AP PHOTO

AP PHOTO

BY DANNY DE GRACIA II – During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama famously said in countless speeches that as a professor of constitutional law, he not only knew the law, but would uphold it. In a 2007 candidate survey with the Boston Globe, Obama informed readers that:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States … History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

But when Obama committed U.S. Navy units to carry out suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) alpha strikes and combat air patrols over Libya last weekend, where was the textbook-savvy professor? Far from first seeking a vote from Congress, the President based his entire justification for military operations on the United Nations Security Council resolution S/RES/1973 (2011) and did not even permit so much as the space for committee or Floor debate. This action by the Obama Administration has effectively made the United States military a tool for globalists and their Commander-in-Chief a puppet of the United Nations.

Even the most ardent neoconservative advocate of a hyperactive foreign policy must come to grips with the fact that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically states that “The Congress shall have Power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War.” It’s important to remember that Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States, not Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Shock And Awe

What is shocking about America’s third expeditionary conflict of the 21st century is that both a large number of Democrats who opposed George W. Bush’s use of military force in Iraq and Republicans who currently oppose Barack Obama’s energy, environment and healthcare policies on constitutional grounds are in a state of near-worshipful awe of the President’s military action in Libya. In other words, both the left and right would have us believe that the Constitution only applies in instances where we want it to apply. Said another way, all the “constitutional talk” is just a party food fight.

But here’s where it gets really interesting: from office watercoolers to cocktail parties our ears are now daily filled with vivid stories of how Qaddafi is a brutal dictator who tortures, imprisons and unjustly oppresses his people to remain in power. Qaddafi, we are told “must be taken out.” But isn’t it also true that the United States Government uses extraordinary rendition / “snatch and grab” (kidnapping), enhanced interrogation (torture), data mining (warrantless surveillance), military tribunals (rigged show trials) and not the least of which, puts its hands down the pants of airport travelers all in the name of “national security”?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! If you ask me, the only difference between Libyans and Americans is that Libyans don’t have a two-party system to diffuse their anger with the perceptive illusion of choice, and that is why they are revolting. Ludwig von Mises warns in Omnipotent Government: Rise of the Total State and Total War that “The truth is that we face a degeneration of a whole society and not an evil limited to some parts of it.”

Do we really need to defend Libya’s revolution while America’s revolution for independence from foreign powers and preservation of private property and personal choice languishes? Libya did not attack the United States. Mr. President, it’s time to recall the fighters, turn the ships and turn away from the Dark Side.

Comments

comments