Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala) regurgitates the talking points that a popular election overrules the Constitution, in spite of Obama violating the Constitution directly in several ways already…
Republicans are excited about the prospect of controlling the Senate majority after the 2014 elections. In order to seize control, Republicans need to pick up six seats. This would have a huge impact on Obama’s ability to set the agenda and influence your life.
Democrats have the edge, but they must defend 20 seats, including seven seats in states that President Obama lost in 2012. Already, five Democratic incumbents have thrown in the towel, announcing plans to retire.
History is with the Republicans. During midterm elections, a president’s party often loses Senate seats. Here is a state-by-state roundup of Senate seats in play. We will update these races periodically.
Democrats control this seat with freshman Senator Mark Begich, even though Obama lost Alaska in both 2008 and 2012. Begich only won this race by 1% of the vote because longtime Senator Ted Stevens was under the cloud of a Justice Department investigation.
Begich has worked hard, but anti-Obama sentiment is likely to be his undoing. Several strong candidates, including 2008 GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller, are considering the race.
Early prognosis: The Republicans pick up a seat (+1)
Barack Obama only received 36.88% of the vote in Arkansas in 2012. The President is very unpopular there, and he could bring down Democratic Senator Mark Pryor. Obamacare is also unpopular in Arkansas, and it will be used against Pryor (who voted for it.)
Republicans need to find a strong candidate to challenge Pryor. Last time Pryor ran, Republicans failed to field a candidate against him.
Rep. Tom Cotton, a rising conservative star, would be a formidable challenger to Pryor. Cotton is an Iraq War veteran and a favorite of Club for Growth and other conservative groups.
A poll released in mid-March showed Cotton leading Pryor, 43 percent to 35 percent. Cotton hasn’t decided what to do, but Republicans would be smart to urge him to run.
Early prognosis: Democrats hold Arkansas unless the GOP can produce a strong challenger (+0)
Senator Tom Harkin, a fixture in Iowa politics for decades, is finally retiring. This gives Republicans a shot to win.
Even though Obama carried the state in 2012, Iowa remains very competitive for Republicans. Rep. Steve King has already thrown his hat in the ring, and he would be a strong contender. But don’t count on Republicans to pull together. King is one of the candidates D.C. GOP operative Karl Rove has targeted. Rove may spend big money against King, damaging his chances in the fall.
Early prognosis: Republican infighting keeps this seat Democrat (+0)
The Pelican State has been trending Republican, but Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu was re-elected with 52% of the vote in 2008. And as a long-term officeholder, she has to be considered the likely winner.
All of the Republican Party Congressmen from Louisiana will be competing for the GOP nomination to challenge Landrieu. Unfortunately for the Republicans, all of the challengers trail her in fundraising.
It will not be easy getting the better of Landrieu, but it is not impossible either. Unfortunately, the popular GOP Governor Bobby Jindal took a pass on this race.
Early prognosis: The Democrats will hold Louisiana (+0)
Nobody thinks of Michigan as Republican; but with the insolvency of Detroit, the finances of the state have forced voters to turn to the GOP for answers. Obama carried Michigan in the presidential race, but the GOP did very well down ticket.
Longtime Democratic Senator Carl Levin has decided to retire, and it could provide Republicans with an opening. Three Republican Congressmen are looking at the race: Reps. Dave Camp, Mike Rogers, and Justin Amash, a Tea Party favorite. Scott Romney, brother of Mitt Romney, is also looking at the race.
Early prognosis: Bad finances and strong Republican candidates give the GOP another seat (+1)
Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan rode Obama’s coattails into office in 2008 and defeated incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole. But North Carolina swung hugely Republican in 2012.
Now, every poll has Hagan below 50%, which is definitely a good sign for Republicans. Optimism has launched a crowded field into the GOP primary.
Early prognosis: The GOP should easily win here (+1)
Winds of change led three-term incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Johnson to tuck tail and retire. Popular two-term Republican Gov. Mike Rounds has announced his intention to run.
Early prognosis: The Republicans will only lose this one if they really screw up (+1)
GOP chances in Virginia are slim unless Gov. Bob McDonnell, who has reached his term limit in the governor’s mansion, decides to run. But incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Warner is also popular, so the race won’t be easy.
On top of that, Virginia residents’ jobs are often dependent on federal spending. So it won’t be easy for any fiscally responsible Republican to win in Virginia. McDonnell probably gives the GOP its best shot.
Early prognosis: Chances are slim at this point (+0)
Democratic incumbent Senator Jay Rockefeller decided not to run for re-election. President Obama lost this state twice because of his stands against increasing coal-generated electricity, and he remains unpopular. The GOP has an excellent opportunity to win this WV Senate seat. Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito is running, and very early opinion polls give her a lead.
Early prognosis: This seat is likely Republican (+1)
The Final Count
The early analysis shows that the Republicans will likely pick up five seats. It would only take one GOP win in a closely contested race in Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, or Virginia to retire Harry Reid and change the face of Washington.
This article originally appeared at CapitoHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
WASHINGTON— Democratic Sen. Carl Levin announced Thursday he will not seek re-election in 2014, saying he wants to serve as Senate Armed Services chairman and an advocate for his home state of Michigan “without the distraction of campaigning for re-election.”
Levin, 78, was first elected to the Senate in 1978 and is the longest-serving senator in Michigan’s history. He said in a statement that he struggled to make a decision along with his wife, Barbara, calling it “extremely difficult because I love representing the people of Michigan” and “fighting for the things that I believe are important for them.”
Levin is the sixth member of the Senate to announce his retirement, creating an open seat for Democrats in a state that has backed President Barack Obama twice but where Republicans hold the governor’s office. Democrats, who control 55 seats in the Senate, have to defend open seats in West Virginia, Iowa and New Jersey in the aftermath of three other retirements and will try to hold onto 21 seats in next year’s elections.
The last time Michigan had an open Senate seat was in 1994 and Levin’s retirement could create a large field of potential successors. Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat who represents suburban Detroit, has been viewed as a potential Senate candidate along with former Rep. Mark Schauer and Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell, the wife of Rep. John Dingell. Potential GOP candidates include Reps. Mike Rogers, Dave Camp, Candice Miller and Justin Amash and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley. Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement that he would not seek the Senate seat.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Ken Thomas .
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA is set to be re-introduced before the US House next week. The bill will be identical to the one introduced last spring, that was defeated on the Senate floor in August of last year.
The house Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md) will attempt the re-introduction based on a spate of cyber espionage and hacking attacks.
Civil liberties groups have criticized the bill for invading privacy. CISPA allows for the voluntary sharing of information about internet traffic between private companies and the government. Its intention is to assist the intelligence service in identifying and neutralizing cyber and hacking attacks and to ensure the security of networks against attack .
The bill would also allow the government to pass information to private companies and protect them from legal actions that may arise from the sharing of information.
Opponents of the bill say it will allow government to track an individuals browsing information, allowing them to spy on individuals at will.
Read More at thedailysheeple.com . By Chris Carrington.
Yesterday, we noted that not only did House leadership select moderates to fill vacant spots on the top congressional committees, they made the unprecedented decision to banish conservatives already sitting on some important committees. All of the decisions related to committee assignments are decided by a Steering Committee. At present, the Steering Committee is comprised of 31 members, most of who are either members of leadership or pushed onto the committee by leadership. These are the men and women behind the decision to throw conservatives under the bus.
It’s important to note that Boehner gave himself 5 votes and Cantor 2 votes on the committee, so there are actually a total of 36 votes on each committee assignment decision. Here is the list of the committee members:
John Boehner Speaker
Eric Cantor Republican Leader
Kevin McCarthy Republican Whip
Peter Roskam Chief Deputy Whip
Cathy McMorris-Rodgers Republican Conference Chair
James Lankford Policy Chair
Lynn Jenkins Conference Vice-Chair
Virginia Foxx Conference Secretary
Greg Walden NRCC Chairman
Tom Cole NRCC Chairman (former)
Hal Rogers Chairman Appropriations Committee
Fred Upton Chairman Energy & Commerce Committee
Jeb Hensarling Chairman Financial Services
Pete Sessions Rules Committee
Dave Camp Chairman Ways & Means Committee
Paul Ryan Chairman Budget Committee
Lamar Smith Texas Representative
Doc Hastings Region I Representative
Tom Latham Region II Representative
John Shimkus Region III Representative
Mike Rogers Region IV Representative
Bill Shuster Region V Representative
Pat Tiberi Region VI Representative
Steve Scalise Region VII Representative
Lynn Westmoreland Region VIII Representative
Bob Goodlatte Region IX Representative
Ken Calvert Region X Representative
Jeff Miller Region XI Representative
Cynthia Lummis Small State Representative
Joe Heck 112th Class Representative
Richard Hudson 113th Class Representative
As you can see, more than half the votes are already selected by leadership. As such, conservatives see no purpose in running for the 11-12 regional representative spots because they will inevitably be outnumbered. Also, in past years, when conservatives tried to run for regional rep slots, leadership shifted around the regions to preclude them from getting on the committee.
It’s interesting to note that the representative from the class of 2010 is Joe Heck, one of the most liberal members. The representative for the incoming freshman class is…..Cantor’s altar boy, representative-elect Richard Hudson (NC-8).
The other peculiar thing is that Steve Scalise is on the committee. In past years, leadership has refused to put the RSC chairman on the committee, even though he commands the largest caucus in the House. Yet this year, Scalise, the incoming chairman, made his way onto the committee.
Folks, this is just the beginning, and these people need to hear from all of us. Please call these members and ask them how they feel about conservative Reps. Schweikert, Amash, and Huelskamp being thrown off their committees. Ask them if they were a part of the decision. Steve Scalise, as the incoming leader of conservatives, should be leading the charge on the committee against the purge. It would be interesting to get his take on yesterday’s developments.
This is just the opening salvo in a long war. House leaders have made it clear that they will punish conservatives for standing by their election promises. All conservatives in the House need to band together on this because anyone could be next.
Ultimately, there’s only one way to win this. We must overwhelm them with greater numbers in congressional primaries.
By Daniel Horowitz, Red State.
(CNSNews.com) – Who changed the CIA talking points to minimize the fact that terrorists were behind the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi?
When Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five Sunday talk shows five days later, she was still blaming the attack on a spontaneous protest over an obscure anti-Islam video.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, says the unclassified talking points put together by the CIA changed when they got to administration appointees:
“[T]here was not an intelligence failure,” Rogers told “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Read More at CNS News . By Susan Jones.
I am sure you remember the successful movement earlier this year to prevent Congress from passing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA.) Tens of millions of people around the world signed petitions from websites such as Google and Wikipedia while many websites “went black” for a day to protest what they saw as an attempt by the feds to censor the internet.
Unfortunately, the Republican House of Representatives and the Democratic Senate still don’t seem to have gotten the message. You see, while both parties claim to disagree on a lot of issues, they agree basically that the federal government needs to police the internet in the name of innocent-sounding reasons like “copyright protection” and “cyber-security.” Each bill addressing these “problems” has had bipartisan support. I wonder what part of the Constitution will be referred to by the House in justifying the passage of one or more of these bills into law (more on the Constitution in a bit…)
The latest bill to be introduced that threatens to censor the web is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA.) Some consider it to be worse than its predecessors, unfortunately. Essentially, CISPA allows companies to collect information about you and then report said info to the feds. The government simply needs to request this into in the name of cyber-security.
The actual language of the bill is rather vague and could very well allow Congress to monitor, censor, and delete any online communications that it considers to be “disruptive” to the government and the big corporations and special interests behind this anti-free internet legislation.
Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which supports a free and open internet, says that our of the several cyber-security bills pending in Congress, CISPA is the “most alarming.” It does not specify to whom in the government that this collected information would go, although Ms. Burman thinks it is likely it will go into the hands of the NSA, which is quite reassuring.
Is this bill constitutional? I know that collectivists on both sides of the aisle who support this legislation will say something like the following: “Back in the day while writing the Constitution, the Founders could not have possibly predicted the rise of computer technology as well as the downsides that come with it.” On this point in and of itself, I agree with them; nevertheless, the Constitution does not authorize Congress to pass laws like these (as per Article I, Section 8.) At the very least, it imposes an enormous threat to our First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press as well as our Fourth Amendment rights of protection against unnecessary searches from authority.
Besides, Ms. Burman insists that law enforcement already has plenty of tools at its disposal to combat the crimes that the co-sponsors of this legislation are concerned with. Also, she is concerned that this bill could lead to a “backdoor wiretap or a surveillance program” by an innocent-sounding name (i.e. the PATRIOT Act.)
CISPA has so far been introduced, referred to, and reported by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The goal is to ram this bill through the entire House later this month and then the Senate will probably take up their version of this legislation. President Obama so far has not openly taken a position on CISPA, although personally I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out where he privately leans on this bill.
Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the bill is the fact that dozens of supposedly anti-”big government” Republicans in the House are co-sponsors (the lead sponsor is Republican Mike Rogers from Michigan). These so-called “conservatives” include Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Trent Franks, Darrell Issa, Phil Gingey, Ben Quayle, Joe “You Lie” Wilson, Sue Myrick, and others.
Everyone reading this should immediately call or e-mail their Congressman and tell them to vote against this monstrosity of a bill every chance they get. Of course if their representative is a co-sponsor, tell them that you plan to vote for a primary challenger unless they wash their hands of this filth.
Click here to watch Ms. Berman’s interview with RT about CISPA.
Photo credit: Ashley Poeticy (Creative Commons)
Congress is doing it again: they’re proposing overbroad regulations that could have dire consequences for our Internet ecology. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, allows companies or the government free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies are encouraged to share data with the government and with one another, and the government can share data in return. The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that. The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks. Join EFF in calling on Congress to stop the Rogers’ cybersecurity bill.
Under the proposed legislation, a company that protects itself or other companies against “cybersecurity threats” can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company under threat. But because “us[ing] cybersecurity systems” is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a “cybersecurity threat” would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in “good faith.”
The broad language around what constitutes a cybersecurity threat leaves the door wide open for abuse. For example, the bill defines “cyber threat intelligence” and “cybersecurity purpose” to include “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”
Yes, intellectual property. It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.
The language of “theft or misappropriation of private or government information” is equally concerning. Regardless of the intent of this language, the end result is that the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information. Online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there’s uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases. But under Rogers’ cybersecurity proposal, the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks. By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted “cyber threat intelligence” (aka “theft or misappropriation of private or government information”), the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks—including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers—could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.
Read More at Electronic Frontier Foundation By Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation
This week Washington officials announced that five Taliban prisoners will be released from Guantanamo Bay and transported to Qatar. Even though the exact nature of the prisoner transfer hasn’t been announced it is most likely a good will gesture to encourage the Taliban into enter into peace negotiations. The five terrorists were selected by the Taliban leadership as a precondition to talks. Ignoring the objections of the military and intelligence experts Barack Obama is going ahead with the transfer the terrorists. According to Rep Mike Rogers (R-MI) the administration’s outreach to the Taliban is an act of “desperation.”
What will Qatar do?
According to The Cable, Senate leadership was notified of the prison transfer in a classified briefing. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who attended the briefing wanted to know “what assurances we have from the [Qatari] government that they are not going to be released?” According to the Senator the Taliban are planning to open an office in Qatar. He believes that the Afghans had no say in the matter.
As a concession Afghan leadership was granted some vague legal custody over the prisoners which are about as useless as the paper it was written upon.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) described the transfer as a deal to get the Taliban to renounce violence in exchange for the prisoners. Nevertheless, the most probable scenario is that the Taliban are taking advantage of a desperate President during an election year by just playing along until the combat troops leave Afghanistan when they take over the country onceagain. The Taliban is in no hurry to negotiate, they know the longer they wait the more desperate Obama will get. This President just showed them that he is weak.
This White House occupant sent a strong massage to America’s allies saying: We can’t be trusted. The people of Afghanistan who just discovered freedom will lose it and their lives, their children lives and anyone else from the retaliation of the returning Taliban animals. Obama will surrender the country to Islamic terrorist thugs over the dead bodies of American and NATO troops who fought to rid Afghanistan of the terrorist mafia. Why? The desperate man-child of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. wants another four years. What will the Mainstream Media report? It’s Bush’s fault.
“The United States does not have a King’s army. President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution.” – Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Maryland.
Barack Obama has gotten away with subjecting a wide swath of national life to unelected czars, bankrupting the country through unconstitutional spending, ignoring judge’s orders, and running roughshod over states rights. Now, the Czar-in-Chief has decided he wants the full royal treatment. He has sent U.S. soldiers to fight in the Libyan civil war without asking for Congressional authorization, as required by the U.S. Constitution. King Obama’s undeclared war on Libya is the logical extension of his decision to rule by decree on the homefront – lawless, destructive, unconstitutional,
Illegal, and Impeachable.
The U.S. Constitution restricts the warmaking power to Congress. Article I, Section 8 gives the legislative branch alone ability to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” and “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
This is as the Founding Fathers intended. “The father of the Constitution,” James Madison, praised “the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war…In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.” Madison declared the reason this is true: “the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.”
It is certainly too much temptation for our president, who has launched
King Obama’s War.
When it became clear last fall that Democrats would lose control of the House, White House aides began floating word that Obama would rule through executive orders, regulations, and federal fiats after the elections. The Center for American Progress drafted a blueprint for Obama to rule by decree. The Huffington Post reported matter-of-factly Obama “will use executive authority when blocked by Congress,” and Politico virtually begged him to do so. Even in the middle of the lame duck power grab, he made good on his word. The FCC passed Net Neutrality, although it lacks Congressional authorization to do so. Now Obama is taking his power grab overseas.
Over the weekend, Obama ordered U.S. troops to launch Operation Odyssey Dawn, raining more than 100 Tomahawk missiles onto Libya.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists Americans will “hand-off” our role in Libya “in a matter of days.” However, a “hand-off” does not mean we will be free from this humanitarian diversion. Gates assured after those few days, “we will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role.” American soldiers will kill and die; they just won’t call the shots. This raises the question of command structure, including whether U.S. soldiers will serve under foreign command.
Obama stated he was acting because, “in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the UN Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens.” He did not ask Congress for any form of authorization, and waited until after the body went into recess to launch the attack.
In a typically gratuitous insult, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough hosted a conference call with Congressional leaders, reassuring them of Barack Obama’s “deep respect for Congress in all of these matters.” Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan recounted, “I wouldn’t call it consultation as much as laying it out.”
Obama wrote a more detailed letter to Congress yesterday, insisting his actions are “consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”
The 1973 War Powers Resolution, passed in the wake of Vietnam, allows the president to place troops into harm’s way for up to 60 days before getting Congressional authorization. However, many legal scholars believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, as it plainly appears to contradict the Constitutional system. Its provisions have not been fully vetted.
Hypocrisy, Thy Middle Name is Hussein
It might be different if these facts were unknown to Obama. However, in 2007 candidate Obama said:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
He knows and does not care he is overstepping his authority. The New York Times asked national security adviser Tom Donilon about Obama’s 2007 criteria on Monday. Donilon sidestepped, saying Obama “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support.” The Times continued, “Donilon added, Mr. Obama could authorize the operation on his own.”
Thankfully, a growing number of Congressmen in both parties not only reject Obama’s power grab but agree
This War is an Impeachable Offense.
No one has been as forthright as Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, who told Raw Story, “It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.” He added, “Now, it doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.” Ralph Nader has similarly said, “Obama should be impeached.”
Kucinich is not the only Democrat to oppose his president. When the bombs began to fall, the media reported strong objections from Congressmen Jerrold Nadler, Donna Edwards, Mike Capuano, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Rob Andrews, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Barbara Lee.
On the other side of the aisle, John Boehner released a weak statement pestering Obama to “define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission.” With his letter today, Obama can claim he has done so.
However, Rep. Ron Paul has called the action “unconstitutional,” saying it “needs to stop.” Walter Jones, Roscoe Bartlett and others have expressed reservations. Rep. Justin Amash, R-MI, wrote on his FaceBook page, “No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution.”
It is hardly all Granola-crunching left-wingers and Tea Party Republicans who acknowledge this. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-IN, has declared, “if the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a Congressional debate on a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.”
Even Virginia’s retiring Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, has said, “This isn’t the way our system is supposed to work.” Indeed, it is possible this war is not only unconstitutional but
Illegal Under the UN Charter, Too.
The Washington Times noted in an editorial:
Article 2 section 7 of the UN charter states that, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.” Chapter VII of the charter, which enumerates UN intervention powers, applies only to international breaches of the peace. The December 1981 UN “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States” reaffirmed this principle with its solemn declaration that, “No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.”
This may explain why so many other nations are working against this action, including those who initially invited us in.
The True Meaning of “Isolationism”
Barack Obama fancies himself a multilateralist, one who passively waits for “the international community” to move before he acts. This, he believes, will improve America’s image after eight years of Bush unilateralism (the war in Iraq, waged pursuant to more than a dozen UN resolutions). Libya should show the bankruptcy of this way of thinking.
Five days later, all of those nations except Germany have demand a ceasefire. China warns of a U.S.-created “humanitarian disaster.” Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov humiliated visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates by accusing coalition troops of killing civilians, then voicing Russia’s “opposition” to its mission. The Voice of Russia reports today the UN Security Council will “discuss” the resolution on Thursday, focusing “on the way this resolution has been implemented and whether it is truly aimed at protecting the civilians in Libya.”
Well, at least this time we have the support of the Arab League, right? Amr Mussa, secretary of the Arab League, told reporters Sunday, “What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians. From the start we requested only that a no-fly zone be set up to protect Libyan civilians and avert any other developments or additional measures.” Mussa’s musings are not off-point. After all, a “no fly zone” does not require bombing Qaddafi’s private residence or demanding regime change.
The African League also called for an “immediate stop” to the bombardment of Libya.
The only thing worse than alienating the “international community” over a war that was perceived to be in our national interest is alienating the international community over a war that benefits the United States in no discernable way. Yet the United States is waging
A Destructive War
in Libya. Much like Bill Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo, Barack Obama has chosen to fight from the air without first gaining Congressional approval. Clinton succeeded in bombing innocent civilians, Orthodox Christian churches, and the Chinese embassy in the process. He, too, promised the war would be a short affair, and all troops would be home by Christmas…1995. Ultimately, Clinton helped establish an al-Qaeda affiliate in charge of Kosovo.
Now Barack Obama is acting on “humanitarian” motives. In the midst of two additional wars in the Muslim world, and facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, the United States has taken sides in a civil war that has nothing to do with our security or well-being.
No one seems to know who the “rebels” America is aiding are or what they want. However, they refer to themselves as “mujahedin,” or “devout” Muslim holy warriors.
For this, the United States is paying richly. The National Journal reports, “the cost for the first day alone of the operation was well over $100 million with the total price tag expected to grow much higher.” Moreover, “Maintaining a coastal no-fly-zone after those first strikes would cost in the range of $30 million to $100 million per week” which is “far less than the $100 million to $300 million estimated weekly cost for patrolling the skies above the entire 680,000-square-mile country.” For this reason, Sen. Lugar has stated, “if American forces go to war in Libya, we should ask Arab League governments and other governments advocating for American military action to pledge resources necessary to pay for it.”
With this kind of “leadership,” it is no wonder politicians are seriously talking about impeachment. Professional pols know this could be serious. This is why some in the Establishment have launched
against Kucinich, Paul, and the Constitution. Sen. Carl Levin, R-MI, has already said he opposes impeachment. Sen. Mark Udall, D-CO, insisted, “Colonel Qaddafi…gave the international community no choice but to act.” And Earl Ofari Hutchinson of the heavily Soros-financed Huffington Post has written, “Impeach Obama Over Libya? You’ve Got to be Kidding.” (He added “Obama’s UN no fly zone” is “cheap, easy, and ultimately effective.”)
Even some conservatives are defending the legality of Obama’s war…by citing the UN Charter, no less.
Obama has launched an unnecessary, unconstitutional, destructive, and costly war on behalf of fundamentalist Muslims and in defiance of Congress, our Founding Fathers, and the American people. It is time for impeachment proceedings to move forward.