More on the Libyan "Kinetic Military Movement"

Oh, boy---"kinetic movement" sounds like physics! I really like physics!

Oops, it's not physics....Plus I think the proper wording is now "“time-limited, scope-limited military action”, which still simply means..........war.

So, in more great news about the "kinetic military movement" in Libya----the rebel fighters, which we seem to be supporting (at the least, we appear to be against Gadaffi's forces, whether or not we can decide what to do with Gadaffi) are in cahoots with al-Qaeda.

And to make it more interesting, we may, or we may not, turn over the whole operation to NATO. Who's to know?

On the other hand, Obama seems to be trying to find a way to "meet" the rebels. The Administration apparently doesn't have a clue about the Libyan rebels. As Mr. Carney states, the Administration is "still in the process of finding out 'what their vision is, who they represent, what their ideas are and where they would take Libya in a post-Gaddafi future'".

However, we do know that the rebels are doing their own bit for killing their fellow citizens and for ethnic cleansing---black Libyans and black immigrant laborers are being killed on suspicion of working for Gadaffi (who has hired black African mercenaries in the past).

And as of yet, the President hasn't said a peep about the whole shebang.

The President's First Comments on Japan

President Obama on ESPN while discussing his NCAA picks:

"Go to usaid.gov and that’s going to list a whole range of charities where you can potentially contribute," Obama said, "I think that would be a great gesture as you’re filling out your brackets."

P.S. Other important Presidential doings the last couple of weeks: discussing bullying in schools with the First Lady, discussing education reform, and fundraising for the DNC.

War? Or Not War? What's Going On?

In all honesty, I'm not sure if we need to be in Libya.

But I am concerned that this act of war has not at all been well thought out by President Obama.

Mr. Obama states that we are at war "enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people." See the speech here.

In effect, we have sent men and women into war based on what the United Nations deems important--not what our President or Congress determines is in the interest of the United States.

Obama also states he is acting on behalf of the United States.

So, why have we waited so long? If protecting Libyan citizens is so important, why have we waited until thousands have been killed by Gadaffi?

Next, what is the aim of this war? Previously, Obama stated Gadaffi had to go. Now, Admiral Mullins, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states, "This is--certainly the goals of this campaign right now again are limited, and it isn't, it isn't about seeing him go. It's about supporting the United Nations resolution, which talked to limiting or eliminating the--his ability to kill his own people."

I guess as long as the killing stops, Gadaffi gets to stay in power--to continue the genocide at some time in the future?

Obama also seems confused about the desired end results of this campaign. While denying that he wants any "regime change", Obama stated in a phone call to Turkey that he had the

"goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system."

Sounds like regime changing to me.

Oh, and by the way, we're "not at war", according to the White House.

What Happened to "Separation of Church and State"?

I know, I know---separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. So how come Sharia law (religious law par excellence) is okay?

The Constitution states that the government cannot create a state religion. Everyone can freely pursue his or her own religious beliefs without coercion from the government.

However, this little statement from Jefferson's writings has been used repeatedly over the years to make sure the Ten Commandments aren't posted in courthouses, schools celebrate "Winter Holidays" instead of Christmas, manger scenes aren't allowed on government property, etc., etc., etc.....

In Florida, a judge, Richard Nielsen, has ruled that a dispute over mosque property should be resolved using Sharia law.

I've been following this for several days, wondering exactly what was going on. Were the opponents wanting to go to arbitration under sharia law? What was up?

In fact, at least one party feels that the legal wrangling should be solved using Florida state law. It is the JUDGE who is insisting on the use of Islamic religious law over state or federal law!

Planned Parenthood--Should It Be Defunded?

I found an interesting note on a blog, decrying the fact that the House of Representatives has voted to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Apparently this lady has used PP in the past for medical care. PP does provide medical care to women. As do many other city, county and state clinics. However, Planned Parenthood does much more. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, performing about 1/3 of all abortions in the US. While PP claims that abortions comprise only 3% of their services, PP counts every visit before and after an abortion as a "separate" service. In fact, about 10% of patients receive an abortion. Moreover, this does NOT include the almost one and half million "emergency contraception kits"---of which some number of those "kits" aborted a baby. PP's budget is over 1 billion dollars, and about 1/3 of that budget comes from taxpayers. Also, PP in 2008 made a profit of $85 million dollars, mostly due to abortion. Yet American taxpayers have not wanted taxpayer funded abortions. That's why the Hyde Amendment has repeatedly been voted on to keep at least some federal dollars from going to abortion. Plus, Planned Parenthood doesn't have the greatest track record as far as political correctness. It was begun by Margaret Sanger as a method of eugenics--that is, a way to abort (in her mind) less desirable black and brown babies. As Sanger said, " We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." In general, Sanger didn't seem to like babies at all, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it," nor marriage, "The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order." Most recently, several PP workers, from around the country, were videotaped blatently ignoring that obvious 'pimps' were asking for abortion services for underage girls. In fact, more than one offered to help provide reproductive services for girls brought from other countries illegally and to help with taxes and other needs. These videos prompted Congress' vote to defund Planned Parenthood. And there's more. Planned Parenthood opposes notification of parents of a daughter's abortion, something most Americans stand for. It also provides very sexually explicit sex curriculum, which most Americans stand against. So, you decide. Should your tax dollars support Planned Parenthood?

While Rome Burns....

Or while the world goes to pieces.

A brief rant---------

Mr. Obama, just a note--you would be taken sooooooo much more seriously if you would just act like you cared.

Cut the parties, for example, like the recent ones at the White House (Super Bowl party in February, the Motown music extravaganza February 24th, and the huge Governor's Dinner where you fed thousands of calories to everyone).

Do a little work at the White House--instead of golfing, basketball, and fundraising dinners around the country.

Say something useful about the economy--which is going to hell in a handbasket, with rising gasoline prices, rising food prices, and continuing high unemployment.

Be honest--I don't much care about your birth certificate, but your continued intransigence about this (and your grades, and your upbringing, and your time with Jeremiah Wright) in not giving this information marks you as a liar.

Get your wife out of the government--First Ladies can certainly have causes, but that doesn't extend to trying to get legislation passed and strong-arming businesses. Besides, when it's-do-as-I-say, not do-as-I-do, the cause becomes really insipid and weak. Mrs. Obama needs to find somthing she really believes in.

Addendums:

Stop playing and get busy--Brew your own beer when you get out of the White House. Right now it's time to work, not play.

Start being a little economically reasonable in your (more) private life--You really don't need to fly in your own personal trainer from Chicago, or your favorite chefs from around the country. It's you that insists the country tightens its belts. How about leading by example?

Rant over.

President Obama: The New Arbiter of Constitutionality

There are lots of arguments, both pro and con, about President Obama's declaration that DOMA is unconstitutional.

P. S. This is my very amateur take on whether the President has acted legally or not. And please understand that I am not commenting on DOMA per se, but on President Obama's decision and his demand that the Department of Justice not defend the law.

One argument is that a president does have the right to question the constitutionality of a law. It has (rarely) been done by past presidents, as some legal pundits insist. The case that I found touted was Myers versus the United States under President Wilson. President Wilson had not followed a law that he, as President, must ask the Senate for permission to fire a postmaster. He just went ahead and fired Mr. Myers. This Supreme Court decision upheld President Wilson's action and allowed presidents to fire people he had previously appointed. Many claim that this decision implies that a President can make decisions on the constitutionality of laws that have been passed.

However, I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning here.

Others argue that President Obama's decision not to enforce DOMA is a completely new idea and an usurption of the Constitution. Here's Orin Kerr's words on the practical considerations, "The new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent constitutional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case — in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues — and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major institutional player with a great deal of discretion." http://volokh.com/2011/02/23/the-executive-power-grab-in-the-decision-not-to-defend-doma/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29

Others argue that this instance is completely different from previous examples of a President not defending a law. At other times the Justice Deparment refused to act to defend a law, it was because there was a lack of "reasonable legal arguments." Thus, even though the President may question the constitutionality of a particular law, the Justice Department has traditionally decided whether or not it could effectively argue the case. The President did not tell the Department of Justice what to do. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/obama-drops-pretense-administration-will-not-defend-doma/

In this instance, there is not a lack of legal arguments.

And, the President in my humble opinion is overstepping his authority.

Most of all, this is cheap political trick to try and get votes. Politics have no place in deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.