Rule Of Law, Huh???

One World Government Obama



By Ben Stein on 3.22.11 @ 6:09AM

Maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution of the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend?

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.

Look at it this way: Where did Mr. Obama get the authority to commit United States forces to war in Libya? There was no declaration of war. There was no authorizing resolution by Congress allowing money to be spent on a war against Col. Gaddafi. As far as I know, there was no meeting of Mr. Obama and top leaders of Congress to discuss the subject in even rough form, let alone detail. There was no lengthy buildup in which the Congress was "allowed" to express the people's opinion on whether we want to be in a third concurrent war.

There was just a vote by the United Nations Security Council, a very far from unanimous vote, and suddenly, the President's Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, solemnly announced that we were at war.

But, 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? Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations of war. But we have Congressional debates. We have funding votes. We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution.

This time, zip. Nada. Nothing. Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go to war, and off America goes to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American "fact finding" trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama girls.

(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? )

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?

Meanwhile, again, what the heck happened to the Constitution? Is this Mr. Obama's legacy to our children? The junking of the Constitution in the middle of the night and the turnover of our sovereignty to the United Nations? (By the way, this is the same UN where Libya until recently sat on the Commission on Human Rights.) Why aren't any questions being asked? Is the Constitution that meaningless to us? Are we that pitiful now? Are we willing to toss overboard the Constitution for the writ of the United Nations? I guess so. Sad days.

:thumbsup:

You forgot your link from your opinion piece:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/2 ... ment-obama

Boy, it's good thing we didn't actually "go to war." I guess you need a bunch of non-existent WMD's to do that....and a "Mission Accomplished" sign on an aircraft carrier?

Thursday, February 24, 2011
Is Obama Preparing to Attack Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction Chapter II
Obama on foreign policy has been laughable over the past two years. However, we are getting the point where we can't laugh too much anymore because the situation in the Middle East is growing more intense. With violence now breaking out in Libya, where menace Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has ruled for over 40 years, we now are hearing Gaddafi has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

The Wall Street Journal Reports today:

The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn’t destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.

Tripoli also maintains control of aging Scud B missiles, U.S. officials said, as well as 1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake and vast amounts of conventional weapons that Col. Gadhafi has channeled in the past to militants operating in countries like Sudan and Chad.

Current and former U.S. officials said in interviews that Washington’s counterproliferation operations against Libya over the past decade have scored gains, in particular the dismantling of Tripoli’s nascent nuclear-weapons program and its Scud C missile stockpiles. But the level of instability in Libya, and Col. Gadhafi’s history of brutality, continues to make the U.S. focus on the arms and chemical agents that remain, they said.

Yet, in Obama's speech yesterday, he never mentions the Libyan menace. However, he does use some interesting language that doesn't rule out military action in Libya.

Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights. This is not simply a concern of the United States. The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/201 ... libya.html

Wow....if only the righties had been this vocal back when Bush went to war......think how much better off this nation would be now.....I commend you all, you are articulating what we posted year, after year, about going to war without a clear goal and an exit strategy. You all may be johnny-come-latelies to this cause, but we're glad to have you join liberals in questioning the need for force and curtailing the ability of the president to commit our troups anywhere without a clear mission. So tell me, what took you so long to come over to the other side?

Archer, its called turn about is fair play..its so nice to see you will not even defend obama messiah on his starting a war with libya..even libs are beginning to hate this president, how long will it be before you jump on board. This joker has no experience and the US and the world are seeing it for what it is...spin..spin..spin!

The "Constitution" is still there... Just the way it was when W took us into Iraq without using Article I.

Why President Obama’s Actions Are Constitutional

Although I agree with many of President Obama’s critics on his Libya intervention, I do disagree on one major point of many critics-- I do not believe that the military action in Libya is unconstitutional.

First there is a debate whether or not the War Powers Act, passed as a direct result of the Viet Nam War, is even constitutional. Regardless, most presidents have tried to ignore the War Powers Act, and have seen it as an infringement of the powers of the executive branch. That’s why President Nixon attempted to veto the act.

When criticized, presidents have typically cited Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which stipulates, "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

President Reagan ignored the act when he undertook military action in Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Central America, and the Persian Gulf. President Bush said the act didn't apply to military engagements in Panama, and initially, the Gulf War. President Clinton did much the same with regard to military deployments in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Iraq.

And President Obama has fulfilled his obligations under the War Powers Act, anyway.

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act a few days ago. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Critics complained the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48-hour time period had not yet elapsed.

The Constitution in Article I, like many of Obama’s critics cite, gives the power to Congress to declare war. But declaring war and making war are two different things. Consider what it means to declare war-- One way to look at it is to take it as the formal declaration of war. Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized."

On this view, Obama would seem to be acting in a legitimate way. As noted above, he has not issued a declaration of war. Rather, he has simply launched attacks within the territory of another sovereign nation-which has become something of a tradition among American presidents.

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_c ... dafis_forc


I'll see your "opinion piece" and raise it with another "opinion piece".... Isn't it great we live in a country where we can have differing opinions?

hmmmmm.....avoiding the obvious outdoor? why now.....why not 10 years ago, why not 8 years ago....at least liberals have been consistant in their condemnation of going to war on a whim and trying to figure it out later. What happens when/if we get a Republican president? will you be this anti-war then? I think not.

Flip/flop.......flip/flop........flip/flop

Gotta love it.

bush did it right archer, he went to the powers that be, and got the OK..your obama messiah did not. He has no experience and the flip/flop president is spinning out of control, this isn't what the community orgainzer planned for, so he headed out of the country. Please keep in mind that obama messiah is your president and not bush, I know that's difficult for you to understand, but it is what it is..loser president obama will be replaced in 2012...if we still have a country! Republicans will try to salvage whats left of the country in 2012 and they will win big at the polls. Hows that hope and change working for you archer?