Obama Makes The Right Call

0 Shares
Turkish PM Erdogan and U.S. President Obama Have Joint Press Conference

President Barack Obama cares little for the Constitution, but he does appear to care for his legacy. So with international support crumbling, a war-weary public rebelling and Congressional support apparently limited to a few neocon warmongers, Obama deferred to Congress on a possible military strike on Syria.

By claiming he held the authority to strike whenever he wanted to regardless of Congress’ wishes, Obama signaled that Article 1, Section 8 holds no meaning. But regardless of his reasoning, Obama made the right call when he decided to present evidence to Congress that Syrian President Bashar Assad gassed his own people.

Despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, Congress has the sole authority to decide when the United States goes to war and against whom. Now it’s up to the people to pressure Congress so that it understands there is no desire for another war and, more importantly, there is no good side to back in that conflict.

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Harold Olsen

    His legacy? Racism. Anti-Constitution. Anti-American. F*** the American people! That will be his legacy.

    • hipshotpercussion

      He and that hag he calls his wife(not Reggie Love)won’t be happy until this country is a corrupt 3rd world Cesspool like his native Kenya.

  • Bernhardt

    In all this Iran seems to be forgotten …or is it a ploy not to strike Iran notwithstanding that is tre right thing to do and immediately . Iran is playing the USA and the world . Horror of horrors? Waiting until it gets the nuclear bomb

    • vicki

      Iran is not that big a nation. Their having a nuke is not much of a threat to the US. Israel on the other hand……

      • Don 2

        Vicki, your position on Iran possessing nukes surprises me. You don’t think that once a country possesses nukes, like N. Korea, attacks like the one Obama is planning to make on Syria, are no longer a threat? You don’t think Iran possessing nukes gives Iran a stronger hand in controlling their neighbors actions, including oil production policies? You don’t think Iran possessing nukes encourages their neighbors to go nuclear in order to have equal strength in dealing with Iran?

        Also, are you saying that Israel’s nukes are a threat to the U.S.?

        • vicki

          I said that Iran possession of a nuke is no real threat to the USA. I then said that countries like Israel would be much more threatened. I can see where the 2 paths the Israel comment caused. The meaning was that Iran having a nuke IS a threat to Israel.

          Now as it happens I do not accept prior restraint against individuals nor nations.

          • Don 2

            I got what you meant about Israel about the same time as I hit the send button(too late lol).

            Anyway, I would suggest that a nuclear Iran, even if incapable for now, of delivering a nuke via a missile, could deliver one or more nukes to our shores via ship or barge. Selling a nuke to a jihadist group for the same purpose is also a possibility.

            The west calls the events of September 11, 2001 an attack by terrorist. The leader of the 9/11 attack, Mohammed Atta, left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a fourteen-hundred-year continuous process.

          • vicki

            If Iran drops a nuke on the US then the US will turn the sands of Iran into a big glass parking lot. Problem solved. And for extra credit cover the sand with pigs blood before glassing.

            In fact it might be better to just coat Iran in pigs blood.
            Will save lives too.

          • Don 2

            That’s what makes the Iranian nuke so scary: If one does not fear that glass parking lot and believes in the 12th. Imam prophecy, and100 levels of paradise.

      • Vigilant

        Iran is the KEY to most of what’s going on in Syria. They have a great stake in ensuring that Assad remains in power, or is replaced by a Shiite like Assad who will act as surrogate for Iran in its ambitions to surround Israel.

        To say “their having a nuke is not much of a threat to the US.” is to vastly underestimate the gravity of the situation. You can bet your bottom fiat dollar that if Iran uses its weapons (when they get them) against Israel or Europe (which would be in range), the US would be TOTALLY involved.

        That’s why the Israelis will neutralize the threat when Iranian plans come to fruition, and it behooves the US to fully support the Israelis when that happens.

        • Bob666

          Yo Vigilant,
          Well said and very accurate statement. One mushroom cloud would be a boom heard around the world and acted on by more than just the USA.

  • Alex

    Kudos to Mr Livingston who, while barely containing his venom du jour, allows that the president has done at least ONE thing right.

    There are ways to circumvent the legal process for war-making in the US.

    One alternative, as Ronald Reagan showed, was that one could conduct a war against the explicit directive of Congress by trading arms-for-drugs and funneling the profits to TERRORISTS in Nicaragua and other Central American nations.

    Reagan, who also labeled Nazi SS officers as “victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps” —!!!— burns in Hell, right between Josef Stalin and John Wayne Gacy…

    • con_c_kwense

      obama once again shows what a chicken— gutless, unprincipled, self-serving coward he is. Less than a week ago he was screeching about how he and his fellow-doofus kerry had INDISPUTABLE proof that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people…if this were the case (many sources have come forward showing that the “rebels” – obama’s brotherhood – unleashed the chemicals themselves in order to gin up hatred for Assad and an excuse for obama to help his al quaida friends) the rest of the civilized world would have supported him. But just as we’ve known for 5 years, the rest of the world is now catching on, that obama and his henchmen are liars and manipulators and will sacrifice however many innocent people they need to to try to get the muslim brotherhood total control of the area.

    • hipshotpersussion

      Oh yeah, Alex. just like Bill Clinton was involved with running drugs into Mena, AK, and Bush senior was involved in CIA drug trafficking. O-Bozo and Holder ran guns to Mexican Narco terrorists and AlCIAda terrorists. Two or more wrongs never make a right. So you just keep drinking that Kool-Aid. As for the Constitution. I personally think )-Bozo has custom toilet paper imprinted with it and the Bill of Rights. That is what he thinks of it and we Americans.

    • Bill

      There you go again, Alex,
      Just making stuff up to fit your socialist agenda

    • vicki

      No worries alex. As I said above, even a stopped clock is right sometimes.

  • Ron

    Impeach Obama and try him for treason

    • apsalminflorida

      Yup Ron this should have been done a very long time ago, because of all he has done to try and destroy this country is impeachable, anyone else would have been gone a long time ago.

  • Timothy Sullivan

    This “thing” in office will never admit when he is wrong!

    • apsalminflorida

      Your very right Timothy Sullivan, and he also taught Hillary Clinton the same thing never admit to doing wrong blame someone else don’t you think she is doing a good job doing that? she like Obama is a loser in a very big way and they know it themselves but just won’t admit it.

  • rivahmitch

    I’d say it’s only a half-right call. Unilateral action would have been grounds for impeachment (just as it was in Libya if our esteemed legislators had guts and integrity, which the vast majority don’t). The “right” call would be that we have no dog in the fight and that we should let the Syrian islamist and their government kill each other. When your enemies are killing each other, LET THEM!

    • apsalminflorida

      rivahmitch your right and they will and we should do exactly that let them destroy each other, just as long as they don’t try bringing it to our country or Israel which they will ry doing, it will be a no win situation and we don’t want to be stuck in the middlelnot now or ever, but that won’t be possible because we will be brought into it wether we like it or not, because the bible tells me so.

  • Karolyn

    WOW! It’s a first! PLD reports that Obama does something right! Kudos! Many conservative or libertarian websites won’t print any good news about Obama or his admin.

    • wandamurline

      Connect the dots….he opened his big mouth and stated the “red line” and then when it was crossed, he has to blame someone else, so now for the first time in over 5 years, he is going by the Constitution? Wake up….he is shifting the blame…Syria is another distraction from Benghazi, NSA, IRS, EPA scandals….besides, why in the world would Assad use chemical weapons when he is winning the war and would have the entire world on his back? Makes no sense. AP and BBC have found out that the rebels had these weapons, that they got them from Saudi Arabia and did not know how to handle them and they caused an explosion and set off the gas. Of course, you won’t hear this from Kerry, McCain or Graham war mongers or the lamestream news. We need correct information before making any kind of decision….besides both sides are bad, so it doesn’t matter who wins….it is a no win situation anyways…..at least Assad has held Al Quaeda at bay in his country. We need out of the Middle East and allow them to destroy each other as they have been doing for 600 years.

      • carl_AF

        You are so on target with this comment, the Brotherhood is getting all they need for domination of the Far East because of our blunders.. Pretty soon it will be the United ’57’ Arab States against Israel all controlled by the Brotherhood. I must give the Egyptian citizens credit for seeing what was happening and hopefully they will be able to retrieve control of their country.

      • apsalminflorida

        wandamurline yes,yes, and no? all you have said is just about all on line and true, but the no means that we are in the last days as the bible says, I myself believe were in the last hour because the rapture of Gods church can happen as I type this, and also when this does happen all of the countries including the ones who are fighting with each other will in the end all join forces and try going to Israel and defete her, which will never happen, because God Himeself will protect her, and He will in the end when it is time to do so, He will destroy the devil and all the countries that joined him , a big bag full of nuts all at one time, you can read this in any bible if it is a Christian one.

    • NObama_Holder_Reid_Pelosi_2012

      Karolyn says – “won’t print any good news about Obama or his admin.”

      That is because nothing that comes from Obama or his administration is good news for the law abiding, taxpaying, heterosexual family oriented citizens of this Country

    • Moustache The First

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day!!

    • Quester55

      Deciding to Put out your Torch Properly, instead of tossing it in the Dry Timbers, ( When you see that the Forest Ranger is watching your every move) is NOT a form of Capitulation for Honor Sake, it’s just a False attempt at Doing the right thing!!

  • Vigilant

    Obama does NOTHING without calculating the political angle first, and this is no exception.

    Someone or ones, probably Valerie Jarrett, is/are repeating the approach to the Bin Laden raid and Benghazi debacle, counseling noninterference. Obama, caught between a rock and a hard place, thanks to his “red line” bluster, knows he’s damned no matter what he does.

    Now he’s calling it “a shot across the bow.” How does a surgical strike entailing the death and injury of people qualify as a “shot across the bow?” It doesn’t.

    In typical Obama fashion, he’s punted the ball to the Congress. It’s PURELY damage control, attempting to minimize the fallout from the lousy decisions/statements from an amateur in foreign affairs who has painted himself into a corner.

    By no means is Obama interested in the restrictions of the Constitution on executive power. It should be obvious to intelligent human beings that his action is once again merely a way to shift responsibility to someone else for the purpose of plausible deniability.

    His decision came on the heels of the British parliament’s failure to back Cameron in Syria. Obama suddenly realized he has NO support for action in building a coalition of nations.
    .
    He has made the right decision for the wrong reasons. He has NOT suddenly become a faithful adherent to the Constitution, he’s hiding behind it to cover his backside.

    • Warrior

      Hmmm, need more time to gin up “the base”. How about we institute a draft? That will create “jobs”. In the meantime though, congress is still on the “playground” for another week so how about a few hands of “spades”?

    • apsalminflorida

      Words of pure truth, he is a phony and most everyone knows this, and he does a lot of hiding behind the constitution which he uses to hide behind because he just hates what it stands for, and since he himself is a muslum he wants to help his fellow brotherhood out as much as possible, let congress make the decision so people will hate them and take the responsibility off of himself he is good at doing that and he also taught Hillary Clinton how to do it also do what you need to do, and if it is wrong just deny it, and some people want her on the demmocratic ticket for the next president, wow what stupidity, they had better do some homework on this lady of horror.

    • Bill

      Good Analogy, Vig
      The funniest story is that France was going to back us in Syria but only as a smoke screen hide the fact that they are raising taxes on their rich to almost 100%
      Russia has been very smart in attracting the rich French. The highest tax rate in Russia is 13%, very similar to Hong Kong

    • Quester55

      True, so True, Just wish I could have said it so well.

      • Vigilant

        Thank you!

  • denise0513

    Personally, I believe someone was able to get through Obama’s sick,thick head that by him involving the U.S. in Syria would be a bad move. It was pointed out to him how fed up the people are; just how many are calling for his impeachment and a unilateral move could sway even some in his own party to vote for impeachment. However, I still don’t trust him to do as congress instructs. I just heard he was meeting with McCain today and I can’t help but wonder what kind of tactics will be used against any member of congress not willing to vote for involvement in Syria.

    • apsalminflorida

      You can believe denise they won’t be good ones, he is hitler come back to life again and life as we know it here in America will soon end, unless we get off of our dead you know what and do something about it, we need to get our country back again and put God in His rightful place ahead of everything then and only then will things straighten out.

      • Quester55

        TRUE, However, While there may be Millions of us that Truly BELIEVE in & follow, JESUS, In this Country, WE Are Surrounded BY Millions of The LOST!! We have the Fields to harvest, in Jesus name, But Few whom are ready to put aside their own desires to Serve the LORD’S Will.

    • ExposeThem

      I’m wondering if Obama realized that attacking Syria is exactly what Israel wants us to do? Since Obama has no regard for Isreal, he’s not going to want to do their dirty work. And now Israel’s PM called Obama & the USA a coward. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated like that. No more wars for US!

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Expose Them, talk to us when you acquire some sense. Who is manipulating whom. US to Israel or Israel US. How about US being manipulated by Haiti or US manipulating Haiti or US manipulating Mexico or Mexico manipulating US. ETC.,ETC., ETC.. We can keep going till we turn old and grey and I don’t how long you have to go.

    • vicki

      They have lots of material thanks to the NSA.

      • denise0513

        My thoughts exactly!

  • Jeff Noncent

    we don’t need to go to war with Syria, if we do I personally think the Rat want to destroy this country because the country a round Syria will go to war against Israel, and say good bye to America

    • apsalminflorida

      Yes this is Obamas goal, if we do go to war with syria ir is a good possibilty of us entering a 3rd world war which was predicted many years ago it just took the right president to get in there and will the real good for nothing president please stand up, and Obama of course stands up, and since we have always been allies to Israel which Obama doesn’t like, this just might be the begining of what the bible says the end days or the last hour the begining of the end, and this is exactly what he intended on doingwhen he got into office and he is doing a pretty good job at it, and were letting him get away with it because no one seems to care, this is whats bad about it, no one cares, well I do but I’m only one person anyone else with me?

      • NC

        Apsal, Reagan shot missiles at Muslims. Clinton shot missiles at Muslims. Carter sent troops into Muslim terrritory The bushes invade Muslim land with troops. So if Obama shoots a few more missiles it will mean he is just the “right’ president to start WWIII??? Why weren’t the other Presidents the right President to start WWIII? None of them were black?? That’s the only difference I can see.What makes him different??
        HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD(?) IS NOT PLEASED WITH OBAMA? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GOD(?) WOULD BE MORE PLEASED WITH YOUR CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT.
        THE TRUE ANSWER IS THAT YOU DON’T KNOW!

        • al707

          I know, Obama is pro abortion at any time during the pregnancy Do you think God is pleased with Obama for that?

          • smilee

            Obama is pro choice not pro abortion.

          • al707

            If your pro choice you are pro abortion, but you knew that now didn’t you?

          • smilee

            There is a difference they are not the same thing but you have most likely made up your mind so I will not try to change it

          • al707

            lets see pro choice means if the woman chooses to have the abortion thats ok. No matter how you try to sugar coat the words abortion always does the same thing. It ends and kills a separate life that has it’s own human DNA from the woman aborting it. What ever happened to taking responsibility for what you do?

          • smilee

            Bull!! Pro Choice is you believe the woman should be the decider not the government but that does not mean you believe in abortion just that there are to ,many variables beyond the woman’s control that it is not possible to write a law that will cover all of them. The life is not separate until it can live on its own it is dependent on the mother and she should have more say than the government in the matter.

          • al707

            So if the abortion goes wrong for the woman and the child is born alive, what do you think Obamas belief is on that?

          • smilee

            Ask a stupid question then there is no answer to it!!

          • al707

            I know the answer just want to know if you know the answer?

          • smilee

            As I said: Ask a stupid question then there is no answer to it!! I doubt you know the right answer!!

          • al707

            I know this, 4 times Obama as an Illinois Senator voted against the born alive infant protection act. This was a bill put up by the Illinois senate for babies born alive during an abortion to receive medical attention rather than being left alone to die or killed after they were born. So not only is Obama pro abortion, he’s also pro death and pro infanticide. I guess you are right these are a lot of choices so he is pro choice. He chooses death over life.

          • smilee

            Your spouting the far right wing nuts spin on what he voted on but that has nothing to do with my position and his either if you would not spin it to mean something he has not did or said.

          • al707

            I didn’t get this information from a far right wing nuts site. Google it and see for yourself. Get it from a far left wing nuts site you will see the same information. I’m not putting a spin on it. Obama 4 times voted against the born alive infant protection act. I suggest you go and investigate your king Obama, instead of just buying into all the BS. Do you know how you can really tell about a person? It’s what they do, it’s by their actions. Actions always speak louder than words.

          • al707

            I didn’t get this information from a far right wing nuts site. Google it and see for yourself. Get it from a far left wing nuts site you will see the same information. I’m not putting a spin on it. Obama 4 times voted against the born alive infant protection act. I suggest you go and investigate your king Obama, instead of just buying into all the BS. Do you know how you can really tell about a person? It’s what they do, it’s by their actions. Actions always speak louder than words.

          • smilee

            It is a far right wing nut spin and yo have bought into it.

          • al707

            I will say it again, Obama voted 4 times as a senator in Illinois. 4 times he voted against the born alive infant protection act. How is that putting a spin on it? This is what he did. I’m only telling you what he did. A persons ACTIONS tell you more about a person than there words do.

          • smilee

            You can say it as often as you like but that does not change the fact it is all spin

          • al707

            If you think Obama voting against the born alive infant protection act is nothing but spin. So be it, but Obamas voting against this is on the record and anyone can see this record

          • smilee

            We both know you have never seen it and you are only going on the far right propaganda you have read

          • smilee

            Not True at all

        • Quester55

          And your Point IS??
          WP Weapons are NOT WMD’s & are used to Disperse FIRE into the Enemy’s camp or position. however, ISRAEL Rarely if Ever, Fires the First Shot! The First Shot, Was Fired by those Child Murdering MUSLIMS!
          Get Your FACTS Straight Before engaging your MUSLIM LOVING Mouth!!
          BY the way, OBAMA NEVER WAS A BLACK MAN, as he is Half White, Holds a LIBYAN Passport He got after being BORN & Raised in that Country, Before his Mom Gave him over to his WHITE GRAND PARENTS to be Raised through his TEEN Years!

        • vicki

          We do know because we see every day how obama fails to honor in others the 2 gifts God gave each of us. The gifts of life and free will.

      • Jeff Noncent

        I am with you on that and lets go further than what you just mention do you realize that it take a black man to finally say good bye to America if the president of the United States of America decide to go to war with Syria that is alarming I don’t know about you Bible prophecy is here right in front of our eye thanks for posting

        • apsalminflorida

          Jeff Noncent, thank you for acknowleging my post, I believe we are living in the last hour, and at any time Jesus could return and take His church away from this corruption, But if we do go to war with syria an awful lot of our boys are going to get killed maimed or worse, a war we do not need to get into, but I believe that Obama wants us into it so he can declare martial law on our country, and this will make it even harder to get him out of office, my thought, again Jeff t y for your response, keep in touch.

          • Jeff Noncent

            yes we will keep in touch, there is a question I need to ask you if we go to war with Syria what do you think would happen with the country around Syria what would they do?

    • Ron r

      We do not need to attack Syria because we are not the police of the world . Let the Arab nations take care him. As for Israel , our foreign policy should not be conducted based on Israel. To heck with Israel.

  • BJ

    OB-A-A–A-A-M–M–M–A-A-A– OB-A—A—A—A-M–M–M—A—A—A-
    STICK YOUR ROD AND STAFF UP YOUR ASS

  • apsalminflorida

    In all reality yes he does but Obama is Obama and it sees like Obama does what Obama does best goes around the legal way and does it his way 2shay

    • Ron r

      And what has he done by going around the legal way??

  • Karolyn

    I just saw a poster on FB about Israel bombing Gaza with white phosphorous munitions and the US did nothing; and supposedly, we supplied Israel with the munitions. So, it’s OK for Israel to do anything they want, but don’t let any other country kill with impunity.

    http://972mag.com/israel-gives-up-white-phosphorus-because-it-doesnt-photograph-well/70063/

    • Quester55

      I Suppose if they Showed the Moon sitting at the North Pole, You’d believe that as well?

      FACE-BOOK is just a Tool in the hands of the MUSLIM CONTROLLED NEWS, ISRAEL Fights Back, When it’s People See thousands of their Children, MURDERED by YOUR Muslim Thugs!

      • Karolyn

        I did post a legitimate link about what they did. How about all the Palestinian children murdered by the Israeli thugs?

        • Nadzieja Batki

          How about all the Israeli children, Moms and Dads murdered by the palastinian predators?
          Karolyn you are a Stupid Cow of Beshan.

          • Karolyn

            The Israelis are way ahead in that department. How’s 129 Israeli children to 1519 Palestinian? And ad hominems will get you nowhere except to show ignorance.

            http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

      • Karolyn

        Please see the link I posed above. There have not been 1000s of Israeli children killed (more like 150), but there have been 1500 Palestinian.

    • Virgil Lipinski

      Yeah, Israel, while not being angels themselves, is not the real problem in the Middle East, is not the real threat to Muslims & Arabs…the worst enemy of the Palestinian people & most Arabs & Muslims are their own “leaders” ! Arafat murdered more of his own people than the Israelis did!

    • Robert Messmer

      Israel is fighting for its existence. Some of the Arab nations, factions, political parties–doesn’t matter what you call them–have declared that they will not stop attacking Israel until it has been wiped off the globe. So yes this is a case of “Stand Your Ground” as well as “Self Defense”. And no, I don’t think they should go back to the borders that existed before the “Six Day War”. If for no other reason than to serve as a reminder that you attack them at your risk.

      • Karolyn

        So it’s OK for them to use phosphorous to burn people? That is the point. They keep moving the line and moving into areas they were not supposed to. The Jews get a free pass.

        • Robert Messmer

          The purpose of the WP was not to burn people it was to provide a smoke screen. One of those unintended consequences Ron Paul mentioned. So you wish the Jewish state to behave as the “Native Americans” did so they can be pushed completely off their land?

          • Karolyn

            They do not have to be greedy.

          • Robert Messmer

            LOL Greedy? Yes I guess you could say that since they wish to continue living they are being greedy. Remember however, that they did not declare war on the Arabs until after the Arabs had attacked them.

  • DavidL

    1. You write, “President Barack Obama cares little for the Constitution…” is wrong and an absurd contention. He is a constitutional lawyer and law professor. Just because you may think something is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. For example, ask the Supreme Court about the Constitutionality of the health reform act.

    2. You write, “By claiming he held the authority to strike whenever he wanted to regardless of Congress’ wishes, is only half wrong. In the face of an imminent attack, especially in our nuclear age, the President, under the War Powers Act, does indeed have the authority to unilaterally act whether Congress ultimately agrees or not. The action must be taken in the face of an imminent threat and when there is no time to take it to Congress.

    3. You write, “…Congress has the sole authority to decide when the United States goes to war and against whom” is again uninformed. The War Powers Act, referenced above, contradicts your argument. The UN Charter also contracts your argument. The Charter is a ratified treaty of the United States and therefore, under Article 6 of our Constitution, part of the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter is part of our constitution.

    4. I agree with the President’s decision to go to Congress for authority to act in Syria. I do not agree that that is all he needs. He still must go to the UN Security Council for authority to act. If there are no Article 51 issues involved here (immediate self-defense issues – which he has already said do not exist) then he cannot act unilaterally even with Congressional approval. The Security Council must authorize it.

    5. Let us not forget why the world established the UN in the first place following the slaughters from WWI and WWII. For the first time the world effectively came together and said that war, and the threat of war, as a foreign policy tool is now illegal and explicitly prohibited. No nation, not even the US, can unilaterally use or threaten to the use of force against any nation.

    6. You conservatives have been looking for an excuse to impeach President Obama. So far your arguments have been nothing more than hyper-partisan sour grapes. However, you have a legitimate argument for impeachment if he ignores the will of Congress and violates international law by launching a military strike without UN Security Council approval.

    7. The world either agrees with its past and condemns its prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons as a first strike weapon or it does not. It is time for Congress and the UN International community to stand up and take responsibility for the world in which they claim to govern. This is our world and we are all in this together. No one person must have the authority to unilaterally act, or be put in the position of being the conscience of the world, because our “leaders” are hiding and playing it safe.

    • rwayne

      Obama cares little for the Constitution…” is right on contention. He isn’t a constitutional lawyer nor a law professor. he isn’t even a us citizen and his real name is Barry Sorto and is not allowed to be president. It states to be eligible to be president both parents must be natural born citizens of the US. His father is from Kenya therefore is is not eligible under the rules for anyone to be president of the US

      • Quester55

        Your Half right, Except the record also shows that his SSI Card was that of a DEAD Man’s, ( SOCIAL SECURITY NEVER RECYCLES their Numbers).
        Also, there are NO School Records, ANYWHERE in the United States, of Young Berry, attending Classes K – 6 Th. Grade!!
        Perhaps, it is due to the FACTS that His Mom was working in LIBYA At the Time of His Birth & He Attended School There as well as ( By his Mom’s Admission, ) His ISLAM Classes, Where He grew Up as a MUSLIM!!
        Funny how these FACTS have been swiped under the rug all of these years. but When you spend MILLIONS to cover up your Past, you get what you pay for!

        • Robert Messmer

          You mean his Permanent Record doesn’t exist? What about grades 7th thru college? I thought the complaint was that all of his school records are sealed? You can’t seal what isn’t there. The other claim was he grew up in Indonesia. Look, I don’t like him either but all these different claims are even getting me confused.

          • Vigilant

            No need for confusion. Like Chester A. Arthur and Ted Cruz, his mother was a US citizen and under immigration law he became a US citizen at birth.

            USCIS: “To become a citizen at birth, you must:

            Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR

            had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements.”
            Case closed.

          • vicki

            Not quite closed. Little matter of the definition of “natural born citizen” vs citizen or naturalized citizen.

            The devil hides in many of the details.

          • Vigilant

            The Devil hid in no details of the presidency of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was a non-US citizen. It came up when he was nominated for the vice presidency, but was never challenged in any court when he assumed the presidency upon Garfield’s death.

            Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and my two sons are eligible to run for president.

          • vicki

            Are they “natural born citizens”?

          • Vigilant

            Ask the Supreme Court.

          • smilee

            Plaintiffs in Indiana decided not to as they were afraid the SC would agree with Indiana court and then their BS would be history so they hang on to the rhetoric as the alternative to resolving it once and for all

          • smilee

            YES

          • vicki

            Supporting evidence for your bald assertion?

          • smilee
          • vicki

            Discusses standing and not actual eligibility.

            Here is the correct definition from SCOTUS.

            “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,
            citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

            88 U.S. 162

            Minor v. Happersett

            And there is this definition.
            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts

          • Vigilant

            Minor v. Happersett did NOT exhaustively define “natural born citizens,” and is therefore NEVER used as such by any legal authority to determine eligibility to be president.

            SCOTUS had no need to, and did not venture into, the definition beyond the fact that Minor was a natural born citizen because her mother and father were citizens and she was born here. As they said, it was “never doubted” that she was a citizen.

            Since the case was purely about voting rights and not eligibility to be president, the court would have exceeded its charter had it ventured into the expansion of the definition to exceed the legal issues of the case. It simply used the most restrictive definition at hand.

          • vicki

            Your point about SCOTUS never doubting was explicitly covered in Minor vs Happersett and was in the quote I used. My point is that the definition is known and already commented on by a court higher then the example of “standing” that smilee offered. I then further offered a 2nd article that discusses the actual meaning of “natural born citizen” in much greater detail then offered by SCOTUS.

            Oh and of some amusement the court in smilee’s link also refers to Minor vs Happersett

          • Vigilant

            Your point that “the definition is known” is not valid. If it were, we and countless lawyers wouldn’t be debating it, would we?

            Your quote from Happersett is incomplete in the most important part of the paragraph, i.e., “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

            That last sentence explains Happersett: there was no necessity to solve any doubts about what constitutes a natural born citizen for any purposes of presidential qualification. It simply said that, in the case of Minor, there was no doubt about her citizenship.

            As I mentioned before, no court, SCOTUS or otherwise, is within its authority to go beyond the specifics of the case itself to make any such “definitions.” SCOTUS clearly did NOT define the term natural born” beyond what was necessary to decide the citizenship Ms. Minor.

            The case to which smile refers even states after referring to Happersett that “Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

            That case decision also says, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

            “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

            “Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.”

            The sentence is a KEY: “…we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”

            http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

          • vicki

            The definition of “is” is known. That did not stop President Clinton from raising the questions.

            The definition of …”shall not be infringed.” is well known

            The definition of “…The right of the people….” is well known.

            Yet all have been debated. Some in the courts for years.

          • Vigilant

            “…we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”

          • vicki

            Which changes nothing. One of the well known ways to receive natural born citizen status is to be born of 2 parents, both of which are American Citizens (Minor vs Happersett)

          • Vigilant

            No one at all is arguing that point. And you’re right, it changes nothing, i.e., the definition is still not in concrete. Minor v. Happersett neither said that was the ONLY test of natural born citizenship nor did it expand the definition SINCE IT WAS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CASE PRESENTED.

          • Vigilant

            It is indeed amusing, since it proves my point. The court said, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

            The doubts were clearly whether the definition of “natural born” was to be extended to other, less restrictive meanings.

            Once again, a fact you seem to ignore, as proven by the above statement, is that courts do not gratuitously expand their decisions to cover more than what they were asked to decide upon. They were not asked to decide upon presidential eligibility, and properly, they didn’t do so.

            Nor were they asked to define “natural born” except within the restricted application of determining whether Minor was a US citizen. They kept within their limitations in doing so, and did NOT exhaustively define the term in all its applications.

            I’m not a lawyer, but I understand the plain English in which the decision was written.

            I read your second article and find it very interesting. I can understand many points in support of your position, but I must say the following in response: unless and until such a legal argument is furnished to the SCOTUS in a relevant case, the legal meaning of “natural born citizen” will remain in its current unresolved status.

            Until the term is exhaustively defined by the SCOTUS, it will remain undefined as it was in the original Constitution.

          • vicki

            Correct and my point to smilee. His link is to a case that was asked to rule on an issue of standing.

          • Vigilant

            As was your reference to Happersett: the court was asked to rule on a matter of citizenship of a woman who wanted the right to vote in elections, not to run for president..

            NOTHING in that case either restricted or expanded the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

            P.S. When are you birthers going to make a move to invalidate every piece of legislation signed into law by Chester A. Arthur?

          • smilee

            In the reference I gave you standing was not in question and you ignore the court in Indiana’s finding which defined natural born citizen which found Obama and McCain to be natural born citizens and then dismissed the case thus allowing both men to be on the ballot which is eligibility which you seem to be unable to understand. No other court has ever ruled on presidential eligibility before and none have come right out and defined natural born citizen until now and since it was not appealed it stands. Other cases have referenced it but not defined it and as the Constitution does not define it then it is left up to the courts, that is how are system works

          • vicki

            Actually I did read the case and they found no “standing” and did not define natural born citizen at all.

            From your (smilee) link I quote:
            “14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitutions Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty four people in our nation s history (the forty four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. “

          • smilee

            First of all this was not a case about the standing of the plaintiffs as it was never in question and the
            court did not address standing and you cherry pick your quote and also misread it and then ignored the finding of them being a natural born citizen. I doubt
            you even read it and just copied and pasted from a part of my post. Read below and you will find out you are wrong.

            The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:

            All persons born in the allegiance of the king are
            natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the
            rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the
            common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

            Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within
            the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

            We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born
            Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

            The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States
            Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress
            made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a
            motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

            For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss.

            Affirmed.

          • vicki

            Hardly cherry-picking when I bothered to include the cite so anyone can investigate the context.

          • smilee

            We all know what naturalized citizen is and that is one who was not born a citizen and later became one though the naturalization process so that is not in question, a citizen at birth does not have to go through this process as citizenship is bestowed on them at birth which makes them a natural born citizen as the court has determined , see this decision which makes it very clear. Arthur, Obama, Cruz and Rubio are all natural born citizens

            http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

      • Robert Messmer

        Actually no it doesn’t state that, it makes no mention whatsoever about the parents. However, the book used by Ben Franklin does say it. On the other hand there have been a number of court cases, including SCOTUS, which have decided the act of being born on US soil, regardless of parents’ nationality makes one a natural born citizen. Hence the “trauma” about deporting illegals who produced kids while here. My stand would be since the parents were engaged in an on-going criminal action and children of the action are also illegals and subject to deportation. I am not a lawyer and first we would have to get a government with the courage to enforce the laws.

        • Vigilant

          You are correct.

          The US Constitution does not define “natural born.”
          The SCOTUS decisions to which you refer were with reference to the 14th Amendment.

          US immigration law considers that there are only two categories of citizens, citizens at (or by) birth, and naturalized citizens.

          A person becomes a US citizen at birth if ONE parent is a US citizen (and was in the US for at least 14 years), and it doesn’t matter where in the world he/she is born.

          • vicki

            The US Constitution does not define a LOT of words. Do you think this changes the meanings or intent?

          • Robert Messmer

            Actually vicki it leaves it up to the SCOTUS who has changed the intent from one court to the next.

          • Vigilant

            If it doesn’t define them, then who are you to divine what are the proper meanings or intent?

            The intent, whether you agree with it or not, was to prevent the undue influence of foreign interests in the governing of the US. No other reason that I’m aware of. Do you have any other interpretation?

            Interpreting the meanings and intent, as Robert Messmer has said, is within the bailiwick of the courts. And the only SCOTUS case of which I am aware that dealt specifically with the interpretation of “natural born” was Minor v. Happersett, and that case did not deal with its meaning vis-à-vis eligibility to become president.

            I have two children who were born in Dutch hospitals while I was working for NATO as a civilian. Their mother is Dutch. I have US birth certificates for them in the form of consular reports of the birth of a US citizen abroad. Tens of thousands of Americans have been born abroad under this law.

          • vicki

            I just checked the Constitution and I find nowhere did the founders delegate any authority let alone exclusive authority to SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of a law.

            The founders DID demand that people accused of crimes (breaking laws) be tried by a jury of their peers. THIS is the intent of the founders in determining the constitutionality of laws.

          • Vigilant

            Sorry, Vicki, that old argument hasn’t held any water since 1803. Marbury v. Madison clearly established the principle of judicial review and the function of the SCOTUS in interpreting the law.

            Jefferson inveighed against the decision, as have other scholars, but judicial review has been accepted by the legal community for 210 years. There has been no attempt to amend the Constitution to specify that the SCOTUS cannot exercise it.

            The principle is so ingrained in the judicial system that it is inscribed on the wall of the Supreme Court Building. The inscription reads: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” and then cites Marbury v. Madison.

    • Jeff

      Your king would be proud of you for defending him.
      Unfortunately for you, your view of our Constitution is a little muddy so I will *attempt* to clear that up for you.

      If you read the Constitution you will see Article 1, which describes the Legislative Branch of government. Section 8 (that’s right after section 7 and just before section 9) describes Powers of Congress. Scroll down the page to paragraph 11 (that’s right after 10) and you will see an interesting tidbit of information:

      “To Declare War, Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and Make Rules Rearding Captures On Land and Water.”

      Please learn to read.

      • Robert Messmer

        True Jeff but they muddied the waters in Article 6 which says “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; … ” So DavidL seems to read quite well and he appears to have constitutional law on his side in saying that Congress would still have to have approval from the UN. Now it may be that a court could decide rather the UN CHARTER actually constitutes a “treaty” or if it is only the actual UN treaties that count.

        • Vigilant

          Approval from the UN Security Council as a prerequisite for going to war has become so roundly disregarded that it’s almost a joke.

          “The most honest thing to do would be to admit that the international law on the use of force is defunct, as professor Michael Glennon has argued. Virtually all major countries have broken the rules from time to time, even the saintly European countries that joined in the Kosovo intervention. The U.S. has ignored the U.N. rules on numerous occasions—Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, the second Iraq War, and the 2011 war in Libya, where it secured an authorization to stop massacres of civilians but violated its terms by seeking regime change. But the U.S. government does not repudiate the U.N. rules because it wants other countries to comply with them.”

          http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/08/the_u_s_has_no_legal_basis_for_its_action_in_syria_but_that_won_t_stop_us.html

        • vicki

          There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a treaty to overrule the Constitution. The founders were not stupid and would not have left such a big hole in the amendment process.

          • Robert Messmer

            vicki please read Article 6 of the US Constitution paragraph two. You can read paragraphs one and three also but one deals with carrying over the debt from the Confederation to the new United States and three says that government officers shall be bound to the Constitution (as opposed to the Monarch) and that no religious test shall be applied. Paragraph two doesn’t say treaty overrides the Constitution but becomes a part of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

          • vicki

            “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land;”

            Notice that the laws that shall be made to support the powers granted to the federal government (“in pursuance thereof”) MUST be constitutional so it is also with all treaties made.They can only be made based on the authority delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. For if a treaty should, for instance, say that “Congress can make a law…” then the Constitution would be at odds with itself and could not survive.

    • Quester55

      You must be confused in Mind & Body, both conditions brought on from Oxygen not reaching the brain.

      There is a simple cure for this illness, & I hold the answer that will solve your Illness Simply, ” Pull your Head out of Obama’s butt”, & you’ll recover over time!

      • Bill

        Great Analogy, Quester

    • BALONEY TONEY MAHONEY

      Isn’t it tiring trying to defend the indefensible?….Your stance is ludicrous…just because someone is a lawyer or judge, does that mean they will abide by the law or the oath they took to uphold the law???? The Supreme Court ruled the healthcare boondoggle was constitutional, because the chief justice broke every rule in the book, starting first by not allowing arguments on Big Sister #2, Kagan to be recused, in the clearest example of such a dynamic, then he allowed the govt. to argue it both ways, it was a tax one day & a fine the next, in lieu of how it was actually written…basically this bum re-wrote the law for them & then passed it as constitutional! Not only should be be disbarred, he probably should be thrown in jail!

      Obummer & Holder have broken the law & their oaths to uphold those laws & the separation of power many , many times. He should’ve been impeached a long time ago, but the GOP is feckless & ball-less!

      • smilee

        You totally distort everything the court and Obama done as none of it actually happened the way you describe it.

    • Vigilant

      “…under the War Powers Act, [Obama] does indeed have the authority to unilaterally act whether Congress ultimately agrees or not. The action must be taken in the face of an imminent threat and when there is no time to take it to Congress.”

      By your own logic, Obama committed an impeachable offense by violating the War Powers Act on two counts: (1) Tell us what “imminent threat” to US interests was present in Libya? (2) He allowed the 60-day time frame to run out on the WPA and STILL didn’t seek authority from Congress.

      • Robert Messmer

        We know the government’s answer already, do we not? “The imminent threat was such that it is classified for National Security and can not be divulged.”

        • Vigilant

          You’re probably correct. The tragic irony of this is that precipitate action by the US without any clear objective or follow up is more likely to destabilize the factors that impact on our national security, i.e., the flow of oil though the Suez and the Strait of Hormuz.

          Obama’s indeed between a rock and a hard place.

          • Robert Messmer

            If it only impacted Obama, I would say good riddance unfortunately it impacts us and probably a good part of the rest of the world.

          • Vigilant

            Agreed.

      • Moustache The First

        OBlahBlah got around the illegal Libya intervention by calling it a “kinetic military operation”…..the perfect example of the Left’s obfuscation & semantic chicanery! Our youngest Americans are not really humans, but fetuses!

      • Moustache The First

        OBlahBlah got around the illegal Libya intervention by calling it a “kinetic military operation”…..the perfect example of the Left’s obfuscation & semantic chicanery! Our youngest Americans are not really humans, but fetuses!

    • Vigilant

      “However, you have a legitimate argument for impeachment if he ignores the will of Congress and violates international law by launching a military strike without UN Security Council approval.”

      He does NOT require the approval of the Security Council to wage war. Your distorted squint on US sovereignty, much as you would wish to see it suborned to UN resolutions, is unsupportable.

      • Robert Messmer

        He is correct in stating that Article 6 of the Constitution does say that any treaties made are part of the Constitution. Which is the complaint of the 2nd Amendment people about not wanting Article 21 (?) adopted since that requires national gun registry which is the first step to confiscation. It would seem however that under his argument that UN approval is needed, that if such approval is not given [and with Russia and China both having seats on the Security Council it is a pretty sure bet that it won’t be] that even with Congressional approval he could still be impeached for “high crimes” of violating International Law.

        • Vigilant

          To repeat what I said below:
          Approval from the UN Security Council as a prerequisite for going to war has become so roundly disregarded that it’s almost a joke.

          “The most honest thing to do would be to admit that the international law on the use of force is defunct, as professor Michael Glennon has argued. Virtually all major countries have broken the rules from time to time, even the saintly European countries that joined in the Kosovo intervention. The U.S. has ignored the U.N. rules on numerous occasions—Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, the second Iraq War, and the 2011 war in Libya, where it secured an authorization to stop massacres of civilians but violated its terms by seeking regime change. But the U.S. government does not repudiate the U.N. rules because it wants other countries to comply with them.”
          http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/08/the_u_s_has_no_legal_basis_for_its_action_in_syria_but_that_won_t_stop_us.html

    • Vis Fac

      DUMB DAVE

      1) ODUMBO is NOT a constitutional Lawyer he taught constitutional law At eh “prestigious Chicago University for a year. Your argument does not hold water.

      2) We are NOT in Imminent threat of attack from Syria Syria has no nukes your argument does not hold water.
      3) US Constitution Article. 6 Deals with Finances The UN Charter is NOT mentioned in OUR Constitution Article 2 Section 2 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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,
      except in Cases of Impeachment.

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of
      the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. Your argument does not hold water.

      Since you don’t know SQUAT about our constitution further comment to your diatribe is unnecessary. Your arguments d o not hold water. YOU LOSE

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

    • vicki

      DavidL writes:

      He is a constitutional lawyer and law professor. Just because you may think something is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.

      And just because you, or obama, or SCOTUS may think that something is constitutional doesn’t make it so.

      Now for people who can read English it is trivial to determine the constitutionality of most laws and being a “constitutional lawyer” is not necessary.

      The trivial example.

      “…The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED”.

      ONE of the reasons why it is in the interest of our lawful government to honor its commitment to protect our GOD GIVEN right to keep and bear the best tools for self and community defense is that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state…”

      And here are the English grammar rules to validate the above assertion.

      http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

      • Dave

        And vicki, just because you thik something in constitutional, does not make it so… See how that works?

  • Robert Morrow

    Let us start at home the USA where the FDA, controlled by Corrupt Petty Bureaucrats approve poison drugs (with a profit margin in thousands of percent) that murder 100,000 people a year. Just who is the worse? Our own Government that is who. Just who approves thousands of poison toxins to be laced into the foods that you feed your Children. Poisons that make the Children Sick in mind and body before they die a painful death. But, Comrades, just do your Messiah’s bidding and eat and drink your poison laced foods and swallow the death dealing drugs approved by your unelected Rulers, the Corrupt Petty Bureacrats to which your Elected Senators and Representatives have given them total uncontrolled power. Why did these Politicians do this? So, that they can get their palms grease from the Profits. I teach free cooking classes called “how to cook and eat outside the Government’s Poison Box.

  • Elvis Presley

    Wake Up America:

    Doesn’t anyone read the constitution: Article 2 Section 2
    The President isn’t commander in Chief until “called into actual service
    of the United States.” Article 1 Section 8 only congress can call the
    President into service & make him commander in Chief. The White House man
    has never been commander in Chief, because Congress has not declared war, &
    if they do it is only for 2 years (& then they have to declare war again).
    The USA was not designed to be a war mongering country.

    • al707

      try telling that to these idiotic politicians. I don’t think any of them know or care about the Constitution. They only care about their power and how much money they can make at the expense of the rest of us. If you would be willing to run you would have my vote, we need some intelligent people in the Federal Government

    • Robert Messmer

      Yes some of us can actually read but too bad you are not one of those. The “called into actual service” clause refers to only the Militia which until called into Federal duty are under the control of the States. As far as the standing Navy he is always the Commander in Chief and no standing Army was authorized by the Constitution. They were to be “raised from time to time” and only funded for two years at a time.

      • Vigilant

        You are correct, i.e.:

        “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.”

    • smilee

      The Constitution bestows on all presidents the power of commander and chief, congress does not it does declare war but war is not the requirement for the president to be commander and chief and the 2 years is the limit that congress has to authorize appropriations for the military but it does not have to reauthorize a declaration of war once they have done so.. You have a terrible misunderstanding of the Constitution

  • Quester55

    BEWARE AMERICA, When the wolf begins to act like a sheep, He’s only Sizing up his Attack plans!
    All of Obama’s Misdirection is coming into play, beware that he doesn’t Catch you Off Guard.

    • Bill

      Good Analogy, Quester,
      He just made a political move, not one based on his true feelings. He is just BS’ing us again with some devious plan in the background.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      On a MSN page there was a picture of the Muslim ME heads (?) with their body guards (?) and I am thinking the possibility that they won’t do anything about Assad because in a way he is one of their own kind but they may be hinting loudly that O is not their shade of Muslim. So you may be correct that O won’t take the snub quietly but vengefully.

  • http://www.OlGreyGhost.Blogspot.com/ Ol’ Grey Ghost

    Teenage son to parents: “I know I don’t need your permission to drive 75 m.p.h. through a 20 m.p.h. School Zone, but can I borrow the family car?”

    Notice any similarities?

  • Nadzieja Batki

    With Congress now it will be the matter of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” and O will come out smelling like a rose. O knows how to manipulate people.

    • Robbie

      The Constitution clearly states that the President must have Congressional approval to go to war. You call that manipulation?

      • smilee

        Congress gave the president the war powers act which allows him to strike first and let congress know his plans later if he does so within 60 days, this is a limited military action not a war

        • Robbie

          Bombing another country is an act of war.

          • smilee

            A war is a military action to defeat an enemy, this is not the motive so it is not a war, do you call the bombing in Boston a war?
            ?

          • Robbie

            Sending several war ships of the United States Navy and planes from the United States Air Force to bomb another country is WAR. Over the last couple of decades the world has become so accustomed to such actions by the United States that it hardly makes any impression on folks. Of course it makes an impression on those getting blowed up. I am in the U.S. at the moment and the Americans I’m with couldn’t care less about what is about to happen. It’s life as usual.

  • Libertarian Soldier

    One right decision out of a thousand bad ideas but this one is a departure from his course! He shot off his mouth unilaterally and intended to act unilaterally, as well. The good decision is a drop back from a bad one because he’s put us in a position to back up his power drunk $#!+ talking.

    There’s nothing this pResident can do to assure a positive legacy. That talk of putting his likeness on Mt. Rushmore is no longer a consideration, not even as an ill advised, affirmative action experiment. You can’t be good for the country without massaging the meritocracy of a once free country and you certainly can’t do it while you oppress its people in every facet of their lives.

    As far as the lost trust of our allies and the respect of our adversaries, that ship has sailed and there is no bad idea that’s going to be the panacea for the destruction caused by this fairy-tale spinning ideologue.

    Using football expressions, we’re going to have to punt, on this one. There are no moral victories and we can’t even throw up a hail Mary. It’s a foregone conclusion. There’s always ‘next year’, actually, next administration.

    A really good Reagan Revolution would be most helpful but it won’t come from the might as well be democrats, Graham, McConnell or McCain.
    The democrats and republicrats are too stupid to be Constitutionally principled while we thirst for genuine leadership in this vacuous situation we call the obama administration.

    The question is, do we fire this coach and his staff, now or let them finish out the season? obama should stop failing to honestly address what he’s done or what his staff has done, under him and step aside but he won’t. If he insists on any military action, we do have to impeach him, not just for this but for the 11 or 12 articles that should be drawn against him to try and impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, most of which are high crimes. 10 Articles have already been drawn by black conservatives.

    We impeached Nixon and Clinton for far less and the three articles were basically the same article differently stated three times. Each were more egregiously violated by obama than Nixon.

    If the democrats were moral, they’d vote for at least 10 if not 14 or more.

    • Vis Fac

      There’s the rub DUMBOCRITES are AMORAL

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est
      Semper-Fi

      • Libertarian Soldier

        Libertas ab imo pectore

        Semper Fidelis

      • Dave

        But the GOP is awash in morality right Force?

    • Bill

      Good comments, soldier

      • Libertarian Soldier

        Thank you. I’ve edited the comment.

  • Moustache The First

    The Brits get it right on Syria & adherence to their parliamentary protocol & rule of law!

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/michael-savage-blasts-obama-gangbanger/

  • vicki

    even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it is a 24hr clock :)

  • Franklin Delano

    You are right Obama knows how to manipulate people . BUT There will
    be a Big surprise Come 2014 look out Congress and Senate . The People
    of this country have had enough of you and your dictator Obama . Goodby
    and good riddance .

    • vicki

      kinda hard to get rid of the people who COUNT the votes.

  • WTS/JAY

    Soldiers Speak Out On Syria…

    SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT ON SYRIA: ‘We Are Stretched Thin, Tired, And Broke’

    After President Obama said the United States “should” strike Syria during a Saturday speech in the Rose Garden, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) took to Twitter to dispute that claim with comments from those who would likely carry out that order.

    “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces,” Amash tweeted. “The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”

    While President Obama has repeatedly said there would be no “boots on the ground,” many remain fearful that limited strikes could have consequences that lead to further action.

    Here are two emails I received, and I am reprinting them here in full, only lightly edited for clarity.

    From an active-duty soldier, rank of Sergeant First Class:

    I have to say I am fairly conflicted about Syria. My logic is generally fighting itself and my personal feelings towards taking action.

    Part of me says that we need to take a stand against chemical weapons. President Obama announced that using chemicals weapons was the line, and Assad crossed it. The fact that even the French President has called for “proportional and firm action” says something. I’m not sure how the UN can stand by while Syria kills 1300 citizens, including women and children. The line was drawn, and Assad crossed it.

    But does the U.S. always have to be the one to deliver consequences? We are stretched thin, tired, and broke. My personal feeling is no. I’m more inclined to be ok with our involvement if we’re talking about actions by the Air Force and the Navy. We are too tired to put boots on the ground. But as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal tech, I know what would go into disarmament of chemical weapons. And that’s just not a job I want anything to do with. And I don’t want my Soldiers doing it. Not only is the process long and exhausting, it’s dangerous in different ways than we have been dealing with.

    My gut is telling me that we don’t need to be World Police. And if we don’t have the UN for back up, it’s just too much for us to take on. We still haven’t finished Afghanistan; I just don’t see how we can take on another war, or even military actions that don’t affect us. I can’t stand to sit by and watch innocent lives be taken in such a horrible manner, but we can’t really do this alone.

    But if we don’t do something, who will? How many more innocent people have to die before anyone else will take action?

    From former Cpl. Jack Mandaville, a Marine Corps infantry veteran with 3 deployments to Iraq:

    In mid-March of 2003, I was a 19-year-old Private First Class waiting to cross the border into Iraq. I was aware that there was a significant portion of veterans (mostly Vietnam-era) back home who were fundamentally opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Like the majority of my peers and superiors, I didn’t really care nor did I give it much thought. We just wanted our war.

    A little over 10 years later, the majority of individuals in my generation have recognized the Iraq folly for what it was. I’m still proud of my service, as are my buds, but we understand that Iraq was completely unnecessary and cost way too much money and, more importantly, American lives.

    http://topinfopost.com/2013/09/01/soldiers-speak-out-on-syria?fb_source=pubv1

    • denise0513

      The terrible part of all of this is we have no definitive proof as to WHO actually used the chemical weapons. There is too much info coming out stating it was the rebels who used it and we all know this administration only knows how to lie. Truth is not in their vocabulary. Also, this administration wants our troops to fight beside the Syrian rebels who have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda. My blood boils just to think of US troops assisting people that want Americans dead!

      • WTS/JAY

        It was obviously a false-flag…no doubt about it! I’m sure they’re working on another one as we speak. This isn’t over, not by a long shot.

      • Robbie

        Do you realize that Assad himself is being supported by Hezbollah (The Party of God [Allah])? Hezbollah wants YOU dead too.

        • Don 2

          As Sarah Palin wisely stated, “Let Allah sort it out!”

  • WTS/JAY

    Mass Graves in Phoenix: KPHO 5 News Report (High Quality)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-9X_ipf19o&feature=share

  • ONTIME

    From what I read the stats are saying that almost 80% of Americans do not want the congress to give the Faker the Okay for this scam and WTP want Trust but Verify answer for all statements…..

  • Dave

    Right call?????
    The question of striking Syria should not even be brought up. As those same warmongering conservatives like to say when obama proposes anything for the poor or middle class of this country… WE HAVE NO MONEY!!!!
    There is zero gain for the United States in interfering with Syria. No pipeline to Europe is worth any lives much less American andwhats left of our reputation.
    If any military action is to be taken, it should be taken by The Arab League or the UN and this like let China lead the military adventure…. The United States has “helped” enough.

  • Don 2

    Leon Panetta admitted last September that the U.S. lost track of chemical weapons that were in control of Syrian rebels who overran and controlled an Assad military installation.