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.

Dennis Kucinich Raises Impeachment Over Libya

John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen, Politico

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told Politico.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.

Oh Good! A Whole Institute Dedicated to Lecturing Conservatives on “Civility”

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

About a week ago, I had another lesson in liberal civility.

I was pulling into the parking lot of a burger-joint when an agitated young man drove up next to me. He rolled down his window, as I did. I thought I might have cut him off in traffic and prepared to apologize.

The first words out of his mouth were: “Are you a retard?” This is known as a rhetorical question. I was tempted to answer, “No, but I am still beating my wife.”

The graduate of The Charlie Sheen School of Refinement was incensed by one of my bumper stickers, “Global Warming: a dangerous man-made phenomenon caused by the mixture of recycled Marxist ideas and junk science.”

I told him I wasn’t going to have a conversation with someone who begins by asking if I’m “special.” We went into the restaurant. He was calm for a while, but as soon as he finished eating, he began loudly berating me again.

I was a “cretin.” I was too stupid to live in a superior state like Massachusetts and should move to Tennessee, where people are such mental defectives that they question the revealed truth of global warming. “Like Al Gore,” I innocently asked? That enraged him further. Finally, he delivered what he considered the coup de grace, telling other diners that I was a product of FOX News. Then he stormed out.

One of the cooks came out from behind the counter and asked if I wanted him to call the cops. I said no, my assailant was probably an Obama supporter who was off his medication. Massachusetts is lousy with such louts — not surprising, as we are the capital of thumb-sucking liberalism.

But, not to worry. The civility-mongers just opened the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. By this time next year, we’ll all be going around bowing or curtseying to each other and saying: “Pray, pardon me” and “I beg to differ.” Soon, the entire country will resemble a Regency drawing room out of “Sense and Sensibility.”

According to the Institute’s website, it will be a “national, nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy generation regarding civic engagement and civility in public discourse consistent with First Amendment principles.”

In a Q&A describing its purpose, the Institute answered hypothetical questions about the Big C, including: “Are you blaming heated rhetoric for the Tucson shootings? Absolutely not. But the shootings created a space for people to focus on civility, and the Institute is building on that positive outcome of a tragic event.”

If the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others had “absolutely” nothing to do with civility, how exactly did it create a “space for people to focus” on same? Caution: Never expect consistency from the Left or ask liberals to define their terms (like “climate of hate”); it only confuses and agitates them

The only connection between the Tucson tragedy and civility is that a lot of people on the Left blamed the rampage on lack of civility among conservatives, without a scintilla of evidence to corroborate the claim.

Read more.