for a declaration of war.

But where you have weeks beforehand, no one has stated that Q was doing anything directly against US interest recently, where the Rebels may be scuzzier than Q, and when you issue confusing statement after confusing statement---then you declare war unilaterally and notify Congress and go on Vacation? A little worrisome, no?

Len | 3.22.11 @ 9:44PM

Pearl Harbor happens, heh, do like FDR, don't put the navy on alert and let the Japanese strike so we can justify our involvement in the war.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 10:46PM

Simon you're wrong and I've laid it out a half dozen times ....you may want it to be unconstitutional but the Supreme Court decides those things and they won't touch a political issue...didn't you read my post on that? Here:
Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:13PM
The regnant part is thus: check out the last sentence.
• The court must not be asked to resolve a political question.[6]o Political questions involve matters where there is: "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it."o Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:49AM

Why don't you tell us Oracle Simon?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:31PM

No. 50 USC 1542 of the War Powers Resolution requires him to seek the approval of Congress PRIOR to initiating military action where possible. Explain to me why it was not possible for him to seek approval from Congress beforehand, when he had time to seek the approval of the UN?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:33PM

I don't think there is a good reason, and thus this whole problem :)

Should I write to my local reps and encourage them to take action?

GavInTucson| 3.22.11 @ 11:44PM

Communicating with your Representative and Senators is never, ever, a bad idea.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:52AM

Big E.
You just hung youself.
"PRIOR to initiating military action where possible.
The President may have, as all other presidents since WPA not to comply until he was fully possible to issue the notification.

The Bruce| 3.22.11 @ 11:42PM

The Congress didn't authorize this military action, so no.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.23.11 @ 12:09AM

Well he certainly is a "U.N." kind of guy. Notifying the Congress that he's acting by authorization of the U.N. Security Council and all. Guess he's covered. (Not.)

Mordecai| 3.23.11 @ 6:22AM

RUN SARAH RUN

Janelle| 3.22.11 @ 2:58PM

This fool needs to go asap.......he really isn't leadership material of any sort. And why anyone expected that from that horse's ass , I will never understand. There was nothing there..........nada, zip, zero.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 3:12PM

Workout time...later....and don't sweat it cause if the government gets much more out of hand we'll do the Jeffersonian thing on the Tree of Liberty...you know..the blood of tyrants deal..

S Rogers| 3.22.11 @ 3:28PM

Amen, Ben Stein!

froglegs| 3.22.11 @ 3:41PM

To paraphrase what we used to say in the 60's:

Obama, pull out! Like your father should have!

Amirica| 3.22.11 @ 3:56PM

Ben,

In case you dont realize this. Authorization for war is not the same thing as a Declaration of War. We were all wondering what happened to the constitution under Bush, and Obama is just continuing this same trend.

The question is, where were you when we all noticed the death of the consitution? Oh, thats right, you were up GWB's asshole...

MarkR| 3.22.11 @ 4:17PM

Study Iraq and the resolutions of the UN and the details involved. We were at war with Iraq as Hussein hadnt followed through on the UN resolutions. Bush went to congress and the UN- he got the votes. It took time. Of course for many on this board facts are as irrelevant as yesterdays newspaper- who cares- we hate Bush or we love Obama or whatever- just dont confuse us with nasty old facts its to confusing.

Len| 3.22.11 @ 4:34PM

Resolutions stemming from what? Another instance where we intervened in other countries business and yet we were not attacked or even threatened ourselves. Those UN resolutions had nothing to with our constitution and no-fly zones are acts of war.

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:39PM

Bush sought and obtained congressional approval PRIOR to the Second Gulf War. His father sought and obtained Congressional approval PRIOR to the First Gulf War.

Obama sought the approval of the UN and the Arab League. He apparently didn't think we, through our representatives - the Congress, needed to have any say in the matter.

J. J. | 3.22.11 @ 3:56PM

Ben...you're kidding right. I guess you missed all the interviews with Republican congressional members who had just been briefed by the President. Did you also miss the fact that they almost universally voiced support? Bozo.

MarkR| 3.22.11 @ 4:14PM

That isnt having even close to what Bush was required or other presidents. "Interviews with Republican congressional members" What a friggin joke. Bush had to have a vote. Every other president as well. No this is different and if you cant see it- get another pair of glasses.

J. J. | 3.23.11 @ 7:13AM

Really...did Bush have a vote before Somalia?

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 4:41PM

And the scenario you just described does not comply with THE LAW. Namely, section 1542 of the War Powers Resolution. I've reprinted it above, go back and read it for yourself.

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 3:56AM

Big E,
The constitutioality of the WPA has never been determined because in the judicibility rules of the SCOTUS they will not decide political question between branches..look it up..WAR SCOTUS considewrs a political question. you lose

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 4:00AM

BE ,
To help you out:
• The court must not be asked to resolve a political question.[6]
o Political questions involve matters where there is:
 "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or
 "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it."
o Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country , or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer

Checkmate

Melissa| 3.22.11 @ 4:00PM

Dear Ben,
I have ALWAYS admired you and your intelligence, and I must say, I'm SO glad you are starting to see thru our President. It has bothered me that you have stuck up for him and made excuses, but now you seem to be seeing thru the fog of "hope and change" to the real Socialist behind the curtain/mask! Thank you for this article.

MarkR| 3.22.11 @ 4:11PM

That Obama is doing this is NO surprise. That conservatives for the most part aren't in a dither is surprising. Our Sovereignty is going up in smoke and nary a word of protest from most quarters. We are virtually now a world government. People have lost the will to live their lives with ANY kind of format from our founding. The end result of this is like a blindfolded person pinning the tale on the donkey. I never thought I would see this day come so soon. Mr. Stein is dead on.

size38pants| 3.22.11 @ 4:14PM

Same thing happened here in Canada. Almost next to no discussion in Parliament and very little discussions in the doughnut shops (Canadian equivalent of The Arab Street).

Jerry Riter| 3.22.11 @ 4:30PM

Among oxymorons in the English languate, the grandaddy of them all is "civil war". They say he was killing his own people. That is the definition of a civil war. Cromwell did it. A plethora of English kings did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Now, a member of the UN Security Council has done it. Should we kill him while honoring all the others?

martin j smith| 3.22.11 @ 4:37PM

Its time of a MAJOR TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION TO FILL WASHINGTON DC. ONLY LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN SIGHT WILL MAKE AN IMPRESSION.

Getback2work| 3.22.11 @ 4:52PM

I am neither a republican nor a democrat, and definitely not part of the tea party. Just a hard working citizen and army vet. I don't agree with many of Obama's decisions, just as I didn't Bush, just as I didn't Clinton, and papa Bush... etc.

This new media of blogging and 24/7 coverage via the internet (more in terms of popularity than existence) has many idiots and extreme left/right people sharing their thoughts. For all you who think this is the end, and Obama is establishing chaos to spark some later rebuilding phase in his interests... you're retarded. Everything will be fine, difficult times have occurred and are ahead. This is a country made up by the people that can change almost immediately, but requires you to not hide behind a blog or news comment page and get active and productive in your community. For all you 'monday morning quarterbacks', it's easy to complain, nag, and criticize. You can make change happen if you want it, start in your town. If the majority of your town members don't agree with what you want - shut up and move.

Let's hope Newt gets a good run in 2012 - and pray that there aren't enough tea baggers to water down the real candidates with the Palin crap.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:56PM

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.g.....n=retrieve

"Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the wording of the resolution is a sense
of the Senate. It is pretty simple and straightforward. It calls for a
recognition of the provisional revolutionary government in Libya, and
it calls for placing as rapidly as possible a no-fly zone over Libya.
It has some other language associated with it, which I would go into
later on. But the fact is, what it does is urge the President of the
United States to take long-overdue action to prevent the massacres that
are taking place in Libya as we speak. At this moment, opponents of
Colonel Qadhafi and his supporters are fighting for their very
survival."

Could this be considered consulting with congress?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:57PM

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go.....ultidb.cgi

There was a lot of conversation in congress about putting an end to this.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 4:59PM

I'd go so far as to call this a debate...

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.g.....n=retrieve

"Mr. PAUL. The important question being asked today with regards to
foreign policy is should the United States impose a no-fly zone over
Libya? There are leaders on both sides of the Capitol and leaders in
both parties who are now advising this as well as individuals in the
administration. It is my opinion that we should not. It would be
foolish, it would have a downside, and we should think very, very
carefully before we go expanding the wars that we're already involved
in. We're in two major wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and that
involves Pakistan and Yemen already."

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:15PM

video:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/.....=599688309

Gordon W.| 3.22.11 @ 5:06PM

I'm a little confused by the article. The article is titled "One World Government Obama," and the article denounces Obama's constitutional use of the armed forces. He has 60 days, then he must get congressional support for the incursion in Libya and that's only if he puts boots on the ground. At what point is there a world government and where did he subvert the constitution.

"Something's missing here. Libya and Col. Gaddafi were and are no threat to the United States. It is sad and cruel that the Gaddafi regime was murdering its own civilians, but so do many governments all across the world, including North Korea, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. Are we going to war with all of them, now?"

Why are we in Iraq? At least we went into Libya with a more plausible reason than weapons of mass destruction.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:13PM

The Big E| 3.22.11 @ 11:14AM

Thank you for proving the language of the WPA.

One seminal question has not arisen anent the Executive ,Congress, and the Supreme Court and that is, is the WPA judiciable?

Justiciability is one of several criteria that the United States Supreme Court use to make a judgment granting writ of certiorari ("cert.").
In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:
• The Court will not grant advisory opinions.
• There must be an actual controversy between the parties,[3] meaning that the parties can not agree to a lawsuit where both parties seek a particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties have to each be seeking a different outcome.
• The question must be neither unripe nor moot.[4]
o An unripe question is one for which there is not yet at least a threatened injury to the plaintiff, or where all available judicial alternatives have not been exhausted.
o A moot question is one for which the potential for an injury to occur has ceased to exist, or where the injury has been removed. However, if the issue is likely to reoccur, yet will continually become moot before a challenge is able to reach the court ("capable of repetition, yet evading review"), the court might allow a case that is moot to be litigated.[5]
• The court must not be asked to resolve a political question.[6]
o Political questions involve matters where there is:
 "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or
 "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it."
o Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.
If the case fails to meet any one of these requirements, the court cannot hear it.
State courts tend to require a similar set of circumstances, although some states permit their courts to give advisory opinions on questions of law, even though there may be no actual dispute between parties to resolve.

And therein lies the lacuna in settling the question of who has supreme authority to commit the US Armed Forces into a firefight, clandestine operation, bombing facilities or a full scale invasion.
SCOTUS has seen this as a not judicible and therefore have never taken a case. They consider it a political question and outside their jurisdiction.

Mark Wall| 3.22.11 @ 5:22PM

"Why aren't questions being asked?"

Ahem, as an English teacher who stresses the importance of refraining from asking questions in any piece of formal writing (i realize this is semi-formal at best) as it is implied second person, I'm shocked Ben overlooked the 200 or so questions he posed in his article.

martin j smith| 3.22.11 @ 5:24PM

I RECALL OBAMA'S SPEECH IN BERLIN IN THE SUMMER OF 2008 TALKING TO "CITIZENS OF THE WORLD". IT WAS ONE OF MANY REASONS I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. As to the adventure in Libya: This is purely politicval for France,Great Britiain and US.
Its about OIL but is also for political points as well. You know those approval ratings. However, Obama has not apparently done that well on this. Look even the LEFT is hardly enthusiastic. And in one area only I concur with them. IMPEACHMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..
Watch Obama and his buddies in the SEIU. I trust Obama below zero on any scale.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 5:28PM

Here's a question:

Does the War Powers Resolution make it clear whether the president needs approval from both houses of congress?

S. RES. 85 was passed on march 1st by the senate. Reading the text, it seems like this is exactly what Obama needed.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:32PM

The Supreme Court can't decide on the WPA (above) here's the Readers Digest version.

Political questions include such things as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.

Sweet and to the point.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:35PM

Hamilton Lucas

See my post Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:13PM
It makes the entire thing moot.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:33PM

Thanks, Habu

shipley130| 3.22.11 @ 5:38PM

I think it's clearly a usurpation of the constitution and therefore an impeachable offense. Please, America, tell congress to impeach Obama.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:53PM

shipley130| 3.22.11 @ 5:38PM

How is it a usurpation? It's apolitical wrangling between Congress and the Executive, it's not judicible and SCOTUS won't touch it for that reason.

Marauder| 3.22.11 @ 5:43PM

Rather than bury the Constitution, restore its authority by getting Zero out of the White House. Why wouldn't deliberate circumvention of the Constitution fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Delores Smith| 3.22.11 @ 5:45PM

MR. BEN STEIN - EXCELLENT ARTICLE...
Our Constitution is alive, but Obama is messing around with it. Everything that Obama has done since he's been in office has been to stir up America. He is looking for us to revolt in order to enact an emergency act on the books. He is seeking more CONTROL. EXAMPLES: Arizona lawsuits, Judge in the Gulf States told him he is in contempt of court for not allowing oil-drilling permits for the Gulf when the Judge's ruling ordered him to do so. (Obama sent $2,000,000,000 to Brazil for oil drilling.)
In Wisconsin, he stated that the Unions were being assaulted. In Libya and the Mideast, it's not about Gaddafi. Obama said that he "wants Arab League boots on the ground in Libya." Why?
(Not because they agreed to the resolution, since the resolution was not followed.)
Obama spoke in Cairo where he invited Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech. The protestors were thirty percent Muslim Brotherhood. The man from the U.N.,who wants to be leader of Egypt said that he wanted Muslim Brotherhood to be part of the government. Obama said that he wants all factions of Egypt to be in the government.
Israel had a family slaughtered (mother, father, and three children, one a baby stabbed in the heart and his throat cut. The next day Hamas & Palestine celebrated by passing out candy. A few days ago, Israel was fired upon by Hamas & Palestine. I believe this was an attempt to draw them into the conflict. Israel didn't respond.
My opinion: This is definitely the beginning of the New World Order or the New Word Disorder.
Obama will be very surprised, when it backfires.
George Soros and Obama will not achieve their evil goals. Call your representatives and senators and tell them to defund the war. Also,
ask that they impeach Obama in Court since we don't have the senate votes. All nations in the Mideast are protesting, stirred up by the Muslim Brotherhood, who founded Hamas and al Qaida.
Obama & Soros, the party is over. You are being exposed.
Delores Smith
Delores109@cox.net

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:48PM

Here's the acid test.
Who has the "football" near him at all times?
Who gives the nuclear launch order?
Who is vested with that power?

And it takes NO consultation with Congress.

Now all you folks who want to take away from the Executive branch the ability to commit troops at a moments notice what would you do if a nuke was headed our way....convene Congress and have them debate it for a few days?

Habu| 3.23.11 @ 4:01AM

DUH HABU..we don't have ananswer for that one.

shipley130| 3.22.11 @ 5:51PM

I wonder if our congress is having a nice vacation while Obama abuses the power of the office.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 6:12PM

Delores Smith| 3.22.11 @ 5:45PM
" Also,ask that they impeach Obama in Court since we don't have the senate votes."

DS, the impeachment takes place in the House of Reps...the decision to convict or dismiss comes in the Senate..

As to "impeach obama in the Courts" .....they can't touch it...it's not judiciable.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 6:16PM

Is the President allowed to conduct clandestine operations without Congressioal consent?

Just thought I'd throw in a joke since Congress can't keep a secret, no way, no how.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:18PM

Hey forum,

Thanks to the Big E and Simon T for aiding in my understanding today. Your patience and ongoing communication is appreciated :)

It's unclear to me whether or not Obama has violated any laws or the constitution because it is unclear to me whether or not he had congressional approval before levying war.

It seems that he may have in fact had the Senates approval (see: http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ution.html ) but was that enough? I don't know.

Assuming that he did have approval from congress, and seeing as how he did notify them within 48 hours of engaging, then I see nothing unconstitutional about the current military actions.

If, however, the links I've posted (and above) do not constitute congressional approval, then things get hairy.

What do you think? Did he have congressional approval prior to making military engagements?

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 6:48PM

I'd like to associate myself with Mr. Lucas' thanks to Big E and Simon T for their contributions. Well done.

Derek| 3.22.11 @ 6:52PM

Nice.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:53PM

Oh, and by the way, first the Arab League asked for intervention, now they don't want it. ;)

Lloyd Revalee| 3.22.11 @ 6:33PM

Where the hell is OUR Congress, and just what is OUR Supreme Court doing these days. We have three branches of government, established to keep tabs on each other, and neither Congress or the Supreme Court are doing their job.. We supposedly have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and we are not doing our job. We have enemies in the White House who are bent on destroying our way of life, and we are letting them get away with it. Its time to stand up and be counted, and take back OUR government.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:35PM

Please see my comment above. I'm fairly certain this action was approved by congress.

Introduced, nonetheless, by John McCain and Joe Lieberman.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:37PM

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.g.....n=retrieve

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:40PM

S. RES. 102

Derek| 3.22.11 @ 6:54PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act

This is great constitutional debate as to whether the President even needs Congressional approval, but Obama seems to be covered here either way.

Darrell| 3.22.11 @ 6:37PM

Only one problem with Ben's opinion, he forgot to read the section in the constitution that says the president can wage war without congressional consent, but he must receive it within 90 days. This is how we started in Iraq as well. So as of yet, there has been no constitutional breech.

It seems our founding fathers had good reason to allow the president this power, if we wait for congress to pass legislation it may be too late. They figured 90 days should be enough though, but of course they never dealt with today’s congress.

Len | 3.22.11 @ 9:48PM

Huh?? Perhaps you can cite that clause in the USC? No, you can't as you are confusing the unconstitutional War Powers Act, which re-delegates the war power to the president, with the actual USC.

Derek| 3.22.11 @ 6:41PM

This article is completely asinine.
How can you pretend to have an intelligent opinion on Presidential authority to commit US troops and not even mention the War Powers Resolution of 1973???
Not only does that resolution give the President the authority to commit troops under a specified time frame, but no President, especially Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush, has ever even agreed that the President is even bound by it.
This article is just another attempt to de-legitimize Obama and possible rally the ignorant around some pathetic impeachment nonsense.
Why are entertainers writing "opinions" on foreign policy. If you want educated opinions, read "Foreign Policy."

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 6:44PM

And you obviously haven't read the contributions to this thread.

Derek| 3.22.11 @ 6:51PM

I have read them, and I was responding to the article, not to the even more uneducated "contributions" of posters here.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 10:52PM

Derek,
"even more uneducated "contributions
Can't argue that. There is way too much hysteria and not enough scholarship. The dearth of knowledge of American history has been a bit mind boggling ...

Derek| 3.30.11 @ 7:21PM

EVERYONE has an opinion, and it doesn't bother anyone that they have no idea what they're talking about. Case in point, Ben Stein, who apparently never sat in a Poly Sci 101 class.

Derek| 3.22.11 @ 6:51PM

I have read them, and I was responding to the article, not to the even more uneducated "contributions" of posters here.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 6:43PM

Lloyd Revalee

Read my post... Habu| 3.22.11 @ 5:13PM
It will relieve your heartburn and answer you question.

FJF| 3.22.11 @ 6:44PM

I wonder what the Nobel Foundation has to say about this?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 6:52PM

I would expect them to, if anything, be relieved that the U.S. is doing something about the situation.

patrick henry| 3.22.11 @ 6:57PM

There's no mystery here. Obama's actions in the Libya matter are completely consistent with his plan for his future, as follows:

"Obama's long-range master plan unveiled"

As Barack Obama and his closest staff raced through the first several months of his new administration goading Congress into adopting bills hundreds of pages long without reading them and approving trillions of dollars of new spending and debt, long-time Washington insiders scratched their heads profusely as they attempted to decipher the specter and rationale of it all. Aside from the astonishing spending and associated risk, politicos marveled at the ability of the new President to move his agenda with apparent little regard for the constitutionality of such measures as moving the census operations into the White House and appointing hoards of “czars” with staffs of thousands, budgets of billions, and no apparent accountability to anyone but the President.
In the meantime, the new President remained on the campaign trail, giving speeches, making appearances, and posturing as if the Presidential election had not already occurred. The long time Washington observers puzzled over this odd behavior. After all, wasn’t the election over? Hadn’t he already won? Why was he still traveling all over the globe and not sitting at his desk in the White House Oval Office attending to business?
Was there any real method to this madness, or was it just plain madness? Turns out there is, indeed, very specific rationale and logic behind this President’s mad rush to acquire as much authority and control as possible over the nation and its subjects.
After some detailed probing and pursuit of the subject, what we find is that Barack Obama, still just in his late 40’s, has much greater ambitions than just serving two terms as President of the United States. Barack Obama is positioning himself to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations, a post with no statutory limit of terms and control of the only organization with widespread authority over all points of the globe.
Researchers contemplating Obama’s long-range master plan find that all the necessary elements are in place, or soon will be, to give Obama the opportunity to literally rule the world- possibly for as long as he wants. A brief review of the United Nations charter and history provides the eye-opening details.
UN Secretary General
The United Nations Charter establishes the Secretary General as the head of the Secretariat, and, as such, as the chief administrative officer of the United Nations. The position of UN Secretary General is a five-year term recommended by the UN Security Council and appointed by the UN General Assembly. The Secretary General position is generally rotated by geographic region and is traditionally (but not constitutionally) limited to two consecutive five-year terms. Since the founding of the UN in 1945, the only exception to this was in 1996 when American President Bill Clinton’s administration exercised its authority as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto the re-appointment of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali to a second term as Secretary General. As he was from Africa, the UN then selected another African representative, Kofi Annan, of Ghana, to replace him.
Annan served his two terms as Secretary General, completing his service Dec. 31, 2006. Under the UN’s rotational system, the Security Council then looked to Asia for the next Secretary General, and nominated Ban Ki-moon of South Korea. The General Assembly quickly approved him as the new Secretary General. And here’s where it gets interesting.
The first term of Ban Ki-moon expires Dec. 31, 2011 and, according to UN tradition, if he is interested, he will almost certainly be reappointed to a second term, which will expire Dec. 31, 2016, three weeks prior to the end of Barack Obama’s presumed second term as President of the United States. Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, only two geographic regions of the world have not had a representative serve as UN Secretary General: Oceana…. and North America. Barack Obama intends to be the first from North America.
This, of course, would explain virtually everything about Obama’s otherwise-unconventional behavior and his aggressiveness in acquiring as much control, authority and international goodwill as possible. The basic goals of the Obama Presidency are to weaken the United States as an international force in order to lessen its ability to exert influence and control over international affairs, while at the same time seek to subjugate the U.S. as much as possible to international agreements and UN control, authority, regulation and laws. This will curry favor with the international community, thus enhancing Obama’s chances at ascension to the Secretary General throne, and make the U.S. less significant vis-a-vis the UN in international affairs, so that he, as life-long UN Secretary General, will have unquestioned and unchallenged authority over the worldwide community and its affairs.
The procedural steps
To achieve these ends, during his time as President, the Obama administration has pursued policies that weaken American strength, power and influence in every conceivable political, economic and social way possible. For example, many economists have pointed out that the Obama economic plan, loaded with unsustainable spending and debt, may cause serious long-term damage to the American economy. No problem- if his plan does happen to somehow work, fine, but the Obama economic plan is not designed to heal the economy- in accordance with Obama’s long-range master plan, it’s designed to weaken the economy, and the nation. And how does the on-going Obama international “blame America / apology tour” strengthen America’s foreign policy? It doesn’t- it’s not supposed to- it’s designed to weaken our nation’s role in international affairs. Further, Obama’s administrative and judicial appointments and nominations are people infused with a strident anti-traditional and anti-constitutional ethos, because that nudges America further toward an eventual submission to “international” ethics, laws and constraints.
The more that Obama will be able to enact this agenda and master plan now, the easier it will be for him to later wield unquestioned power as UN Secretary General, because the United States will have been severely weakened and unable to exert significant influence on international (or even some domestic) affairs.
Possible scenarios
Speculators are envisioning several alternative scenarios. For example, one option being bantered about is that Obama’s unbridled ambition will not allow him to wait until Ban Ki-moon completes a second term as UN Secretary General. Mr. Ban’s first term will conclude Dec. 31, 2011, one year and three weeks prior to the end of Obama’s first term as President, and one popular scenario envisions that, if Obama feels he has sufficiently accomplished enough of his agenda by then, he will resign as President and seek to replace Mr. Ban in January of 2012. After all, why wait another four years and risk something going awry in the meantime that could pre-empt an Obama second Presidential term or even the larger Obama long-range master plan itself?
Under that scenario, it is thought that Vice President Joe Biden’s subsequent ascendancy to the White House in January of 2012 would assure a continued passive and subordinate American role in UN and international affairs while Obama then promotes his UN Secretary General agenda, and, at the same time, assure election of Biden as President later that November.
Another variation of that scenario is that the aftermath of the 2010 election and growing unhappiness with Obama's lack of leadership, including by members of his own party, will cause key Dems, especially those up for re-election in 2012, to seek an alternative to head the Dem ticket as Presidential candidate. Hillary would then offer herself up as the "Savior of the Party" as Biden fills out Obama's term and doesn't seek the nomination. As a narcissist, Obama must be concerned about the prospect of being defeated in a re-election campaign. So, as a political safety valve, Obama could resign in late 2011 for the UN job. Under that scenario variant, everybody would win- Obama would get his UN Secretary General-for-life job, Biden would get to serve one year as a U.S. President, and Hillary would get her shot at making history as the first female President, perhaps even for two terms.
However, some feel that this scenario would be too outrageously ambitious for even Obama. Their thought is that Obama would prefer to complete the second term as President and then move on to the UN. On the other hand, this scenario would explain the “mad rush” to enact as much of Obama’s agenda as soon as possible in his first term. And it would also explain why Obama was so insistent on running for President in 2008, rather than allowing Hillary Clinton to have her shot at the job in ’08 and running after her two terms.
Many Democrat leaders felt that Hillary had earned her shot at an open office in the 2008 Presidential election, as George Bush was completing his second term. After all, even after two Hillary terms as President, Obama would still only be 55 in 2016 and, presumably, politically bolstered by another eight years of service and experience as a U.S. Senator. With such additional maturity and experience, Obama in 2016 would have had formidable credentials to then become the first black American President.
All very logical, except for one very revealing factor. As previously mentioned, a new UN Secretary General will be scheduled for appointment in 2016, and eligible for two five-year terms. If Obama would have let that opportunity pass by and allow someone else to become UN Secretary General, that would mean that Obama’s next best shot at the UN Secretary General position may not occur until 2026. At that point Obama would be 65 years old, with far less time to rule the United Nations. And, in addition, that would leave far too much time for something unforeseen to disrupt Obama’s long-term master plan. No, it was felt that it was a far better approach to push Obama for the Presidency in 2008 even if that meant risking the wrath of Hillary and her Democrat Party operatives. With an Obama victory in the 2008 Presidential election, his plan of ascending to the open UN Secretary General seat in 2016 was assured, and he could serve as many as four five-year terms as UN Secretary General before finally retiring at a still-robust 75, or possibly even serving beyond that. That would provide Obama with a full twenty years or more of ruling the world- a heady opportunity indeed, one that would be very difficult for an intense narcissist to let pass by.
Another variant of that scenario involves the secret pact made between the Clintons and Obama when Hillary decided not to challenge Obama at the 2008 Democrat convention and, instead, endorsed Obama for President. The negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps concluded with some major concessions to the Clintons, beginning with Hillary’s nomination and subsequent appointment as Secretary of State. Some have said that the Clinton-Obama deal also includes (among others) eventual nomination of Bill Clinton to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Obama’s endorsement of Hillary for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2016.
And Hillary’s part of that deal would include acquiescence with UN Secretary General supremacy in the international arena during her Presidency.
Regardless, it is clear that the position of UN Secretary General will be open for appointment just as Obama’s presumed second term is about to expire. The Secretary General serves a five-year term and is traditionally (but not constitutionally) limited to two consecutive terms. But Barack Obama clearly sees himself as a being above and beyond traditional (if not even constitutional) constraint, and there is no provision in the UN Charter that would prevent him from seeking as many terms as he desired. By ingratiating himself to the international community during his service as American President, he could assure himself of unlimited service later as UN Secretary General. The only constraint to prevent Obama from additional terms as Secretary General would be a veto by one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. But the Obama team has very effectively considered that element as well. The five permanent Security Council members are the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The U.S. is already (figuratively and literally) indebted to China, Russia is clearly pleased with Obama’s weakening of the U.S., and Obama has profusely sidled up to the European powers in his on-going “blame America / apology” tours. This should greatly diminish the prospects of one of those other four permanent Security Council nations vetoing additional Obama terms as Secretary General beyond his second term. And, with a submissive America ruled by the Democrat Party, the chances of a U.S. veto are virtually nil.
Following his act as the first black President of the United States, the Obama campaign for UN Secretary General would focus on the historic nature of him becoming the first person from North America to serve in that capacity. And, as a result of his weaken-America policies as President, the members of the United Nations would feel much more comfortable bestowing upon him the honor of serving as the first North American Secretary General. For his part, naturally, this would fit very nicely into Obama’s narcissistic persona. And, of course, the mainstream American and international media would play it to the hilt. Obama’s ascendancy to the throne of United Nations Secretary General would be virtually a coronation, not a selection or an election.
Now that the basic goals of Obama’s long-range master plan are clearly evident, his motivations and intentions are much easier to decipher. Clearly, the structure of the Obama Presidency is not about what is good for America or its citizens- it’s all about Obama. It’s all about what advances Obama’s personal agenda and objectives. If it appears that Obama is still campaigning, it’s because he is still campaigning. Obama viewed the 2008 American Presidential election as just another primary election in his broader campaign to become the UN Secretary General. During his Presidency, Obama’s policies are designed to control, not cure. The economy, the banking system, the auto industry, the health care system- the Obama administration’s energies are directed toward seizing control over all those sectors, not “curing” any real or perceived problems in them. The more that Obama can make America subservient, compliant and subordinate now, the easier it will be for him to rule later as the unchallenged United Nations Secretary General.
This fascinating insight gives us the opportunity to view Obama and his administration in a much different light. Other such alternative scenarios are being actively debated, and only his closest insiders are privy to the details of the actual plan. But one thing is very clear: the increasingly strange and unconventional behavior of Barack Obama and his administration and policies can now be seen through a much clearer lens, and it’s quite obvious that there is, indeed, a very specific method to the madness.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 7:04PM

Next time please post a link.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 10:54PM

Could you repeat that please?

Mordecai| 3.22.11 @ 11:43PM

RUN SARAH RUN

Greg| 3.22.11 @ 7:02PM

How is this any different then when Regan order our Invasion of Granada or the invasion of Panama?

It is not about a "One World Government" it is about the realization that we are no longer so rich that we can do these things on our own. Europe has to start stepping up. I for one thing this is a good first step for them. Lets let them get their hands a little dirty.

Europe has the same economic power that we do yet they spend almost nothing on Military.... it is time for them to do their part.

Budman| 3.22.11 @ 7:13PM

Voted in by starry eyed teenagers, gaga housewives, and every black American, Barak Huessan Obama an absentee senator with 18 months of voting present. Sure he wrote two books ( which were about as compelling and sophisticated as Green Eggs and Ham- no offense Dr. Suisse).
WhT do you expect? Miracles!
Why not vote this looser in again?
We deserve it, we let the Morons (the liberal press)run the show. Putting a depleted John McCain against Obama was like putting Pee Wee Herman in the ring with Mike Tyson.
Fight fire with fire, let Trump at Obama in 2012. Scoundrel bs scoundrel. At least Trump is a patriot.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 8:26PM

If by "starry eyed teenagers" you mean first time voters under thirty, then sure.

suzy000| 3.22.11 @ 7:23PM

Immediately upon hearing how Obama ordered out military into Libya....I blogged this same reaction at several sites. This is spot on and Stein has laid it out perfectly. Obama IS of a world government mentality and this is another step in his plan to abolish our country's most sacred document. Where are the people on the right? Only those on the left seem to standing up in opposition against this and I am not talking about the lamestream media. They are useless and the public ignores them now. Bush was dragged over the coals even though he took it to Congress. Wake up, America....Obama is taking us a down a very dangerous path and it will be too late if we sit idly by.

Derek| 3.22.11 @ 7:31PM

So, I'm SURE you felt the same when Reagan took us to Lebanon and Grenada, Bush I to Panama and Somalia, Clinton to the Balkans and W to Iraq and Afghanistan???
Your hysteria is a perfect and predictable result to control methods based on ignorance and fear.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 7:55PM

There were American citizens under threat in Grenada. I know this---one of them was my senior resident when I was an intern.

RCV| 3.23.11 @ 11:56AM

Occam - there are more Americans in Libya than were in Grenada, and each of them is at greater risk than the American medical students in Grenada. You are grasping at straws to try to make a distinction that doesn't exist. If Roosevelt could find time to get a declaration after Pearl Harbor, Reagan could have gotten one before defending us against the massive threat that was Grenada. Please, Occam, you're better than this.

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 7:45PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ution.html

Tony in Central PA| 3.22.11 @ 8:02PM

The one fixed principle this President does hold is that people are stupid. That's why he can talk about the Constitutionally correct process for taking the country to war during the campaign and competely disregard it in office. People are stupid. They won't remember what I said, and if they do, they'll be too distracted to care. Wanna see my bracket ?

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 8:03PM

He didn't disregard the constitution. The cake is a lie.

Derek| 3.23.11 @ 12:40PM

Substitute "this President" with the "Republican Party" and you might begin to grasp how people who are not in the 1% of income earners are conned into consistently voting to make their personal situations worse.

Derek| 3.23.11 @ 12:40PM

Substitute "this President" with the "Republican Party" and you might begin to grasp how people who are not in the 1% of income earners are conned into consistently voting to make their personal situations worse.

Bob Klahn| 3.22.11 @ 8:25PM

Dear Mr Stein,

President Obama got the right to send the country to war from George W. Bush. The constitution was laid to rest under George W. Bush. There was no resolution to spend money on the invasion of Iraq, no declaration of war against Iraq, just an excuse for Bush to order an illegal invasion. Yes, illegal. Saddam complied with every requirement that was made of him, and Bush invaded anyway.

Oh, in case you forgot, the justification for the war was, originally, Saddam's failure to comply with UN requirements. Ex Post Facto it was justified by the fact that he was killing his own people.

So, yes, President Obama got the authority to attack Libya from your support of Bush's invasion of Iraq. What? No congressional debate? Since when did congressional debate mean anything in the real world. Saddam Hussein and Iraq were no threat at all to the United States, a fact that was known to the Bush administration before the invasion. Reread the Senate Select Committee report on pre-war intel again, only this time really read it. Both parts. Oh, and read the inspectors reports while you are at it.

As to the "Third Concurrent War", your side would have no problem at all with that were the target Iran, or even Venezuala.

As to going on vacation the same day, I don't know just which day it was, but I do recall George H. W. Bush racing around in the waters off Maine in his gas guzzleing cigarette boat while US troops were preparing for war in Iraq the first time around.

Where did President Obama get the authority to send US forces to attack Iraq? From GW Bush, and from your support for GW Bush and his war for oil.

Bob Klahn
USAF 1967-1971 SSGT.

Gary Smith| 3.22.11 @ 8:29PM

All I can say is, Ben Stein, you are so full of crap.

JR| 3.22.11 @ 9:36PM

And Gary all I can say is that you are full of crap.
Good job Ben, keep it up!!

Glein| 3.22.11 @ 9:23PM

I must say that some of the remarks above baffle me. I can see making an argument if the Iraq war was necessary or not but to say it was illegal is just ignorant. How many UN Resolutions? How many times did Hussein violate the No Fly Zone? How many times did he lie to arms inspectors with hope of reconsituting his nuclear arms program? How many times did Democrats call for his removal (Pres. Clinton, Hilary, Biden, Kerry)? How did you feel when Hussein used poison gas against the Kurds and tortured and killed his people? The problem with Obama ordering the bombing of Libya is that Liberals and Leftists thought Obama was going to give them what they wanted and he reneged on Gitmo, military tribunals, tax cuts, and now saber rattling in Libya. He is becoming Bush and his radical supporters feel betrayed but they will still defend him because they invested so much in his platitudes and empty talk. Obama is a man of straw and his minions can't face reality which is the definition of Liberalism and Leftist ideology. Living in an imagined world with no foundation in reality. Have courage with the Republican showing no spine, no courage, Obama may get Jimmy Carter's third term and then really screw up reality.

JR| 3.22.11 @ 9:35PM

I am pleasantly surprised that Mr . Stein has awoken from his necon stupor. If only he were awake back under Bush I, Bubba, and Bush II

Ronald Arnce| 3.22.11 @ 9:47PM

He has to go 2012 may not be soon enough .

Zamas| 3.22.11 @ 9:56PM

Moron - a moron is:
-Anyone that doesn't know the historical (as defined by SCOTUS) definition of Natural Born Citizen (hint: two citizen parents).
-Anyone that doesn't know the difference between Natural Born and Native Born.
-Anyone that thinks being born in Hawaii makes Barry Natural Born (hint: it doesn't matter if he was - see above).
-Anyone that thinks the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth posted online is a birth certificate (hint: even if it's not a forgery it's NOT a birth certificate).
-Anyone that thinks Barry isn't a dual citizen (if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii).
-Anyone that says he KNOWS where Barry was born (including Barry).
-Anyone that thinks it doesn't matter (hint: think Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, anchor babies, etc., etc., etc.).

As for those of you that are morons, or might not be morons but display moronic tendencies with your comments about birthers - BITE ME.

Jim Dunlop| 3.22.11 @ 9:58PM

If the U.S.A. had decided to sit this one out while it debated endlessly it would have been seen by the rest of the world as a dithering bunch of bureaucrats without a leader. The madman of Libya was in the process of slaughtering massive numbers of civilians. It is just the right thing to do to try and stop him. I am not from the U.S. and have traveled to 30 different countries. I started in 1955 and quit in 2010. In 55 everybody admired the U.S. -the land of freedom and opportunity. Not so in 2009 and 10- something had happened and the U.S. was now held in disregard. The humanitarian effort in Libya is changing people's mind and the U.S. is again being seen around the world as a nation with a heart. And it doesn't pump oil.

Rhonda Lee Welsch | 3.22.11 @ 10:21PM

...when did we amend the Constitution to declare that the United Nations had control over our military? When did we abolish the part of the Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare war? When the US Congress put an ineligible Communist on the ballot in '08! What is so surprising?...do people really think America is still sovereign? Do we still have a free economy or have we since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Is anyoine else feeling nauseous?
Time to pray!!!
The SISTERS OF THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION seeking prayer warriors to intercede on America's behalf. www.thesosar.com

hmrhonda| 3.22.11 @ 10:40PM

Exactly. Thank you Mr. Stein. Obama IS a "one worlder". It never worked in the past, won't work now, and never will. But of course he could be thinking "Why just be President of the United States, when I could be king of the world." Oppose and depose him in 2012.

Mordecai| 3.22.11 @ 11:38PM

RUN SARAH RUN 2012

Mordecai| 3.22.11 @ 10:54PM

The Mideast train of freedom has left the station and president Obama has put America in the caboose instead the engine that pulls it. He is given up the sovereignty of America to other nations as well as the UN. We have appeasement, procrastination, indecisiveness, not leadership in the White House (Pass this on)

Dee See| 3.22.11 @ 10:58PM

HUAC meets NUREMBERG

----There is no alternative.

Dave| 3.22.11 @ 11:04PM

Interesting.

Of course, liberals won't get it. Like most things that make sense, this too will elude the mindless sheople/slaves of the liberal agenda.

Steve Odom| 3.22.11 @ 11:12PM

Impeach now.

Dee See| 3.22.11 @ 11:19PM

---"As the Globalists finish off their agenda
Americans are about the have the rug pulled
out from under them at home."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)

Putting aside the cover-up of the Japan catastrophe and the particle fallout coming
down here along with the Barium and Cadmium
CHEM-trails

AND the 'order out of chaos' franchise slumming
underway in the Middle East

AND the destruction of American soveriegnty
and currency

AND the theft of pensions both public and private
across-the-boards

AND the illegal, world destroying PRIVATE
Federal Reserve

AND the melting of our borders and Napoitano's
secret signing of 80 MILLION Mexicans into
'Trusted Traveller' (i.e. GREEN card) status

AND as the RED China 'Free Traitors' remain
just that

AND as Rupert Murdoch's people cover for
RED China here while managing and designing
the propaganda there

AND the third generation EUGENISTS owning
and directing our entire medical establishment
and food conglomerate

-----------it's SURE looking like WATT is onto something!

Mordecai| 3.22.11 @ 11:35PM

RUN SARAH RUN

Mustang| 3.23.11 @ 12:00AM

Where in the hell are the balls of the leading Republicans that we sent to defend this country? What is it going to take short of a coup to take this aswhole out of office?

Mordecai| 3.23.11 @ 6:17AM

RUN SARAH RUN,

Mordecai| 3.23.11 @ 6:17AM

RUN SARAH RUN,

Mordecai| 3.23.11 @ 6:17AM

RUN SARAH RUN,

Rupert| 3.23.11 @ 4:04AM

Well Big E looks like Habu boxed your ears off.

tonyl| 3.23.11 @ 5:24AM

Thank you Ben Stein.

Obama Change? Another undeclared war for even less clear reasons. We went from bad to worse.

I want our constitution back.

fingolfin | 3.23.11 @ 8:37AM

What about the War Powers Resolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

rtaylortitle| 3.23.11 @ 9:17AM

Where has Ben been? Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan...none of these were legal wars under the Constitution...all undeclared by Congress. BTW, Ben, the Federal Reserve is not authorized either. Get it straight overall...it's going to get worse especially with neo-cons in the GOP.

Stefan Stackhouse| 3.23.11 @ 9:34AM

Mr. Stein:

I believe that Tsar Nicholas was ON vacation when he plunged Russia (and the world) into WWI. Given what followed, that's a good object lesson on what NOT to do.

Richard Nixon was controversial in so many ways, but there was one thing (as least) in which he was absolutely right. He famously observed that the Chinese word for "crisis" combines the characters for "danger" and "opportunity", and that is exactly what a crisis is. Obama's flaw (among many, I suppose) is that he always sees only the danger, never the opportunity. He is so afraid of making a wrong move, and thus so overly cautious, that he routinely lets opportunities pass him by while he deliberates. That is the type of mistake that inexperienced new leaders often make. Few of them learn their lesson in a way that enables them to go on to become experienced, effective, great leaders. Unfortunately, a majority of voters selected a terribly inexperienced man to be President. Their bad, but they were warned. Too bad for the rest of us, though.

The opportunity that was missed was a couple of weeks ago, when the Free Libyans were on a roll and Gadhafi was teetering. It would have taken very little to topple him. Forget a "no-fly zone" or anything so drastic. A duffle bag full of satellite phones (which the CIA or the State Dept probably has stored in a back room anyway, gathering dust) could have been quietly gotten to the Free Libyan leadership (such as it is), possibly without even getting our own "fingerprints" on the operation. This would have enabled them to communicate with each other and coordinate their movements, something they obviously needed very badly. It would have also made it possible for us to begin feeding them real-time intelligence on the positions and movements of Loyalist forces (something we were undoubtedly keeping track of anyway). That would have given the Free Libyan forces a huge strategic advantage, and would have made up for a lot of deficiencies in weaponry. This entire operation would have cost a trivial amount of money, and would have placed no US lives at risk. We are not even talking about lethal weapons here, and the sat phones could have been shut down remotely if they ever fell into wrong hands, so "arming terrorists" would not have even been an issue. Add in a few bribes to some key top officers to switch sides (and there are probably special funds hidden deep in the CIA budget just for such a contingency, I would imagine) and that is probably all that it would have taken to send Gadhafi to his just reward. At the very least, he would be in a far worse position today than he is. (This is not all "Monday morning quarterbacking", by the way. I emailed the White House with these suggestions a couple of weeks ago, while there was still time to implement them. I probably wasn't the only person with thoughts along these lines. Of course, I doubt that any human eyes ever actually read my email, let alone the President. It shouldn't have been dependent upon a nobody like me to come up with ideas like this in the first place, however.)

Instead, Obama dithered and deliberated, and that golden window of opportunity closed. Instead, he plunged us into this massive and expensive open-ended operation. The irony is that he hasn't avoided danger by waiting, he has placed himself and the nation in far greater danger. We can't even begin to anticipate all the ways that this thing could go wrong. That's what always seems to actually happen when the overly optimistic "best and brightest" get us into these messes. We could have tipped the balance on the cheap and on the sly, if only we had acted in a bold, cleaver and timely manner. Instead, we've got yet another - and as you said, undeclared - war on our hands.

Best regards,

Stefan Stackhouse
Black Mountain, NC

Bubba with a B| 3.23.11 @ 9:44AM

Great post, and spot on. Also, I can almost guarantee if we didn't have the intel to help, Mossad did/does.

trp878| 3.23.11 @ 9:39AM

I do believe it's time to recall and prosecute this guy and his policy makers for all the atrocities they have committed against our Great Country, the U.S. of A. and all it's law abiding citizens who love Our Country.

Bubba with a B| 3.23.11 @ 9:41AM

Hey Alan, why don't we hear the petulant Bush-era screams of "Regime Change!" by the left? Because Obama has been co-opted by Europe, that somehow makes it ok?

karvictho| 3.23.11 @ 10:59AM

Dear Ben: Obama got the right to bomb Libya the same place Bush got the right to bomb Irak. By the way... we have never been at "War" with Iraq even if everyone runs around saying just that. In fact, according to former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez Iraq is an "incursion." This was stated publicly before the Senate. Maybe we could start to think about not permitting "incursions" at the sole discretion of the President.

Irish22| 3.23.11 @ 12:03PM

All the more reason for Conservatives/Constitutionals in Congress to insist on doing the right (constitutional) thing -- regardless of who is president. No passes for anyone.
Shine the light!

Man from Illinois| 3.23.11 @ 3:34PM

Hello !!! What about Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? What makes Libya any different? This bullsh** has been going on for decades, even centuries if you want to go back to Lincoln and his suspension of Habeas Corpus (twice) before the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 was passed. Why is anyone outraged or surprised by another offense against the Constitution? Come on REALLY? Let's also talk about the Federal Reserve. Since when does the constitution authorize any entity other than congress to regulate the supply and value of "currency"?

dale chitwood| 3.23.11 @ 4:35PM

Well......The one world government doesn't surprise me, that has been coming on for several years. But what does surprise me is, where are our Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court!!! Obama has openly played the NWO game since day one. He is not our King, just another branch of our government. Let's raise our voices big time!

Charles Martel| 3.23.11 @ 5:02PM

Ben asks, "I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off on vacation. Has that ever happened before?"

Didn't Caligula do that? Or was it Nero?

I wonder, when the president addresses Congress, do they check the senators for daggers?

+++

Agent Rose| 3.23.11 @ 9:27PM

THE WAR AND THE NEW PARTY LINE
No. This WAR is not a joke. The leftist, communist, socialist one-worlders have a definite plan--and this could change by the day or hour as appropriate. One commenter above noted the absence of the anti-war people and demonstrations. Yes that was a definite tip off. Is there a march on Washington this Saturday.
We are naive. And still don't understand the communist techniques which have long been operating in this country. They only have a few basic techniques 1) lies and deceit; 2) control over the press; and constant agitation and fomenting of class warfare: poor against rich; white against black; christians against Arabs; Arabs against Jews---the list goes on and on.
In this respect the anti-war leftists who were against war before they were for this war are just like the peace forces of the communists during the beginning of world war II. There were vast peace and strike campaigns in the U.S., with strikes disrupting factories producing war materials. By April of 1941 the U.S. found itself in endless chaos, almost impossible to arm itself.
In June, 1941, Frederick Field, the communist national secretary was saying: "Keep America out of Europe's war, improve the standard of living, retain and defend our constitutional liberties and work for the people's peace."
AH HAH! 96 hours later--the Party Line changed and the new line was the war model. WHY? Russia had been attacked by Hitler. They were suddenly all for the war to help Russia’s interests, (recall the results of Yalta) they volunteered to serve, step up production at factories, and urged their comrades to buy war bonds.
Different times. The Party Line just changed. Stay tuned.......and it will change again.

Nathan Bickel | 3.23.11 @ 10:48PM

I am not surprised by this unilateral lonesome decision by our [alleged] president.

Why? Because he has "gotten away with" his own presidential legitimacy, being scrutinized. The same Congressional leader politicians who are so upset over Obama's Libyan War, saying he did not have Constitutional authority, are the same mêlée mouthed [hypocrite] individuals who will not insist that Obama legitimately hold the US presidency. [So far, no controlling legal authority has certified his Constitutional right to hold the office]

Regardless of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya - or wherever, his father was not an American citizen. On that basis, alone, Obama is precluded from being our legitimate president!

Robt. Carraher| 3.24.11 @ 2:37PM

(I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off on vacation. Has that ever happened before? ) Yes, George W. Bush in March 2003. On the 20th the invasion started, on the 21st he went to Camp David. Here's the Official Press Briefing. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.....z1HXiwzeUM

Besides, Obama's trip to So. Amer. has been scheduled for moths and I'd hardly call it a vacation when he signed Ten new cooperation agreements--including deals on energy, science and technology, space, nuclear port security, and infrastructure development. A number of bilateral cabinet-level meetings took place as well.

The visit was also notable for the symbolic elements as the leaders of the two largest countries in the hemisphere--one African-American, the other a woman--hit a number of refreshing notes about a new period of bilateral relations.

shipley130| 3.24.11 @ 6:14PM

If the US Constitution is laid to rest, there is no need for the taxpayer to keep paying congress.

Brain Training | 3.25.11 @ 9:20AM

Ben Stein wrote: "It is sad and cruel that the Gaddafi regime was murdering its own civilians, but so do many governments all across the world, including North Korea, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Cuba."

True observation, yet you omitted the USA from the list, on which it for sure belongs, 9/11 was a false-flag attack that has been used by corrupt leaders in every party as an excuse for the "concurrent wars" you mention.

Constance Spearman| 3.25.11 @ 12:07PM

WTH??? Why are we allowing this man to get away with this? Why are we acting like sheep to the slaughter? CONGRESS..WAKE THE HELL UP and do something with this man. He's killing everything we stood for!

Not perfect | 3.26.11 @ 5:13PM

Here's one for the TROLLS "it ain't over yet"!!!!!!!

Dan| 3.27.11 @ 5:47PM

GHB did not consult Congress when he invaded Panama in 1989. Remember he was The Wimp and had to show some muscle. But this war does have a different flavor. However, the real One World Government is being implemented by the Central Banks playing with Fiat money.

gaetano| 3.28.11 @ 10:44AM

Do all of you people realize that all the blogs that you have made are not the answer to anything? If you are in love with Obama or if you hate is guts, everyone knows that something is wrong with our government and we the people are not involved,and we are left out of whats going on. Are all of you just going to sit back and wait for our government , of which according to everyone on this sight , does not trust anymore, tell us that we will be lined up and shot, or gassed, or deported, or put into slave camps? There has to be a DEMAND made NOW to Washington,of whats happening and we want answers or LETS JUST GO TO WAR. I would rather die now then wait to find out what this corrupt government has planned for our future. Is that what all of you want? Somebody needs to lead the people, and take control of this nasty situation.I don`t know what you all want, but I surely want to know, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?? I have become totally afraid of my own government. Is that why everyone in these other countries are protesting about? Is that why all the people are going nuts in America and protesting everything thats going on, like unions, and racists issues, and tea parties and muslem BS? All Americans,YES all Americans should march on Washington,Democrats ,Republicans , blacks ,whites,reds,yellow, and children and colleges to demand answers before we become eradicated.

Ed Wedin| 3.29.11 @ 6:44PM

Once before in history, about 2800 years ago, a leader did follow his own desires while his country went off to war. In 2 Samuel 11, we read of David:
"And it came to pass, at the return of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried at Jerusalem." David neglected his kingly duty and instead had the disastrous affair with Bathsheba and had her husband murdered to cover up the affair.
Let's hope it doesn't get that bad with our current "leader."

C Smith| 3.31.11 @ 2:23AM

“No,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bluntly stated when asked on “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syrian unrest as in Libya. She defended her position by saying that the situations in Libya and Syria are respectively "unique." Yes, they are unique, but not for reasons mentioned:

Syria's human rights record is among the worst according to Human Rights Watch. Syrian secret police detain, torture, and are suspect in the disappearance of an estimated 17,000 political prisoners. Libya, by comparison, is not even in the ball park.

Syria, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), supports the following terrorist organizations: Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Libya of course is culpable for Lockerbie, but even here Gaddafi personal sanction on the matter is debatable.

Iran and Syria maintain a mutual defense agreement, while Iran and Libya are enemies with the former encouraging the West to arm their anarchist allies.

Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) and the capability to deliver them according to U.S.defense and intelligence reports. However, a September 2007 Israeli air strike is generally credited with putting Syria's nuclear program on hold. Libya, in stark contrast, has complied with the "world community," and what was her reward, "decimation":

"On December 19, 2003, Libya announced it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs. Since then, U.S., British, and international officials have inspected and removed or destroyed key components of those programs, and Libya has provided valuable information, particularly about foreign suppliers. Libya’s WMD disarmament is a critical step towards reintegration into the world community.... " (Sharon A. Squassoni and Andrew Feickert (Specialists in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division), CRS Report for Congress, Disarming Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction, September 22, 2006).

Clinton's unsubstantiated preference of Syria over Libya is not an error in judgment, but rather something more sinister:

Frank Gaffney, a columnist at the Washington Times and unlike the media, recently made the obvious connection in an analysis titled “The Gadhafi Precedent.” Gaffney indicates that the hostilities initiated against Libya might soon be used to “justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.” Actually, Gaffney was too restrained in his analysis. The coalition's assault on Libya was a test run or perhaps a dress rehearsal of the "Expedient for Jerusalem":

Palestinian preparations for the opportune moment to initiate anarchy in Israel are complete, pending Secretary Clinton's affirmation of the Gadhafi Precedent. However, the situations in Libya and Israel are respectively "unique". Secretary Clinton and her coalition are unaware "the LORD hath chosen" Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 14:2), and has "chosen Jerusalem" (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:6) and unto Abraham has promised: "... all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Genesis 13:15).

Secretary Clinton and her coalition are also unaware the LORD doesn't settles His accounts on Friday, but has chosen one DAY in all eternity to judge the earth. Yet as that DAY draws ever nearer "the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (Psalms 2:2-3). And Secretary Clinton and her coalition are arrogantly unaware the LORD "... will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people... and in that day will... make Jerusalem a burdensome stone... " (Zechariah 12:2-3).

http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....salem.html

C Smith| 3.31.11 @ 2:27AM

The impetus du jour is insurrection. Presidents and prime ministers and a far flung unity of nations are facilitating anarchy to their own ends. Facebook and Google are also complicit in fermenting rebellion. A plethora of "talking heads," like an aviary of parrots, mimic the refrain, obvious to reason. And "He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision" (Psalms 2:4).
As Libya continues to affirm national sovereignty i.e., not only her right but responsibility to repress anarchy, the US, France, and UK, by launching a barrage of missiles, have imposed a greater tyranny then that they profess to oppose.
Although Gadhafi may lack international "graces," he is hardly to be compared with the Rome's Nero during an era when the Apostile Paul pinned these words affirming "civil obedience," rather than the always contemporary "civil disobedience":
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher [civil] powers [be it Nero or Gadhafi or Mubarak]. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power [be it Thoreau or Gandhi or Martin Luther King], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" (Romans 13:2).

"For he [Nero] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4).

So as presidents and prime ministers and a far flung unity of nations perfect the art form of anarchy, there is an unseen reality "... we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).

Kim| 3.31.11 @ 10:52AM

Some people need to show some respect for the office of the president of the United States of America. It does not matter if you agree with any, all, or none of a USA Presidents' actions or policies. It is not Mr. Obama, it is President Obama. Just as it was President Bush, President Clinton, President Reagan, President Carter, etc.

Ellen| 3.31.11 @ 2:49PM

I'm as worried about our country as you are and I look forward to Mr. Obamas leave from the presidency, but as far as this article is concerned(and I don't agree with taking action in Libya) there is a resolution or rule or whatever they call it that gives the president 60 days to go to congress about war. Did you not know this?? You should.

John O.| 4.3.11 @ 3:44AM

Alea iacta est.

The war has begun. We have no choice but to fight it. These dictators break the law and scoff at democratic accountability. They feast on the entrails of civilization and defecate definition and argument when they finish. It is already too late, but what is left? Who wants their children to grow up in a country without law or liberty? Who wants their children to see their fathers as slaves and cowards?

He who has ears, let him hear.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:47AM

It was buried in a private ceremony by Mr. Barack Obama of Chicago as he silently signed America on to the One World Government some of us have been worried about for decades.

weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 5:04AM

I'm as worried about our country as you are and I look forward to Mr. Obamas leave from the presidency, but as far as this article is concerned(and I don't agree with taking action in Libya) there is a resolution or rule or whatever they call it that gives the president 60 days to go to congress about war. Did you not know this?? You should.

thomas sabo bracelets | 7.9.11 @ 8:47AM

I like this, thanks for your work !

Hork the Stork| 7.10.11 @ 6:30AM

when foreign rulers across the world do wrong to their citizens, we as American's should be willing to sacrifice personal comfort and wealth to help stop that, regardless if it applies to our guidelines, which is all the constitution is nowadays(sadly). I would give the clothes of my back to help these people, and if Obama wants to carpet bomb libya in the night, well, maybe he should let us know first, but he should definitely do it if it will Save lives. Is Libya threatening the US? no. Is Libya hurting and abusing its people? yes. if the standard american had a shred of compassion, they would GLADLY commit their hard-earned money regardless of benefit to our nation. and be PROUD that we helped the world be a better place, not WHINE that it breached our pathetic little guidelines that Obama has so rashly dismissed.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:36PM

is good

Kittii Doherty| 8.30.11 @ 9:57PM

When are you going to get on facebook? You Don't like it? You're on it even if you don't know it. http://zh-cn.facebook.com/topi.....opic=13515
http://www.exposeobama.com/200.....ver-obama/

Kittii Doherty| 8.30.11 @ 9:58PM

You need to be a mentor to these up and coming Jewish Politicians/writers like Greg Lauren and Max Blumenthal on opposite ends of the spectrum:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/188339131224705/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....9218064267
Shalom!

Kittii Doherty| 8.31.11 @ 12:24AM

Obama is going on vacation, because he's puppet. The Elites are the ones who are pulling the strings.

john| 5.18.12 @ 6:05AM

He should be tried for treason and all the members of congress that do not have enough guts to do what they know is right.

The American Spectator

The Obama Watch

One World Government Obama

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (599) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Robbins Mitchell| 3.22.11 @ 6:13AM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 8:10AM

Red Bubba| 3.22.11 @ 8:16AM

Doorgunner| 3.22.11 @ 8:55AM

tj| 3.22.11 @ 9:20AM

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 2:29PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 4:28PM

Chalkdust| 3.22.11 @ 4:34PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 9:19PM

William| 3.23.11 @ 9:36AM

Wanda| 3.25.11 @ 7:16PM

LW| 3.25.11 @ 8:02PM

isnrblog| 3.23.11 @ 11:41AM

pat duran| 3.22.11 @ 10:02PM

Jeff| 3.22.11 @ 8:37AM

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 10:05AM

Constance Nunes| 3.22.11 @ 10:50AM

Bill Diebold| 3.22.11 @ 10:57AM

mames| 3.22.11 @ 11:28AM

Jackie| 3.22.11 @ 4:17PM

Lunar| 3.22.11 @ 5:49PM

Cincinnatius| 3.22.11 @ 8:22PM

Man from Illinois| 3.23.11 @ 3:41PM

niteowl| 3.23.11 @ 12:49AM

hamilton lucas| 3.22.11 @ 1:50PM

Thinblu| 3.22.11 @ 2:41PM

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 2:54PM

Fred Mash| 3.22.11 @ 4:36PM

beebop| 3.22.11 @ 6:04PM

Nunya| 3.22.11 @ 6:17PM

ENOUGH ROPE| 3.22.11 @ 7:10PM

darcy| 3.22.11 @ 11:36PM

Mike C| 3.23.11 @ 12:11AM

Alky| 3.22.11 @ 11:56PM

kevin| 3.22.11 @ 7:33PM

Rhonda Lee Welsch | 3.22.11 @ 10:27PM

isnrblog| 3.23.11 @ 11:42AM

isnrblog| 3.23.11 @ 11:43AM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 5:20PM

Hrumph| 3.22.11 @ 8:50PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 9:17PM

Mitch Angoop| 3.22.11 @ 8:47AM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 8:57AM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 8:59AM

Oldefarte| 3.22.11 @ 1:23PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 5:23PM

SUB_VET| 3.22.11 @ 6:49PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:27PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:39PM

WRTolkas| 3.22.11 @ 9:58AM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 6:58PM

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:42PM

Ray Burke| 3.22.11 @ 3:18PM

R. Neville| 3.22.11 @ 3:44PM

Carpenter| 3.22.11 @ 9:02AM

vivian bennett-cohan | 3.22.11 @ 10:28AM

Redstateboy| 3.22.11 @ 9:09AM

Lagiusmeatius| 3.22.11 @ 2:50PM

RWinks| 3.22.11 @ 3:31PM

Lagiusmeatius| 3.23.11 @ 11:12AM

Sue| 3.23.11 @ 4:21PM

Lagiusmeatius| 3.24.11 @ 3:42PM

Red Blooded American| 3.22.11 @ 4:56PM

Lagiusmeatius| 3.23.11 @ 11:14AM

faithkills| 3.22.11 @ 5:56PM

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 10:36PM

Lagiusmeatius| 3.23.11 @ 8:56AM

Steve A| 3.22.11 @ 9:35AM

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:03AM

Mike D.| 3.22.11 @ 10:04AM

vivian bennett-cohan | 3.22.11 @ 10:31AM

ShortNSweet| 3.22.11 @ 12:34PM

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 1:44PM

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.22.11 @ 10:44PM

Dave H| 3.22.11 @ 11:52AM