In Obamaland, UN Security Council Authorizes Use of Amercian Troops

In 2002, Congress authorized military intervention in Iraq.  Because the UN was less supportive, Bush was derided for acting unilaterally.

In 2011, the UN authorized military intervention in Libya.  Even though Congressional approval was not sought or received, Obama is praised for acting multilaterally.

My conclusion - UN approval is more important than Congressional approval for a fairly large segment of the American population.

Yikes!!! 

I don't like double standards.  I try to avoid using them.  They serve no real purpose other than justifying incoherent judgements.  That said, I'm sure to be accused of using one when I say that President Obama's use of force in Libya is wrong while Bush's action in Iraq was right.  But don't judge me too soon, lest you look foolish.

I judge such matters by the level of agreement between the executive and the legislative branches.  I read the news and I try to stay informed.  But I'll never have as much information as our nation's elected leaders.  Asking me whether military action is justified in certain circumstances is like asking me to second guess Tony Larussa's use of the St. Louis Cardinal's pitching staff.  In one situation, it may be a no-brainer, but in another, only someone in Tony's position has all the information to make that call.

When the President sees the need to use military force, it is his duty to seek authorization from Congress to act.  Due to the modern nature of military activities, the authorization to use force has become the equivalent of a Declaration of War.  If the President and Congress then agree that military action is the correct move, then who am I to disagree?  If I do disagree, then I can seek to change that in the voting booth.

Occasionally, action must immediately be taken in our nation's defense.  Under such circumstances, I want the President to act first, then seek to justify his actions before Congress as soon as possible and seek authorization for any continuation of military operations.

Bush's action was not correct because I agreed with him.  It was correct because Congress agreed with him.  Obama's is wrong for the same reason.  Congress could have debated and voted on an authorization in less time than it took to pass a resolution at the UN.  Obama has offered no excuse for bypassing Congress.

It's not as if timeliness was an issue.  He supposedly changed his mind on the use of force sometime Tuesday, but no action took place before Friday.  Congress declared War on Japan and Germany in less time after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What is worse is that even if timeliness was an issue prior to the use of force, it is not delaying him from seeking a declaration now.  But is he doing that?  No, he left town for South America.  That is wrong and unconstitutional.

Whether he feels that Congress would support action or not, he must seek its approval.  Because he has not sought such, it can only be assumed that Obama considers that the UN resolution is an adequate authorization for military action.  Congress cannot let such a precedent stand.

Our military intervention in Libya may be the correct action for the US.  But then again, it may not.  Obama has decided it is.  Now that he has put the military in harm's way, he has my support; but not my faith.  He'll have that when he seeks and receives an authorization for his actions; not from other nation's leaders, but from our nation's leaders.

It's time for Congress to reassert its authority by debating and voting on this military action.  To allow the President to supplant Congressional authority with the UN Security Council's would set us on a course that may soon jeopardize our sovereignty.

On DOMA, Obama Seeks A Stalemate From His Zugzwang

In declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional,  President Obama is not declaring war on the executive branch's constitutional role as envisioned by the founders.  While his move is definitely an unusual gambit as he seeks a stalemate between his previous position on gay marriage and what many suspect his real position may be, the real crime is his contradictory actions following his decision.  As a result, he has backed himself in a corner and gave conservatives an open door to ending judicial activism.

In chess, a zugzwang refers to a position where one is forced to make an undesirable move.  A stalemate occurs when one player's King is not in check but he has no available move to make that would not put his King in check.  When a player finds that he has been maneuvered into a zugzwang, his best move will often be to play for a stalemate in order to obtain a draw.  One danger in this maneuver is that the player must be aware of all possibilities, otherwise he further place himself into the zugzwang.  President Obama has chosen to play for the stalemate. 

In running for President, candidate Obama stated his opposition to legalizing gay marriage.  Despite his repeated statements supporting this position, it has endlessly been speculated that it did not reflect his true feelings on the matter.  If, and I will say if, in fact President Obama has always been a closet gay marriage supporter, he must find a path that enables him to fess up.  But he must do so without seeming like the liar so many hoped he was.  If this seems troubling, read my last statement again.  His supporters hoped that the President of the United States was lying to them; and many assumed it.  This is his zugzwang. 

#snOMG! Snow Day Civics Test

Take this quick test.

1)      The USA has what type of government?

2)      Prior to passage of the 17^th amendment, who elected Senators?

3)      Who elects your United States Representative?

4)      Who elects the President?

5)      Are you willing to brave the ice and snow to meet your mail carrier at the street?  How much is too much to even consider it?

As events in the Middle East develop, you will hear some disputes regarding democracy in Egypt.  Recently, I heard Chris Matthews say that because of Bush’s freedom agenda, the right should be embracing what is taking place.  But it’s not necessarily as easy as Chris makes it sound.  Democracy without the proper safeguards is a bit like welding without a face shield.  It's a quick way to put something together, but it may blow up in your face.

Our founders were fearful of (direct) democracy.  Democracy in action can be a powder keg because the passion of the masses burns hot.  Have you ever found yourself in a large crowd doing something you would never do in a small group such as yelling, dancing, singing, and booing or maybe even, while under the influence you found yourself becoming violent.  In those moments, we lose ourselves and refrain from using our impulse control.  Our individuality is sacrificed to the group.

As our government was discussed and formed, the founders sought to add buffers and protections to balance the various groups. A democratic republic (answer 1) would be the form, loosely based on the British system which was composed of a King, a House of Lords and a House of Commons.  The “king” in our government would be the president who would be elected by a group of chosen electors, the Electoral College (answer 3).  The House of Lords would become our Senate, whose members would be chosen by the state legislatures (answer 2) and represent the individual states in the Federal Government.  The House of Commons would become our House of Representatives, which would be each citizen’s most direct line to the Federal Government since they were directly elected by the voters (answer 4).

The founders chose to create a government with three branches.  The two houses would form the legislative branch; the president would lead the executive branch, with a judiciary comprising the third branch.  This three branched government with a bi-cameral legislature formed from out of so many states, a structured set of checks and balances was provided in order to maintain the ability to govern in an orderly and peaceful manner.

The checks and balances were a necessary component to prevent tyranny on one hand and anarchy on the other.  Unfortunately, the 17^th amendment to the US Constitution in 1913 ended the election of Senators by the legislatures and they are now directly elected by the voters in each state.  This has removed the individual states participation in the federal government and allowed the Federal Government to run roughshod over the states.

By the way, here are your answers in case you missed them earlier.

1)      Democratic Republic

2)      The state legislatures

3)      The constituents of each House district

4)      The Electoral College

5)      Please post your response to this question in the comments section below.

So now we come back to Egypt and the call for democracy.  The fear among many is that Egypt does not have the proper liberal cultural base for democracy and the people may be sacrificed to the masses.  How will democracy exist in the absence of any check on the leadership?  There are many democratic elections held all over the world where the people have no liberty.  Often the leaders, once elected and without restraint, wield that power mercilessly in suppressing opposition.  Even in Egypt, sham elections are held to give the false pretense of democracy.  Our diplomats spent many months and years helping Iraq form a government with its own checks and balances to better ensure the durability of their democracy.  In Iran and Cuba, we can see that massing together in revolt does not necessarily end in democracy.

As we see the masses in Cairo protesting for a new government, we must remember that without the virtues of our system, a democratic Egypt may provide liberty, but how long can they suppress its vices before the people find themselves under another tyranny?  It is not in the United State’s interest to see a friendly, secular tyrant replaced with an un-friendly, Islamist tyrant.