Obama Says Libya is Not War, It’s “Noise”

Jim Emerson, FloydReports.com

When asked about his personal war against Libya and criticism about ignoring congress in a blatant disregard of the War Powers Act the President brushed both aside as just “noise”. Obama has no intention to seek congressional approval as required by law. The President wants Americans to ignore the fact that the incursion into Libya was supposed to be a US Lead effort to establish a UN mandated “No Fly Zone” and no more.

He wants us to overlook the fact that this “kinetic military exercise” which started as a NATO air operations is now an overt effort to assassinate Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi.

Congress Strikes Back

In an effort to justify the president’s contempt for the law, legal adviser to the State Department Harold Koh stated “From the outset, we noted that the situation in Libya does not constitute a war”. Outraged, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) shot back, “When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the NATO fig leaf, where they’re dropping bombs that are killing people, where you’re paying your troops offshore combat pay and there are areas of prospective escalation — something I’ve been trying to get a clear answer from with this administration for several weeks now, and that is the possibility of a ground presence in some form or another, once the Qaddafi regime expires — I would say that’s hostilities.”

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) accused the White House of “sticking a stick in the eye of Congress,” saying it had done “a great disservice to our country.”

On the other hand, Senators John Kerry ( D. Mass.) and John McCain (R. Az.) have passed a resolution supporting the president’s action while asking the House and fellow senators to forget how president Obama didn’t obey….

Read more.

Wrong Boehner; Obama is Breaking the Law Right Now

by Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Only in the liberal media can a weak entreaty to obey the law be considered an act of political warfare. The media have portrayed House Speaker John Boehner’s letter to Barack Obama, merely asking the president for another legal explanation for his war-by-decree in Libya, as “ratcheting up the pressure.” The New York Times correctly noted, “it is not clear if [Boehner’s Congressional] resolution and follow-up letter have any teeth.” It is actually a five-day pass to keep breaking the law.

The text of Boehner’s letter reads, “it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.” After blasting the president’s “refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution,” Boehner invokes the Constitution – but not the section many legal scholars may have expected. Instead of noting what our Founding document has to say about the power to declare war, Boehner writes: “The Constitution requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.”

There are only four problems with Boehner’s letter: it’s wrong on the Constitution, it’s wrong on the law, it offers no consequences for wrongdoing, and it came 30 days too late. Obama is in violation of the War Powers Resolution right now.

The Constitution or Cronyism?

Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of California gave a more accurate assessment nearly a month ago when he said Obama is “shredding the Constitution.” Today, the House passed an amendment Sherman authored to….

Read more.

Congress Ignores Obama’s War-by-Fiat

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

When Barack Obama updated Congress on the war in Libya last Friday, he claimed our role is so limited it does not require Congressional authorization. However, on Monday Hillary Clinton told the European press, “Even today, the United States continues to fly 25 percent of all sorties,” and Obama has promised there will be “no let-up.”

Apparently Congress will have no vote on the matter, either. This week, leaders in the House and Senate have refused to vote for or against the authorization of the war, as the Constitution requires.

Although the Founding Fathers vested Congress alone with the power to make war, Obama launched Operation Odyssey Dawn on the approval of the United Nations and the Arab League. Some interpret the 1973 War Powers Resolution to say the president may send soldiers into harm’s way for 60 days before getting Congressional approval, but Congress has passed no authorization 66 days into the war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday that the Senate will not vote on the measure before the end of this month.

A spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner told CNN, “No decisions have been made about how to proceed.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was equally passive on Fox News Sunday, saying, “The administration is going to have to decide whether it thinks [the War Powers Resolution] was triggered and we’ll have to respond to that.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday….

Read more.

King Obama’s War by Decree

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

“The United States does not have a King’s army. President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution.” – Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Maryland.

Barack Obama has gotten away with subjecting a wide swath of national life to unelected czars, bankrupting the country through unconstitutional spending, ignoring judge’s orders, and running roughshod over states rights. Now, the Czar-in-Chief has decided he wants the full royal treatment. He has sent U.S. soldiers to fight in the Libyan civil war without asking for Congressional authorization, as required by the U.S. Constitution. King Obama’s undeclared war on Libya is the logical extension of his decision to rule by decree on the homefront – lawless, destructive, unconstitutional,

Illegal, and Impeachable.

The U.S. Constitution restricts the warmaking power to Congress. Article I, Section 8 gives the legislative branch alone ability to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” and “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

This is as the Founding Fathers intended. “The father of the Constitution,” James Madison, praised “the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war…In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.” Madison declared the reason this is true: “the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.”

It is certainly too much temptation for our president, who has launched

King Obama’s War.

When it became clear last fall that Democrats would lose control of the House, White House aides began floating word that Obama would rule through executive orders, regulations, and federal fiats after the elections. The Center for American Progress drafted a blueprint for Obama to rule by decree. The Huffington Post reported matter-of-factly Obama “will use executive authority when blocked by Congress,” and Politico virtually begged him to do so. Even in the middle of the lame duck power grab, he made good on his word. The FCC passed Net Neutrality, although it lacks Congressional authorization to do so. Now Obama is taking his power grab overseas.

Over the weekend, Obama ordered U.S. troops to launch Operation Odyssey Dawn, raining more than 100 Tomahawk missiles onto Libya.

Read more.

Obama Turns a Blind Eye to Male Unemployment

Tom W. Pauken, FloydReports.com

Long-term trends in the labor market have been particularly brutal for men, but our Washington policymakers appear to be either unaware of such trends or to have ignored them for the most part. Over the past decade, the total number of jobs for women went up by close to a million. Meanwhile, men lost more than 3 million jobs. From 1960 to 2008, the average unemployment rate for men 25 years and older was 4.2 percent. In the last two years, it has more than doubled, shooting up to 8.9 percent. By contrast, unemployment for women of the same age and for the same period of time went from 4.7 percent to 7.2 percent, an increase of 52 percent. The disparity is more striking if one considers that women’s rate of participation in the workforce has risen sharply since 1960 while the percentage of men in the job market has been shrinking.

One reason that men’s employment rate lags behind is that there has been negative growth in the types of jobs men historically have occupied. In the last 10 years, 5.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost. That’s one-third of our manufacturing base in an industry where men make up 70 percent of the workforce. In construction, where 87 percent of positions are filled by men, more than 1.4 million jobs went away during that time frame. Approximately 4.4 million jobs have been added in the education and health care sectors, but women dominate this growing field, as they make up 77 percent of the work force.

It’s working class men, not those who occupy elite positions in finance and government, who are suffering.

The hemorrhaging of manufacturing and other well-paying jobs in America means that a rising number of young American men face dwindling prospects for earning a middle-class wage in the future. Young male unemployment is at 19 percent. More than 15 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans (most of whom are male) were unemployed in January 2011. African-American males also have been hit hard. Ten years ago, both African-American men and women had the same unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. Since then, the men’s rate has more than doubled and now is almost four points higher than the unemployment rate for women. Similarly, Hispanic men now have a 1.7 percent higher unemployment rate than Hispanic women, whom they historically have outperformed.

With growing numbers of out-of-work young men comes a volatile mix of negative social outcomes: they are less likely to marry, less likely to be a stable parental force for the children they father, and more likely to engage in violent behavior.

Read more.