E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn a joint press conference from the White House Rose Garden, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron reaffirmed their shared desire to continue working together in Afghanistan.
Obama began by saying that during this time of so much change in the world, the leadership of the United States and the U.K. is “more important than ever.”
Jason Reed / Reuters
On Tuesday night, President Obama invited Prime Minister David Cameron to travel on Air Force One to watch an NCAA basketball game in Ohio.
The president quickly moved on to discuss Afghanistan and underlined the shared sacrifice of both nations, saying each country has lost a number of extraordinary young men and women in theater and stressing that it’s “undeniable that the forces have made progress.”
Obama said the pair reaffirmed the transition plan that will be made official at the May NATO summit in Chicago, which shifts coalition presence to a support role in 2013 with the Afghans taking full control in 2014.
Just before British Prime Minister David Cameron departed for his U.S. trip, Brian Williams sat down with the prime minister in his official residence.
He touched on Iran as well, saying he and Cameron share a belief that the country should not be allowed a nuclear weapon, but that both leaders think there is time and space to find a diplomatic solution.
Slideshow: Obama's first four years in office
With a firm handshake, Cameron began speaking. He took the opportunity to reaffirm British support to the United States in Afghanistan, adding that it’s imperative that Afghanistan never again be allowed to harbor terrorism.
The prime minister said that unlike most countries, the United States and U.K. relationship is a “matter of conviction – united for freedom and enterprise.”
The two complimented each other on the handling of the Libya crisis, saying that success in the region depended upon each other’s commitment to mobilize national and international support for the mission.
The pair spoke following one-on-one talks in the Oval Office, which they both referenced, to have revolved around the problems with the economy and in Iran and Afghanistan.
While today’s talks have focused on serious issues, the purpose of Cameron’s visit has been to emphasize the partnership and friendship between the United States and the U.K. On Tuesday night, Obama invited Cameron to travel on Air Force One to watch an NCAA basketball game in Ohio.
During the press conference, Obama joked that the decision to watch a game was birthed from their dismal attempt at playing table tennis during the president’s last visit to England. Cameron retorted during his remarks that Obama’s table-tennis play was what guided his decision to gift a pingpong table to the first family.
Wednesday night Obama and Cameron, along with their wives, are scheduled to attend a state dinner.
Leave a Comment:
Wow, worried about things so bad that they spend a $100k to go to a basketball game.
Real mature!
Great example!
I like the part of his dedication to a lean government that provides opportunity for its citizens. Lean like the now 1.76 trillion we are going to spend on ObamaCare in just the first 10 years with only 9 years of benefits. Or the increase in the size of the federal government from 21% GDP to 23% today and an expected 25% by the end of this first term. That is taking 4% of our economy and moving it into a non-revenue generating sector of society. This country is in real trouble.
100K for a basketball game? That ridiculously low figure must have come from the same people that forecast the cost of ObamaCare.
Very, very proud of my President.
Keep Romney, Santorum and, especially, Gingrich as far away from the Oval Office as possible.
Rick, I do get to double my figure in the future.
It is really sad that Republicans can only choose articles where they can drum up some little tidbit to whine about toward President Obama- the cost of a basketball game on this one. I suppose they are so frustrated with Tweedledee. Tweedledum, and Dumb Dumb for Candidates in the Presidential race. I suppose we are going to be looking at 4 more years of their whining after November.
The Afghan question has nothing to do with how much progress has been made or will be made in the future. The simple fact is the Afghan people are incapable of maintaining any gains once we are gone so why bother to make fruitless efforts? Get out now!
People can't afford gas for thier cars but we can pay for fuel for Airforce One to take our brilliant leader to a basketball game. Vacations, basketball games, dinner dates in New York. Must be nice to live like an emperor while forcing more and more people onto food stamps.
Shaking- not to mention how much more in terms of lives and monies being spent on this pointless war in Afghanistan
Out NOW, you friggin liars! Enough money and lives were wasted in that hell hole!
The cost is insane the gesture is statesmanship. Some things must be done,get real.
belfast. Wow someone actualy claimed him. I see it takes nothing for you to be proud.
The really sorry assed part is the idiot badmouthed the two teams that were playing. I take it he was for Mississippi Valley and Western Kentucky beat them by a point at the buzzer, essentially. A real president would have complemented both teams on their accomplishments getting to the tourney and congratulated both for playing hard. Instead he was carping on how neither team was that good. Loser. Fail. He shows his true colors when he's away from the teleprompter. Any one of those kids that were there busting their butts playing showed more sportsmanship and personal integrity than did our "Apologizer-in-Chief"
We aren't still in Afghanistan for the people of that country, we are there because of the mineral deposits. Our foreign policy is no more noble then the greed of the corporations that help seat our politicians.
Obama has yet to end a war, in fact he got us involved in Libya. Obama has yet to close Gitmo. Obama has more then doubled our deficit to record trillion plus levels. Obama has added almost 6 trillion to our national debt in just 4 years. Obama claimed ObamaCare would cost 780 billion over the first ten years and now the CBO says it will be at least 1.7 trillion. Obama has moved 4% of our economy over to the non-revenue generating sector by increasing the size of government from 21% of GDP to 25%. Obama talks about energy independence but all his actions are aimed at preventing it. Obama took office gas was 1.84 per gallon and now it is 3.81 up over 100%. His justice department refused to prosecute voter intimidation with the Black Panthers, but are blocking voter ID which has already been deemed constitutional. Wasted taxpayer dollars through crony capitalism for Solyndra, Abound, and so on and so on.
Obama only talks a good game, but then again his supporters don't care about his actions. Obama is working so hard to destroy this country, the least we can do is afford him a little time to enjoy a basketball game. Obama loves the presidency the ride, living like an emperor, but he will go down in history as the worst president in modern times. Jimmy Carter is off the hook.
bag - cite source.
Hello folks, our Nobel Peace prize winner stated that the Syrian leader will be overthrown. He stated that "it's not a question of if he will step down, but when".
I'm a political atheist, I don't care what political religion one wants to follow but all our administrations seem to have the same Imperialist agenda. The previous administration gave us preemptive war, this one promotes remote controlled war.
I may not agree with other countries leaders but that doesn't give us the right to kill them or overthrow them. Who died and made the U.S. god?
As a fellow blogger so eloquently stated: "America, land of the free (that's debatable) dictator to the rest of the world".
@about that, you mean Tweedledee, Tweedledum and the Mad Hatter right? Oh don't forget the White Rabbit is still in this race.
To anyone shocked by that comment who have read previous comments of mine bashing Obama (because quite frankly with his policies it's easier than cutting butter with a hot knife), don't be so surprised. I see Republicans and Democrats alike for what they are: liars, cheaters and stealers.
It may have worked for Eddie Guerrero, but he was a "fictional character" and should not be used as any kind of role model.
Do you think that there are going to be NO cost to the government or to you if we do nothing about heallth care? The cost of health care is going up and it will go way up if there is not something done about how we do health in this country.
We need to bring in more revenue and that means increase in taxes to whom ever can afford them. You people are trying to complain about the President going to a basketball game and giving an honest opionion on how he thought it was being played? He is entitled to his, just like you are yours.
Which reminds me; if this guy is supposedly taking away all our freedoms, why has he not done a thing about speech? If he is going to take away our guns, how come more people own guns than ever? Is he waiting until everybody is fully armed and then try and take them?
I would bet his approval rating his higher than any one of the front runners over there in the hate everybody party.
Hey, guys, Western Kentucky played and if you want something done get somebody from Kentucky.
Mitch McConnell is the coolest negotiator in Washington, and Louisville loves him. The ladies love
actor George Clooney What happens in Kentucky stays in Kentucky!
So which is the reason we are there, freedom or enterprise. If it is for freedom then whose freedom are American paying for. If it is for enterprise then our military is an economic tool and the American taxpayers are paying for private enterprises. If, as stated, both then we should have some executives in jail. We are being played.
Harboring terrorism, really. Just use intelligence and the no fly list. Unbelievable it has already been ten years to root out terrorism. More like ten years to build pipelines.
You have to be living in a very dark corner mostly devoid of interaction with the outside world if you think he and his friends are not going after free speech. The only free speech allowed today is Liberal free speech. If you are conservative they will try everything to shut you up. If you are Liberal they will ignore your nasty comments and claim it's not the same even if both people said the exact same words indepently or one on the left said worse. Example Limbaugh - Mahr. Once they have silenced us though there are plenty of other ways they can divide who can speak and who can't so be ready Libs 1/2 of you are next if you don't completely tow the party line.
The Taliban are certainly happy we are staying. More target practice and tactic testing. If the Americans and Brits leave, they'll only have their own people to kill.
What was the gift for PM Cameron. A picture of our President or another iPod with the latest speeches.
I would like to see some of these guys send their own sons and daughters to the front line and like to see how much support they would still have if one of theirs was killed.
One of the things I would like to see is journalistic ethics. It is not a matter of "allowing" Iran to have a nuclear weapon, it is a matter of force. Will we continue to pay a very high price to suppress their rights to act as an independent nation.
What is with these two? Are they delusional? Their wants are many but their personal militaries are none. Those militaries belong to the people. They are not the leaders number one toy.
Equality is for everyone. It is just that some are more equal than others.
Like bee's in a honey jar...Before they were captured.
The puppeteer and the puppet.
I am waiting for a nose to grow (sarc)
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber
Hello folks, our Nobel Peace prize winner stated that the Syrian leader will be overthrown. He stated that "it's not a question of if he will step down, but when".
I'm a political atheist, I don't care what political religion one wants to follow but all our administrations seem to have the same Imperialist agenda. The previous administration gave us preemptive war, this one promotes remote controlled war.
I may not agree with other countries leaders but that doesn't give us the right to kill them or overthrow them. Who died and made the U.S. god?
As a fellow blogger so eloquently stated: "America, land of the free (that's debatable) dictator to the rest of the world".
After so many apologetic speeches , from Germany in 2008 he can't find good friends in Europe.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the article here on msn saying we should vacation at Libyan beaches haha. Now on the part where they commented each other on mobilizing national support...He never asked for National permission what so ever.
It would be nice to read a few stories about said progress, or is msnbc on a campaign to suppress any good that might have come from this war? I find it hard to believe very single thing that happens in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. This site seems to have set itself up as the protest arena for all things anti-government. All their articles look designed to provoke negative reactions.
It's working, near as I can tell.
That's pretty crass. President Obama actually engages leaders of countries, as opposed to saying, "my way or the highway.' The GOP always has issues with intellectual capacity and views it as snobbery. We're safer within our own country as a result.
The prime minister said that unlike most countries, the United States and U.K. relationship is a “matter of conviction – united for freedom and enterprise.”
What a lie. Go listen to parliament online (boring mostly), but they are talking about what money will be world wide, controlling the collapse of the countries there, etc.
Then remember on December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “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.”
Yet he did attacked Libya at the orders of the UN. Obama used OUR military for a UN ordered war effort. A treasonous act against the USA.
For those of you that might be uninformed of our laws about treaties with foreign nations and foreign entities: Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective Constitutional processes.”
Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: 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. (Libya did NOT attack the US.
All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya: Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?
Secretary Gates: Probably so.
Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation - is that also true?
Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?
Secretary Gates: Presumably.
On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.
... President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States (Means he is not only a traitor, but working AGAINST the USA in favor of a foreign entity)
Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”
In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are representatives for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States. (Treason, and for an illegal war in which there have been deaths, Murder under our laws - and OUR laws are the only ones that matter)
The Pentagon & Obama declared a Coup D’etat on our Constitutional government. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military (TREASON). During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO (TRAITORS), international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence. Obama and his administration has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent.
The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress, the president, US laws and the US Constitution.
If their "authority" comes from UN and NATO, then they have NO authority in the USA.
Their treasonous acts and words are on video, and there is no longer any excuse for them to have not been arrested.
Why were We in Korea?
There's a repulsive duo for you: Wall Street/Corporate america's loyal servant and conman, Obama, and one of Rupert Murdock's favorite butt boys the slimy and fascistic David Cameron.
They certainly deserve each other's company. I just watched on C-Span the guests marching in to a little shin dig Barry is throwing for U.K. Strongman, Cameron, at the White House.
Why do people elect sociopaths and creeps like this to run their countries?
Most people you meet in whatever country (average people usually not rich or powerful people), even though they have flaws like everyone, are decent enough, fairly reasonable and not stupid.
But when you get them in a voting booth (admittedly after having been marinated for the last year or several month's in election year hype and PR) something happens to them and they vote for people (and are enthusiastic about it!) they would hate if they were their next door neighbors.
It's one of the mysteries of the modern world.
Television is the determining factor here. Mass marketing and merchandising. Obama is a brand, like Tide or Cheer. He has been created out of media hype and he is the leader of the cult of personality and the cult of celebrity worship. How many times has he been on talk shows? How many speeches, how many about-faces and lies that his faithful followers either ignore or blame Bush for. Deflection and excuses abound in the Obama administration. Actions that would have gotten a lesser mortal excoriated in the public arena are either excused or ignored.
Obama and Cameron are cut from the same cloth, they are Neo-Imperialists and in the case of Obama, they masquerade behind a facade of liberalism. Look at his actions, who he has appointed to positions of power. Transparency? Nope. No lobbyists? Only twenty-seven or so appointed to key positions. Green energy companies given billions to go bankrupt, given that money because the companies and their owners supported Obama.
He has taken over the government, he declares which laws are to be enforced, he ignores congress and declares wars (or military actions aka; war) without congressional approval, looking to the UN for supreme authority rather than honoring the Constitution of the United States. His most recent seat on the UN council is against the mandate that a sitting president not preside over any body other than the office to which he was elected.
Apparently Americans are dumber than most, unfortunately. Our educational system is a joke, pablum and propaganda masquerading as education. Indoctrination under the guise of education. Pop culture and reality TV determine our presidents and journalistic integrity has become an oxymoron. No wonder we get what we end up with in office.
Cameron is like a carnival act for people who pay Obama enough for admission:
Top Obama fundraisers among state dinner guests
"coveted seats for Wednesday's event honoring British Prime Minister David
Cameron and his wife went to about two dozen supporters who each raised $200,000
or more for Obama's campaign. Those included film producer Harvey Weinstein, New
York financier Orin Kramer and Miami public-policy consultant Joseph Falk.... Obama previously has criticized Washington's pay-for-access privileges... some of those same donors, including Kramer and Falk, have written big checks to Priorities USA Action, a "super" political action committee run by former
White House aides."
http://news.yahoo.com/top-obama-fundraisers-among-state-dinner-guests-023138061.html
Are you part of government at all? No, but I have lot's of money... oh come on in.
Such an ignorant fool you are!
What a fool he is! Does he really think he can "buy" British loyalty? He embarrasses the US just continually. Talk about over the top! He treats the Queen like a commoner and Cameron like royalty.
What do you expect from someone who spent most of his working life in Chicago ghettos. I think he really believes anyone can be bought with gimmies.
Oh please you guys, get over yourselves. This is the way it is done in the leadership circles. It's been happening this way for years with every President. It's called building relationships in the leadership world. You're just jealous you didn't get to go. Nothing new here...move along.
Yes I understand that he gave the queen a bobble headed doll of both him and the diet lady. WOW was she impressed!!!!!!!!!!
Who exactly are you saying runs your countries affairs.
The Queen is not head of government, USA/Canuck. (Flashback Sarah Palin)
How exactly has President Obama treated her with disrespect?
Besides, what would you have our President do? Bow in her presence and swear allegiance?
He bows to every muslim leader he meets, why not a Queen?
argues---I call BS. He follows accepted customs when he's visiting another country. Do you suggest that Bush trying to give Chancellor Merkel a back rub was appropriate? At least he doesn't have to dodge shoes from journalists.
He didn't bow to the Queen of England, and that is customary as well. Why did you even have to bring Bush up in any way other than to deflect? Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this story.
Man, I am so glad I pay my taxes so our community organizer can fly to a basketball game trying to buy some freindship....
You know that if you computed the amount of "your" taxes he spent on this, it'd be less than a cent right?
And Ruken, you know that the government depends on you having that attitude to keep sucking money out of the taxpayers for more wasteful projects, right?
You mean like bombs, guns, planes, wars, and most of the federal civil employees. I would consider all of that a waste of money.
Let's me guess, you guys never read articles before about past president doing such thing? Like going fishes and such.
Wow, talk about selective memories or out of touch with reality.
Yup, Obama is definitely the first POTUS to do this.
Ruken - Are you an idiot or just playing one here?
Ruken - Sorry, I meant that for the other guy.
100K should come out of Obama's paycheck.Here America is,almost $15 trillion in debt,yet Obama still spends money like a teenage girl in the shopping mall.
crush-Well if we don't spend money on bombs,guns,and planes,guess what China and Russia are going to do? If we have no weapons,Russia/China would attack us without hesitation.Then they will make YOU their slave.
All of you naysayers should get over yourselves.
This is one of the jobs of the president: to receive and entertain foreign heads of state, to discuss issues, to make policy, to further relationships.
And as for the basketball, are you complaining about what it cost to fly both teams to Ohio?
Do you guys complain about absolutely EVERYthing?!
How's about getting out of Afghanistan? Seems the two fearless leaders are ready to commit more money and lives to a bottomless pit.
Cameron is like a carnival act for people who pay Obama enough for admission:
Top Obama fundraisers among state dinner guests
"coveted seats for Wednesday's event honoring British Prime Minister David
Cameron and his wife went to about two dozen supporters who each raised $200,000
or more for Obama's campaign. Those included film producer Harvey Weinstein, New
York financier Orin Kramer and Miami public-policy consultant Joseph Falk.... Obama previously has criticized Washington's pay-for-access privileges... some of those same donors, including Kramer and Falk, have written big checks to Priorities USA Action, a "super" political action committee run by former
White House aides."
http://news.yahoo.com/top-obama-fundraisers-among-state-dinner-guests-023138061.html
Are you part of government at all? No, but I have lot's of money... oh come on in.
pjam: there you go again. Just woke up and found out Presidents have state dinners and when they run for re-election, hold fundraisers...ooooohhhhh. Wait til you find out about the nice house in Washington they get to live in when they win...even if you didn't vote for them!!...going to drive you absolutely crazy.
Very disappointing article. Not a word about Cameron Diaz
haha nice. thanks John!
All of you haters better get used to President Obama. He will be around 4 MORE YEARS!!! The GOP nominating process has turned into a 3 Stooges train wreck. I might just watch the Republican Convention. I envision blood on the floor as the delegates assault each other. When the GOP goes down in flames this November I am sure you will all wonder why. Truly amazing!
Sad...... The continuance of foreign occupations that will avail the United States nothing in the end......... except for more sons and daughters of America being used as pawns to help establish foreign oil rights and trade with those who only desire foreign monetary aid, weapons etc.... rubbish!
Only if we continue to allow it. Obama is a traitor to the USA. As congress has said, "... President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States". (Subversive - Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government; liable to subvert or overthrow a government, legally constituted institution)
In boldly asserting the authority of international powers (UN and NATO) over and above the legislative branch, Defense Secretary Panetta, President Obama, and Gen. Dempsey openly declared that they no longer represent the American people and instead represent a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testified that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military. (They are the United States Military, not the "United Nations Military" and we pay for them, they are our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends serving - US citizens, US military).
At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes NOT from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO. Treasonous words, why have they not been arrested?
Obama and his administration routinely cites the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent. (Treason, and yet he is not arrested?)
How many of you bothered to see who makes up the majority of countries in the UN? Did you bother to check out the type of life the people under them are living? What type of lives they lead, what rights and freedoms they have? How they treat females?
If their "authority" comes from UN and NATO, then they have NO authority in the USA.
Their treasonous acts and words are on video, news releases, on paper, in their actions; and there is no longer any excuse for them to not be arrested. Traitors do not tell OUR Military what to do. Nor do they make US Policy, laws, executive orders, amendments. Nor do they run for office. They are arrested and prosecuted.
Wow, some pretty sophisticated comments from foreign affairs experts on this vine so far... yawn
basketball game? really, I am a huge basketball fan, but I wouldn't pay a dime to attend a basketball game, if my family was in poverty. Obama just lost my vote.
That's what it took for Obama to lose your vote Jorge? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he never had your vote. Typical partisan dishonesty.
JORGE I would never believe that you were Presidents supporter in the first place. There are so many trolls that wright the exact thing: "You farted Mr.President, you just lost my vote".
Euuuu.
Good for you Jorge. Obama is an idiot
Jorge (if that is your real name-Troll), he never had your vote to begin with, so no losss there- except maybe your boy Mitt
Zeebol and Alina77, not just this basketball game, there has been alot of things that Obama has done that I don't agree, like the Obamacare bill, the spending, the deficit, his ties to George Soros, Unemployment, his apologies to all these world leaders, his lack of leadership. even I can can figure it out that we can't afford the Obamacare. after all this is a free country I can change my vote. I hate to admit but I was brainwashed, but the good news is that I am smart enough to realize was right and was wrong. I really wish that he gets his act together so that i can vote for him again. Peace!
Yea JORGE like you were going to vote for him before right.
Man in Fla, this is another reason why. most of the time that someone doesn't agree with democrats, it goes straight to insults, why? I thought that Democrats were peaceful and carrying for others. weather you believe me or not i did vote for Obama. Peace!
Jorge, I voted for Obama too but I have also seen the light. Four more years of our Divisive "Community Organizer" POTUS and I WILL be Living on Government Assistance.
But I am not so ignorant that I cannot tell when someone as transparent as Obama is trying to simply buy my vote. He has tried on every professional hat; Harvard student, college professor, community organizer, senator, and now president and it still ISN'T clear What he stands for or Who he is really behind. He sounds like a car salesman every time he opens his mouth.
His "tough" talking Middle-East policy is merely ill-timed election Campaigning. It is simply for votes; I don't think he cares one bit what the people who elected him think about it.
He's devisive, are you listening to anything that is coming out of the mouths of the republicans? They have said some of the most hateful, spiteful and down right full of lies description of this man. He has so much more dignity than any of them and I would add a lot more the you Mr. Poor.
I know you are one of those people who will vote against his own interest so he can pretend he is one of the rich guys.
Sorry Bill, I don't know exactly what you are talking about . . You just sound very partisan and angry.
Why so closed minded to giving some new leadership with fresh ideas a chance in this election year??
Bill-LOL.Only Republicans say hateful things?How about you Democrats calling all Republicans racists,or anyone from the south is automatically a redneck?
Bill - Where did Poor say anything undignified? Why the personal attack? If you disageree with message, fire away and explain your side of the argument. Perhaps a bit more thought and fairness in these posts might lead us somewhere. Lord knows we have enough pettiness and rancor in the government.
He has committed Treason. That is why he needs to be arrested. There should be NO talk of elections until these traitors to the USA are arrested for prosecution. Then have OUR elections cleaned up, made honest.
What part of "the United Nations does NOT have "authority" over us" is not understood. As congress said: "President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government". (Subversive - Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government; liable to subvert or overthrow a government, legally constituted institution)
Obama and his administration routinely cites the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent (working AGAINST the USA in favor of a foreign entity).
At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes NOT from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO.
So all of you Obama supporters are for the United Nations running the USA, and that we no longer have our own government? Secret Service, FBI, CIA, US Military, etc you all want to assist domestic enemies, traitors to the USA overthrow our country? If not, why are they not arrested?
Anyone pro Freedom, pro America here anymore?
Great President for the right time! Very proud of our President.
Why is that, u need some freebies
You are referring to Ronald Reagen right?
Alina 77 I totally agree, he is perfect for this time in our history, when a country needs an intelligent adult
Ronald Regan was the worst President we have had in the last 50 years.
Nooo* freebies are the kind that Clinton received from Monica. Now that is a democrat freebie. Oh I wonder what obama is receiving. Please some of you learned democrats tell me.
I think Dubya is the worst, but Reagan is definitely the most overrated.
you gonna cry when obama loses?
Alina77 your half right. Its a "welfare" time and he's a great president for that. Now if you can just convert to Muslims y'all can be best friends.
alina, you are proud of the man who is giving our nation to the UN to rule? If you are female like your name you might want to take another look at the majority who makes up the UN. how their people live, how the females are treated, what rights and freedoms they possess.
"President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government". (congress)(Subversive - Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government; liable to subvert or overthrow a government, legally constituted institution)
Obama and his administration routinely cite the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent (working AGAINST the USA in favor of a foreign entity).
At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes NOT from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO.
You think this makes a great US president? This actually are the actions of a traitor. Or were you just not aware of what has been going on?
All I see are words Knine that could have been written for fox news. Not one syllable of it rings true.
Knine: loosen the tin foil hat...(I don't think that female appeal is going to be enough to get women to run to the "vaginal probe" party either.)
Soutms: you must be among those great intellectuals I read about that think the President is planted here by a vast Muslim conspiracy who found him 50 years ago in a Hawaiian hospital and thought he'd make a good cover President for their evil planet takeover plans. (course they had to convert him to pretend Christianity first...) Oh you loons are entertaining!
Briton and the US stood firm in Iraqi also. Why are we we still in Afghanistan This war monger President who promised our troops out of the Mideast and the closing of Gitmo in a year should be arrested and tried. 17 people , 16 civilians and one troubled soldier have lost there lives in the last 24 hours . Its a shame. Mr Obama there are no WMP's in Afghanistan. . Kindest Regards Zulu2
WE need to no longer allow these actions. Obama is a self admitted traitor. "President" Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States". (Subversive - Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government; liable to subvert or overthrow a government, legally constituted institution)
In boldly asserting the authority of international powers (UN and NATO) over and above the legislative branch, Defense Secretary Panetta, President Obama, and Gen. Dempsey openly declared that they no longer represent the American people and instead represent a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testified that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military. (They are the United States Military, not the "United Nations Military" and we pay for them; they are our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends serving - US citizens, US military).
At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes NOT from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO. Treasonous words, why have they not been arrested?
Obama and his administration routinely cites the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent. If their "authority" comes from UN and NATO, then they have NO authority in the USA, NONE!
How many of you bothered to see who makes up the majority of countries in the UN? Did you bother to check out the type of life the people under them are living? What type of lives they lead, what rights and freedoms they have? How they treat females?
Their treasonous acts and words are on video, news releases, on paper, in their actions; and there is no longer any excuse for them to not be arrested. Traitors do not tell OUR Military what to do. Nor do they make US Policy, laws, executive orders, amendments. Nor do they run for office. They are arrested and prosecuted.
Don't forget importing foreigners against U.S. border laws in order to secure political power at tremendous cost to U.S. citizens.
Oh my, you folks are out from under your rocks tonight!
Zigmund: um, did you forget Congress passed a law FORBIDDING the closing of Gitmo? Remember?
One Bush war down, one to go. Ah...you guys must be so going crazy for the good ol days of careening toward cliffs. Good luck on 2017 though. Maybe you'll actually find a real nominee by then.
Part of an article by Thomas Sowell you should all read before you even consider to vote this November. Forward it to
all that you know:
____
If a clear winner with a commanding lead emerges in this primary, the
question then becomes whether that candidate is someone who is likely to defeat
Barack Obama.
If not, then the fate of America -- and of Western nations, including Israel
-- will be left in the hands of a man with a lifelong hostility to Western
values and Western interests.
President Obama is such a genial man that many people, across the
ideological space, cannot see him as a danger.
For every hundred people who can see his geniality, probably only a handful
see the grave danger his warped policies and ruthless tactics pose to a whole
way of life that has given generation after generation of Americans
unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
The election next November will not be just another election, and the stakes
add up to far more than the sum of the individual issues. Moreover, if
reelected and facing no future election, whatever political constraints may
have limited how far Obama would push his radical agenda will be gone.
He would have the closest thing to a blank check.
Nothing could stop him but impeachment or a military coup, and both are very
unlikely. A genial corrupter is all the more dangerous for being genial.
you mean "read this republican propaganda before you vote" don't you Alan? Nothing in there but opinion by an obviously biased mind.
Some people believe everything they read, if it's what they want to believe. Good luck with Newt's $2.50 gas too.
Typical fear-mongering crap. If anyone was a danger to the US and western civilization, it was Bush. He started the war in Afghanistan, then abandoned any effort to finish it in favor of finishing his daddy's war, which he ALSO failed to do (despite his personal declaration that it was a "Mission Accomplished"). Obama is far more than genial; he is actually an intelligent, caring man who is concerned about the welfare of his people and of the world. Far better than any of the GOP candidates who are currently pandering to the extreme right-wing of their party. Just wait. Obama will win, and the world will not end. In another four years, we'll have a different president, and the world will not end. Again.
I didn't vote for Obama then and won't vote for him this time. Not happy with other choices but I'd vote for Bozo the clown first.
Zeebol - yup, much better to believe the "just turned the corner" line.
doesnt mean much Alan- since Sowell is a libertarian (of course he wont like Pres. Obama) and Sowell admits to "formerly" being a Marxist-Lenist, but i guess the repub's might like him
This sure changed my mind, this Sowell is clearly a genious and could no way be influenced by whatever drugs he is on.
I want all of the Obama cheerleaders to list five ways that they are personally better off since he has taken office. If you can't than shut your mouths and get back in the welfare line.
There is going to be a huge spike in strokes and heart attacks come November when obama is defeated
And the Senate goes to the GOP.
...and this place will be the greatest show on earth
Alan, thanks for posting that segment of Sowell's article. He's a very bright, open-minded and knowledgable man, and I think what he says here is true. Obama's outer personality--and it could be sincere; I think he's genuinely genial and well-intentioned--covers a man who believes he is doing the right thing by weakening America.
He has weakened us economically (with damage we'll be paying off for decades to come), militarily (at a time when our enemies like Iran, and rivals like Russia and China, are increasing their weapons capacities and armies as fast as they can), morally (so many people unemployed that a large fraction aren't even counted in the numbers because they've given up and stopped looking; the number of people on public assistance and food stamps has more than doubled) (abortion is up, babies with no fathers is up, marriage is down except for gays; churches are under attack).
He's weakened our national pride by apologizing for us all over the world; lowered our standing in the eyes of our allies and other world leaders. Despite his apparent sincerity, he does not believe in the basic American values: free enterprise, individual accountability, and the willingness to stand up for our national sovereignty and freedom and not give these over to some vague, pie-in-the-sky socialist idea of one-world-government.
Actually, congress is discussing impeachment of Obama right now. Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment.
I. THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:
Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.
3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.
4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”
5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”
6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”
7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.
II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE
9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “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.”
11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.
12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.
13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.
14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:
[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority …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.
16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote: 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. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.
17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton: Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage: In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson: The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.
20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed: This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.
21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”
22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified: “I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”
23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating: “Formal war is not necessary - it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.
But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve”.
24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed: We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.
Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.
25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.”
26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.
27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.
28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.
29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare - in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.
30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.
32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.
35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows: The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations - whether members of the League or not - under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.
The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.
36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: 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.
37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.
38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.
40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:
There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).
42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)
43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action - including any kind of strategic bombing - against Iran without congressional authorization.”
44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution: “It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.
They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.
That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.
I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.
I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.
If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first”.
45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”
46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “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.”
III. USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA
47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.
48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?
Secretary Gates: Probably so.
Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation - is that also true?
Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?
Secretary Gates: Presumably.
49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.
50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.
51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.
52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.
53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “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.”
54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”
55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests”.
56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.
57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court: Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.
59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.
60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.
61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.
In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
(emphasis is mine)
Knine, this is fine in general terms. Could you be a little more specific? ;-)
American Citizen: You're so cute: the vaginal probe party is going to win in November?? Yeah, that would create a few heart attacks. Good thing it won't happen with the rich guy your own party can't stomach.
Thinker: 42 states added jobs. 42. Third month in a row of growth. Is that "midnight in America" thing working for your party yet?
We have learned nothing from history and it's repeating in Afghanistan. I hope the incumbent President faces a strong electoral challenge -- it might force him into an "October Surprise" early pullout from Afghanistan.
I was wondering what was going on. It certainly explains why I couldn't take my usual walk past the White House today. See how I took a meeting between leaders of the free world and made it all about me? Whining. It's the American way! :)
They are both LYING. . We are behind more now than ever. There is no measurable proof that anything has changed. The only thing that has changed is that the people in that county HATE us and the U.N. supporters now more than ever.
WE have NO business in that country. WE never DID. We are pouring billions of tax payer dollars down the proverbial rabbet hole, when all that money should be spent here on our own people.
Pretty sure that money wouldn't go towards our own people, not with Obama in office. My guess is the $10,000 buy a volt campaign would turn into a $20,000 buy a volt campaign.
So go buy a Volt and quit crying.
No, a Volt can only get you 25 miles on the batteries, then it is a gas motor. This is why they sell less volts in a year than F150's in a day.
Down on government subsidies and porkbarrel politics? The Volt is the king of these. It's real cost is around 65,000. Save (at most) 10 mpg but have your taxes go up double? Green.
Steven: after invading the wrong country, we at least succeeded in breaking the ability of Al Queda to mount a sustained attack against us, and to have real rule throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. Not exactly nation building, but for two wars launched on lies, at least something. We need out, yes. But we also need some presence there so not everything falls apart when we leave. I'd sooner put trust in the word of the generals on the ground who already think 2014 is the absolute earliest for an end to these atrocities...
When the apparent lack of "progress" is so bad that two world leaders have to get together to announce that "progress" has been made, I think the "progress" qualifies as being "deniable"...
Heh. Good one! :-)
How do you stop Obama from raping a nation, throw him a basketball?
well humor once did lighten the nations thoughts but today thoughts are more like dire dicisions at the grocery aisles.
However, it seems you have no problem with religious nuts to throw this countries into endless war.
Cuong, you think "religious nuts throw this countries [sic] into endless war"???
And all other commenters who think Republicans want war and Dems want peace: let me remind you it was Obama who got us into Afghanistan. And Libya. And who--when still a senator--voted FOR our invasion of Iraq.
Arrest him as a traitor, etc (28 pages of political, civil, and criminal offenses).
Barack Obama has not done the duties required of the President of the USA as defined by the US Constitution, actively and knowingly went against the duties of the POTUS; and needs to be impeached, arrested, and prosecuted for his criminal and civil offenses. He ran for, and went into the Office of the president, of the US knowing that we had the US Constitution which is the blueprint for how our government operates. Knowing that the US Constitution also guarantees that no one within our federal government may take away from, or do away with any Rights. That our federal government is a three-branch government and that the POTUS blueprint lies in the executive branch; not in the legislative or judicial branches. That he also knew before running as a candidate that our US Constitution puts limits on the federal government that cannot be legally put aside. (The reason that I say he “knew” before running and then taking office these things is because he represented himself to the voting public as a Constitutional law professor).
Then he needs to be charged, arrested, and held for prosecution, as he is a flight risk.
OBAMA got us into Afghanistan? Thank you for invalidating your credibility. It's so much easier to read through the thread when I know which posters to skip because they bleat nonsense.
Remember: Think BEFORE you derp!
Livia: darlin. Hon. Oh my. BUSH declared war in Afghanistan. Geez...I didn't think that kind of ignorance was even possible.
Our President loves Basketball! Whats the big Deal?? He has a right to do whatever he wants and if it is taking Cameron to the game than we should not get all uptight. You can only imagine what event a Republican candidate would take Cameron to watch. I know it would be a high stakes game of bean bag toss.
Yea Obama likes sports and Conservatives like war.
But Obama's the bad guy?
And we can only imagine what the looney left would be saying if a republican candidate spent half as much.
They would be screaming about the poor and underprivledged. But its there dummy in the White House so go man go.
genius, "He has a right to do whatever he wants ..."
Actually you are incorrect, he does NOT have the right to "do whatever he wants". This is a Constitutional Republic, not a dictatorship, nor a monarchy. A Constitutional Republic has similarities to a democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives, etc. The critical difference is that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also is the blueprint for how the government is structured, creates checks on its power, and balances that limited power between the different branches. Our Constitution also is a written guarantee that those who serve in our government will not have the power to take our natural rights away from us.
When Obama become the US president, he knew in advance that the executive branch has very specific duties assigned to it. As a Constitutional Law professor he also was aware that the limits put on our government did not allow for anymore power to be taken by those serving in our government. Obama has knowingly acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
(Subversive - Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government; liable to subvert or overthrow a government, legally constituted institution)
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence. Obama and his administration has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, over the country he was elected to represent.
The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress, the president, US laws and the US Constitution. If their "authority" comes from UN and NATO, then they have NO authority in the USA.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The framers wrote the United States Constitution, which delineated a constitutional federal republic. It would consist of three separate but equal branches which were not only designed to perform separate and distinct duties, but to keep each other in check, preventing one from gaining arbitrary power. All of these branches were to be checked by the standard of law set forth in the Constitution, which each officer of the government must swear to uphold. If those officers should fail to keep their oath of office, then it is not only the right but also the duty of those who chose those officers to remove them. The success of this form of government depends heavily upon the vigilant and attentive execution of these duties.
Solemn: “marked by the observance of established form or ceremony”, “legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”. (America fully expected a president who followed the US Constitutional definition of how our government operates. Part of his “why he was better candidate” brought up many times while running was that he was a “Constitutional Professor”. )
rukidding47, you're probably right. Both sides' EXTREMISTS bear little resemblance to anything you could call intelligent or reasonable.
Knine: enough already. Do you think anybody is actually convinced by the seventh reposting of your absurd impeachment rants just because you didn't vote for the guy? Geez get a hobby.
rukidding: there was a dummy in the White House. Thankfully, after starting two wars on lies and running the country nearly off a financial cliff, he retired back home to Texas where we don't have to pay for his endless vacations anymore.
Yea, what's with all that constitutional crap under your tinfoil hat? Don't you know, Obama is above the constitution. He is a personality.
just another example of how obama is exactly like bush when it comes to foreign policy.
in many world views yes they are similar but different on execution .
They talk about 'progress' having been made: Recent examples (e.g. soldier losing it and killing civilians, koran burnings) dictate that things are heading in a backwards direction. Meanwhile, how many US casualties have there been? How many PTSD sufferers are being made; how many physical disabilities are being created? The Afghans do not even like the US being there and the civilians are posing an increased threat. This sham of a war has already ended and we continue to use rhetoric to justify our presence there at costs we cannot afford. Hope the basketball game was fun.
Good idea Mr. President, lets get all in again so we can waste more precious treasure. You sir are not the change that I voted for, your just another fool on the hill. Stop this pathetic and worthless war NOW!
JCB: and you were thinking both wars were going to end on a dime? This IS the change I voted for. One war declared over and troops coming home. The other winding down and hopefully an end date BEFORE the declared 2014 pullout.
Out NOW, you friggin liars! Enough money and lives were wasted in that hell hole!
Its just amazing to me that if you read any of the two books Obama has written and you are American and still believe in America that you could vote for a man like him.
He is the epitomy of a racist, a bigot and least of all an idiot. He is a muslim at heart and given the opportunity he will turn America into a muslim society. And American people still vote for him. Just unbelievable.
southms- how do you get thru the day with all that hatred inside of you?because it doesnt matter what Pres. Obama does it will be the wrong thing by you. and you sir/ma'm are the true epitome of a racist
You need some serious couch time, my friend.
Not real Americans. Just the poser Lefties who want everything for free. You know the idiots of the society. It used to be the 10 percent but now that # has grown.
Time to take the tires of the house maynard and stop wearing that tinfoil hat in public.
Obama 2012.
4 years ago America voted against bush
November America will vote againts obama
...and the replacement idiot will start his own legacy
He's George Soros' puppet. And we have a whole lot of naive liberal dummies who despise capitalism as a result. I personally think they all oughta move to some nice, progressive European country and get the hell outta our once awesome country, so we can put it back together again.
HOW is it the Liberals and Democrats, DO NOT have ANYTHING FACTUAL to substantiate their unethical views about Obama?Why do they reject the obvious facts about Obama?One nation under
G-D, Obama. We are definitely in direct route that made Germany what it was under Hitler! Something MUST be done by someone that has SWORN an oath to protect America and it's people. Everyone within our government is doing harm by not doing the right and proper thing about Obama and his Chicago czars (thugs).G-d help America for my children and children's children!
Fuzzy: yes you are. How is it conservatives and regressives never have anything factual to substantiate their unethical views of their vast conspiracies and hate of all things of this century--but love to throw Hitler and Germany around over everything from a basketball game to the hosting of a head of state? God help America to be living in a country where such uneducated fools have access to computers to spread their hate of all things outside their front door!
I love President Obama, but I wish he'd see the light and withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. There's about a snowball's chance in hell that any progress made while we are there will be maintained when we leave regardless of when that is. Also, I wish they would have watched that basketball game on TV instead of flying in AF1 to see it. I assume the White House has at least one TV.
The right actions at the right time for the peace and welfare of the world. I enjoyed seeing our President and The British Prime Minister attend a basketball game .