Friday, March 25, 2011

Rule of Law and Obamacare

Rule of law is the necessary basis of any free society. It holds that the law must be above all individuals in the society, even the leadership, that it must be clear, and that it must be enforced equally for all.

Just because a country has enforced laws does not mean that it enjoys rule of law. Sometimes the law gets too complex for the average citizen to obey. When that happens, then the citizen does not enjoy protection of rule of law because he or she unwittingly may violate it while acting reasonably. The federal tax code and many local zoning ordinances violate the concept of rule of law. These laws (and many others) are not clear and reasonable, so they should be simplified.

Selective enforcement of laws also violates the rule of law. If it is a good law, then there is no need to exempt anyone from its enforcement. Massive exemptions to the enforcement of a particular law demonstrate that the law is a bad one and should be repealed. Even more importantly, it also violates the concept of rule of law in a most basic and sinister way. When those in power can exempt their friends and supporters from following a burdensome law while forcing its obedience upon others, government has embraced a certain level of tyranny. Theodore Roosevelt did this with the Sherman Anti-Trust act over a hundred years ago. Obama is doing it now with myriad waivers from Obamacare granted to unions, friendly businesses, and even entire states that he might swing to his camp in 2012.

This is a gross violation of the most sacred foundation of our free society and recognition that his beloved health care law is garbage. Repeal both Obamacare and Obama by 2012.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A Crisis of Confidence

The United States and key players in the world community have a crisis of confidence. Not in America itself, but in Barack Obama.

The past two weeks have shown us just how much the sitting president is in over his head. He has been seen most conspicuously playing golf, predicting the NCAA Men's Tournament, and going to Rio de Janiero to dance and see the sights. Meanwhile Japan is still reeling from natural and nuclear disaster, Egypt is still in an uproar, and we have just launched air strikes against Libya in coordination with our NATO allies. Well, semi-coordinatiion because we are arguing publicly with Britain over whether or not Moammar Ghaddafi is a legitimate target for removal. And his own party is screaming because Congress received not so much as a courtesy call about the attacks.

Obama does not have the ability to lead a church bingo game, much less the country in a world of crisis. So why doesn't he hand things off to Hillary Clinton? She may have wrong headed ideas about a lot of things, but she is more capable and experienced than the basketball prognosticator in chief. Obama would never be able to handle any form of Clinton accomplishment because she remains the number one threat to his renomination.

Hillary Clinton herself posed the question. Who would you rather have answering the phone at 3 AM with the world in crisis. I wish Obama would stay in Rio, or on the golf course, or wherever he'd rather be this week than working his main job, and let Clinton answer the phone. She and Bill are not my top choices to respond in a crisis, but they are better than anyone else the Democrats have right now.

Who ever thought that this guy was a great intellect was sold a bill of goods. Sorry America. You've been had.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The Constitutionality of the Attack on Libya

Obama's belated decision to launch attacks on the Libyan regime of Moammar Ghaddafi has sparked some debate on the home front over the constitutionality of his action.

Hate to say anything that defends Obama, but I would argue that the president does have a constitutional and legal authority to deploy the armed forces into a conflict despite the lack of a declaration of war. First of all, Congress does have the option to cut off funding for U. S. military actions at any time. Because of that, the legislative branch does have power and leverage over a protracted, but undeclared war.

Secondly, there is the precedent set by the Founding Fathers themselves. I will skip over John Adams' deployment of the navy in an undeclared war against France and Thomas Jefferson's attacks on Tripoli which were also undeclared. Neither one of these men had anything to do with the creation of the Constitution. James Madison, as president, in 1816 deployed the United States Navy against Tripoli and the other Barbary Pirate states. Since he was the man who more than anyone else drafted the Constitution and its first ten amendments, it is reasonable to assume that he did not intend for a president's decision making power over war to be limited to formal declarations.

Of course Barack Obama himself argued that military strikes ordered unilaterally by the president were unconstitutional during the Bush Administration. Liberal and left wing Democrats have tried to remind him of that stance lately. It was incorrect, but it is interesting to watch Obama once again enrage his own base. They can't be happy that Guantanamo Bay is once again in the same mode as under President Bush.

That all being said, I still am of the opinion that we should have recruited a country such as India to play a role here. That way this action could not be perceived as neo-colonialism. With active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea rattling its sabre, we cannot afford to get seriously invovled in Libya. Let Europe, if no one else is available, take the lead and the griping that comes with it.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Obama's Letter to Congress On Libya Action

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2011


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.