Donald Trump is a Bully and Should be Impeached

Neutral Evil:"..neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by the so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything. neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves."

The above is the definition of the neutral evil" alignment philosophy and ethos from the Player's Handbook of Dungeons and Dragons, a role playing game I used to love when I was younger. It also happens to be an almost perfect description of President Trump. He has no real interest in law or freedom. He could care less about conflicts between law and order or freedom and individual rights. The only thing he cares about is his own interest above all. You may have seen that President Trump is refusing to turn over his tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee despite the fact that the law is crystal clear that the Committee--that is to say Congress can review anyone's tax returns for any reason they like--including those of the President.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin must enjoy irony. He penned a letter to Democrats on the House Ways & Means Committee threatening to refuse their request to see the President’s tax returns. The letter asserts that the Committee’s stated reasons for viewing the returns — among other things, verifying that the President wasn’t using his leadership of the executive branch for his own benefit — were mere pretext for their true, purely partisan motive. This, he said, was a reason he could refuse the request. At almost the same hour, the administration’s lawyers were arguing before the Supreme Court that possible partisan motivations were no reason to set aside a proposed citizenship question in the upcoming U.S. census.

NRA Gun Ad Attacking Obama

I don't have any deep analysis here. I just want to know what do you think of this new NRA advertisement. Slate writer Matt Yglesias tweeted that he was
"Pretty comfortable saying that the president’s children are in fact more important than yours"

What do you think?

Allen West and Black Conservatives

You may have heard about the tiff between Representative Allen West (R-Florida) and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.(D-Florida) If not you can read about it here.  In short , DWS criticized West's support for Medicare cuts, given the high number of seniors living in his district and West went ballistic, firing off this email.

From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!
I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior......which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!
Steadfast and Loyal
Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

Now this is pretty pathetic because it shows among other things that West is incapable of taking criticism without reacting personally. It was pretty over the top behavior for someone who is supposed to be a cool calm leader. But ok. Congress has seen worse. But West wasn't done of course. He went on the Mark Levin radio show where he saw fit to drop these words of wisdom.

The thing that really most aggravates me is that there's this double standard in that the people on the hard left can continue to attack conservatives -- and especially minority conservatives and female conservatives. But yet when all of a sudden you stand up and say you will not tolerate this any more, then they claim to be a victim, which I find to be absolutely laughable...People who are black conservatives — I grew up in the inner city, strong values, came from a strong military family and background — (and) what we do is we totally invalidate the liberal social welfare policies and programs...“I’m a threat because I’m the guy that got off of their 21st Century plantation. And they cannot afford to have a strong voice such as mine out there reverberating and resonating across this country. And even more so, they’re not used to anyone that says ‘I’m going to fight back against you.’ That is absolutely reprehensible to them.

Whoa....wait a minute there Nat Turner.
Aren't the defining characteristics of Black conservatives supposed to be personal responsibility and a belief that racism either no longer exists or is so small as to be not worth bothering about? I mean that isn't what we hear all day every day from such conservative icons as Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Ken Hamblin, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell and others?
Hmm. Ok I guess I get it now. I really do.

• If you have to wait six years for a promotion that whites get in three...
• If you have discovered that you earn less than some whites with worse education....
• If you constantly have your work checked and double checked for mistakes you never made..
• If you have a sneaking suspicion that you're never in the room when the really important decisions are made at work...
• If you can't get a business loan despite having a great plan, great credit and great assets but see that whites get one despite having less of these requirements
• If you are stopped and harassed by the police because the car you drive is too nice...
• If it takes you a year or more to find work after being laid off because interviewers have a different response to seeing you in person than hearing you on the phone...
• If homes for sale or rent are suddenly "taken" when you show up to look at them
• If you are turned away from a club or restaurant because there are already enough people that look like you inside
• If you are a little irritated and concerned about pictures of the President as a pimp, a witchdoctor or an ape being seen as humorous by certain elements in society
• If you move into a neighborhood and like mushrooms "For sale" signs start popping up
• If you are driving with a white friend and are stopped by the police because they are concerned for the white friend's safety...

then obviously you just need to work harder my friend and stop whining. Being Black has NOTHING to do with your issues. Man up!!! Stop being a crybaby!!!!

But if you are a Black Conservative and someone disagrees with you, well OBVIOUSLY they're only doing it because you're Black. Those racist so-and-so's!!!! The nerve of them slavemasters!!!! And you should definitely go ahead and use offensive and charged references to lynchings and plantations.  Let the chips fall where they may because simply disagreeing with your ideas is JUST LIKE whipping escaped slaves. Oh the humanity!!!!

Whether it's Herman Cain claiming Jon Stewart mocked him because he's Black or Clarence Thomas referring to "high tech lynchings" or the ubiquitous black conservative references to "democratic plantations" or comparing some social program or discussion as being just like slavery, black conservatives too often use racially charged language both as a sword to attack their rivals and as a shield to prevent legitimate debate. Most disgustingly the ONLY time Black conservatives ever even appear to consider the possibility that racism still exists is when someone criticizes them or opposes them politically. Victimology powers! Activate!!!!!

And I hate to break it to West or Cain or any of the other clowns that traffic in this stuff but guess what? Your family wasn't the only black family to deal with slavery, segregation, discrimination, etc. Millions of other black families throughout the diaspora did as well. So let's stop pretending like you did everything by yourself. Black people in 2011 America are in a better position than we were in 1951 America precisely because many Black (and other) people struggled and died.

And that brings me to the final point. Look I myself have some conservative ideas on some issues. There are indeed honorable conservatives of all backgrounds. I think they're wrong on most things but people can agree to disagree. 

The problem with Professional Black Conservatives is that they are usually used (or in some cases disgustingly eager) to give cover to the most rancid reactionary right wing views, often (IMO) because they have personal issues to work through. Many Professional Black Conservatives have little interest in attracting black people to the conservative side of the aisle. Rather their primary concern appears to be buck dancing for white conservatives and assuring these white conservatives that racism is long gone. Making comparisons to slavery on EVERY FREAKING ISSUE that comes up or running for martyr status anytime someone offers criticism won't attract black people to your cause. It would work just as well as a Jewish conservative constantly telling Jews that supporting (insert social program or idea here) is like taking the fast train to Auschwitz or that Jewish liberals are like kapos at Treblinka while Jewish conservatives have escaped the Democratic death camp. It insults my intelligence and makes me very angry....

QUESTIONS:

What's your take?

Was West out of line?

Is it possible for everyone (black/white/left/right) to tone down and/or remove slavery metaphors and comparisons from modern political debate?

International Treaties and Texas

Humberto Leal Garcia

Texas has given us a lot of good things:  Albert Collins. James Lee Burke. Freddie King.  ZZ Top. Cornell Dupree.  Barbara Jordan.

Texas has also given us a justice system that makes it very clear that if you do the crime you most definitely are gonna do the time. Texas has no issue with the death penalty. Since the death penalty was allowed again, Texas has executed more people than anywhere else. Texas also has a reputation for not really seeming to care too much about that whole dotting the i's and crossing the t's thingie when it comes to getting convictions. 

Humberto Leal Garcia was convicted of raping and murdering a 16 year old girl. Her name was Adria Sauceda. She was kidnapped, raped, sodomized, and finally bludgeoned to death with a hunk of asphalt. 


Now, 17 yrs after her death, Leal is due to be executed for that crime. In the meantime he has discovered that he is a Mexican citizen and evidently didn't talk to his consular before his trial and conviction. This is required under international law. But during the Bush Administration, faced with a similar case, in Medellin v. Texas, the SC has ruled that absent a law from Congress the US government can't tell Texas what to do on this issue. 

Apparently the Feds are all hat, no cattle when it comes to Texas. Leal has also claimed that he was molested by a Catholic priest. The Catholic Church has added its voice to those calling for a stay of execution. You can read Leal's pov here. But Texas Governor Perry doesn't seem inclined to stay or commute the sentence. So absent a miracle, on July 7 Leal will be executed. The blog members hashed this out and as usual everyone had different opinions. Mine is pretty apparent so I'll skip that.

GrandCentral said this:
As a nation we have a moral obligation, to honor our commitments and lead by example. When an American citizen commits a crime abroad, it is not only presumed, but often demanded that the individual be given adequate legal representation and access to the US Embassy. The United States should respectfully extend the same courtesy to any individual who is convicted of a crime here. 

Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two American journalists, were convicted of illegally entering North Korea and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. According to the North Korean government, they committed a crime. Their families along with the US State Department,  pleaded with the North Koreans and demanded their release. We cannot expect fair treatment of our citizens abroad, when we don't extend the same courtesy to citizens of other nations.


The Janitor pointed out:
When it comes to criminal laws of a state, the feds are pretty much powerless to intervene with the sovereignty of a state's internal judicial process.  You violate a law of the state, the state has jurisdiction over you.  The feds can't intervene UNLESS there is some constitutional violation, in which case the feds can overturn state convictions.  That's the general rule.

This case presents a rare exception where international law may apply.  Things get tricky once you start talking about conventions and treaties and whatnot.

"While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-984.ZS.html
And in this case, Congress has not implemented any statutes implementing the Vienna Convention.  In fact, in 2005 the U.S. opted out of the convention's international court provision that would have allowed the international court to decide whether or not a Mexican like the guy in this case should be able to overturn his conviction by Texas state law. So is the US a party to this treaty?  Yes.  Is it binding on the States? No, thanks to the SCOTUS.

However, even if it isn't LEGALLY binding on the states, Texas should realize there is an internationally political aspect here that is bigger than the wishes of one state to execute one person.   If we execute this guy, as much as he may deserve to be executed, then we are basically giving other countries the green light to disregard our rights to consult with our embassies overseas whenever we get in trouble. Texas needs to be a team player here, but somehow I doubt they will.


The Fed stated:

This is where I DISAGREE with the SCOTUS... State law is NOT Supreme law in this country! HOWEVER, along with the constitution, treaties and international agreements are.  This isn't an issue of State's Rights vs Fed's Rights.  States HAVE NO RIGHTS on this issue.  They should stop trying to force their make believe rights. The US signed an agreement that said XYZ.  PERIOD.  As a result, Texas can't decide it doesn't want to follow that law. What good are treaties if states don't have to follow?

QUESTIONS:
Is this impending execution problematic? If so, why?

Should Congress pass a law preventing state executions where there's a conflict with a treaty?

Is an execution that takes place 17 yrs after the crime any sort of deterrent?
Should the Administration seek other ways to pressure Texas absent a bill from Congress?

President Obama Press Conference: Opening Statement

It’s a sad day in the United States when we have a Congress that refuses to do its job and the President has to take to a podium to remind them how to do it. The President seemed slightly forceful in his delivery and sure that a deal would be reached regarding the raising of the debt ceiling.



Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the Congress is having a misguided debate? Why are we re-debating the budget, wasn’t this resolved in April? To the average American who doesn’t subscribe to the hocus pocus math that the GOP is trying to feed us, it’s simple - raise revenue, reduce the debt. Why can’t they understand the simple concept of mathematics? If you have a 9% unemployment rate, you have less people paying federal, state and local taxes. The economy is not a result of the deficit, the deficit is a result of the economy. We should not be talking about the deficit right now, we should be increasing revenue to the treasury and putting people back to work.

More people working = More people paying taxes / More people paying taxes = More revenue to the Treasury / More revenue to the Treasury = Lowering the deficit = The possibility for the heinous tax cuts that the GOP is so married to

This Congress promised the American people an economic recovery. They began their session in January and have done NOTHING to promote that recovery. The President listed a number of options that are currently being held up in Congress. A bill to make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea, a bill to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding roads and bridges through loans to private companies, states and local governments, a bill fixing our trade agreements to allow American businesses to sell more goods and services to Asia and South America, and a bill further extending the middle class tax cuts an additional year. All things the President says he is ready to sign immediately should Congress send them to his desk.

Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


Part 6:



Is the debate around the deficit a legitimate debate?
Is Congress broken?
What do you think the Congress should do to further progress the recovery?

Secure Communities and States' Rights

Many people who are pro-comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) usually get very upset when some states create laws which seek to identify illegal immigrants and turn them over for processing and presumed deportation by the Federal government.

The normal complaint by CIR partisans is that the states have no right legislating on immigration issues, that such things are the sole purview of the federal government and that to let states attempt to even address the state specific portions of this national problem, (increased costs for schools and hospitals, business licensing revocation, etc) is tantamount to accepting a "states' rights" constitutional interpretation with the negative baggage that such a charge implies. Federal Supremacy is the mantra of this group They tell us that only the Federal government has the authority to act. The states have NO BUSINESS attempting to preempt the Federal government, enforce federal law on immigration or resist Federal rules on immigration. What the Feds say or do goes. They are the Big Dogs on this issue.

So imagine my surprise when some states with more CIR-friendly governors or senators, gave a great deal of criticism and finally open resistance to the Federal Secure Communities Program. This is a program which mandated that states share fingerprints of arrested people with the FBI , which runs criminal background checks and shares the fingerprints with DHS/ICE for immigration violations. Massachusetts, Illinois and New York all announced that they would no longer participate in the Secure Communities program. In this they were supported and cheered on by the New York Times, which atypically wrote an ode to states rights.

Add Massachusetts to the groundswell of states and localities opposing President Obama’s misconceived and failing immigration dragnet.

Gov. Deval Patrick announced on Monday that his state would not participate in Secure Communities, the fingerprint-sharing program that the Obama administration wants to impose nationwide by 2013. Gov. Andrew Cuomo halted New York’s involvement last week. Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois rejected it last month. They join a long list of elected officials, Congress members and law-enforcement professionals who want nothing to do with the program for the simple reason that it does more harm than good.

What these states’ actions mean, practically speaking, is unclear. States like New York signed contracts with the Department of Homeland Security to enter Secure Communities, and now the administration insists that they must participate. If they send suspects’ fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal checks — as states must and will continue to do routinely — then the F.B.I. will share that data with the Department of Homeland Security. There is no way to opt out.
We’ll see about that. The idea that the federal government can commandeer states’ resources for its enforcement schemes seems ripe for legal challenge.

WOW. Imagine that.  A state refusing to assist in enforcing and obeying Federal Law. Isn't this the EXACT sort of thing that the NYT and pro-CIR partisans normally get rather rabid about? This is the same NYT that previously wrote about Arizona: (emphasis added)

And although appeals are certain, Judge Susan Bolton offered clear and well-reasoned arguments affirming the federal government’s final authority over immigration enforcement.

Now the NYT writes "We'll see about that"? and "..ripe for legal challenge"? Who wrote this editorial, Lester Maddox? What are the reasons given for supporting this state rebellion on immigration enforcement? Was it some sort of liberal appeal to the 10th Amendment? A new found appreciation for a weak central government? A sudden attack of Jeffersonian principles?

No.

The reason that some states were getting upset and finally refused to comply was that the program was actually working!!! People that had no legal right to be in the United States were being identified and processed for deportation-in accordance with Federal law. Some of these people were dangerous violent felons. Some weren't. But none of them had any right to be in the US. Period. The correct and legally authorized consequence is for the unlawful resident to be deported back to his country of origin. There can be no question that the Federal government has the right and the authority to do this.

However the Administration for what appear to be political reasons not so surprisingly sought a way to soften and maybe even neuter its own successful program. ICE director John Morton, released a memo reminding prosecutors and agents of their "discretion". Among other things that should be considered before detention or deportation were such things as:

• the circumstances of the person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child

• the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States

• whether the person, or the person's immediate relative,has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat

• the person's ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships

The problem is that these qualifications look rather suspiciously like what was just voted down in the failed Dream Act. So this could be a stealth Dream Act, done administratively rather than via law.

There are costs to illegal immigration. I'm sure that several illegal immigrants are hardworking people just trying to make a better life for themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that the US simply can not accept everyone who would like to live in this country. There are over one billion people in the world that live on less than $1.25/day. Neither the US nor any other developed country can allow all of those people to enter, and certainly not without permission. And permission is what is key here.

Most people have some compassion. But few people would allow someone to enter their house without consent, set up shop and then shriek of injustice if you tried to force them out. That's the death of law. The states that are resisting Secure Communities don't appear to recognize the Federal right to control and regulate immigration. To quote my blog mate The Janitor* 

"States can't preempt federal programs.  At most they can refuse to take federal dollars altogether but for programs which are specifically executed by the federal government, a state cannot block those initiatives"

This shows me that at least some of the politicians, activists and media personalities that were caustically opposed to state initiatives on immigration didn't really care about federalism so much as they cared about stopping deportations. If people really want open borders and unlimited immigration and no deportations they should say so.

*The use of this quote should most definitely not be taken to mean that The Janitor agrees with this post. I just thought it was a really cool quote to use... LOL

What say you?

Is Secure Communities a good idea?

Should States be able to resist or opt out of Federal anti-illegal immigration programs?

Were the States of Illinois, New York and Massachusetts correct to protest that too many non-violent illegal immigrants were being identified and proccessed for deportation?

What's your solution to this issue?

Libya War: Constitutional or Not?



You don't look like who you say you are



"Just trust me."

People may accept those words from a spouse or loved one. But when it comes to business, to the parts of our lives that are not experienced under an umbrella of mutual intimacy, people are less trusting. Few would accept those words from someone on the other side of the negotiating table, a used car dealer, a boss or rival at work, or a political leader.

And yet that is what President Obama is asking the US citizenry to do. The President has claimed that he thought very long and hard before committing to intervening in the war against Libya. Well, bully for him. How wonderful that he is a thoughtful, deliberative man.

Problem is as Kucinich and several other political leaders have pointed out, it's not HIS decision to make.

There are three major arguments to make against this war-constitutional, pragmatic and political. I think the constitutional one is the strongest so that is where I will start. I will also briefly address some of the common counterarguments. The one argument that I won't address is that other people did it too. That doesn't work when someone is charged with bank robbery and it shouldn't apply here.

Constitutional

The US Constitution is clear on this. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war.

Obama, as a candidate, said this to the Boston Globe.

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: "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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Of course like many other people, he changed his mind once HE was the person in charge. If we accept this it shows that despite our protestations to the contrary we really don't want a constitutional republic. This is dangerous. A major pillar of this 200 year+ experiment in separation of powers is that war is simply too dangerous and too seductive to be left to just one man.

A cursory glance through history shows us that monarchs, dictators and other autocrats have launched wars for bad reasons. Queen Bigmouth doesn't like it when Duchess Roundheels shows up at the ball in the same dress. Duke Dodohead takes offense when he loses at billiards to King Stinkybottom. Prince Greedygut is personally offended that the Baron Greasythumb is giving refuge to religious heretics that the Prince is repressing. And so wars break out. The people that start these wars are rarely the people doing the fighting or dying. That is a big part of the reason that the Founding Fathers decided that if war was indeed determined to be necessary at the very least the people, via their elected representatives in Congress, should be the ones to say yea or nay.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and does have, in the case of invasion or imminent attack, the ability to defend the nation and do what is necessary to repel the attackers. This is simply not the case with Libya. Libya did not attack the United States nor is it in a state of war with the United States. So for the President of the United States to attack Libya without a Congressional declaration or war or even a fig leaf of a resolution is unconstitutional.

There are two objections to this conclusion (a) the President is acting under UN authority and aegis so that makes it legal and (b) the President still has time to consult with Congress under the War Powers Act so quit your complaining.

The UN argument is unconvincing. Treaties or other international agreements do not replace the US Constitution.

The UNPA (United Nations Participation Act) makes this exceedingly clear

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

 

In short, Congress still must approve US armed forces being used , whether it is an UN operation or not. As several Congressmen and Congresswomen have heatedly noted, the President consulted with just about everyone EXCEPT Congress. That's just not good enough. If US citizens want the President to have the constitutional authorization to commit troops to UN approved wars without the approval of the US Congress, if they want the UN security council to be a higher authority for the US than the US Congress, they are of course free to propose, fight for and pass a constitutional amendment stating just that. Until then I say Obama's actions are unconstitutional. And yes I would say that about any President.

We joined the UN under extremely specific guidelines designed to ensure the primacy of the US Constitution. The UN Security Council can not be used to do an end-run around possible Congressional opposition. Just because we joined does not indicate acceptance of UN supremacy over US law.

The War Powers Act argument doesn't really hold water either as far I can see. To quote another representative:

"The president has violated the War Powers Resolution," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. Lofgren read the 1973 law aloud in a telephone interview from San Jose. It allows three instances when the president can use force: "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
"Have any of those things happened?" Lofgren asked.

Pragmatic

No one knows how this war will end. It could be over tomorrow. It could drag on.  I do not pretend to be able to see the future or have any information that the blog readers or blog partners don't have. I do know this though. We don't know who the opposition is. We know that many Libyans-especially those in the opposition- are taking this opportunity to rob, harass, assault or do worse to Black immigrants (legal or not) in Libya. Remember that the current hostility we have with Iran dates back to the 1953 coup. The blowback to that is still going on. The same can be said of the really dumb intervention in the Lebanese civil war of the early eighties. We ought to mind our own business.

Political

It is possible, even likely that the US Congress is just making noise for the sake of making noise. Republicans have generally said Obama waited too long to go to war while several Democrats are rushing to Obama's defense. Congress en masse is disgustingly eager to give away the big decisions to the Executive Branch. But there still a few Congressmen/women with fire in their bellies who will not automatically roll over and fetch just because the President tells them to do so. And depending on how long this war takes, Obama's base may be so disheartened that that they stay home in 2012. 2010 may have been a preview of that. If no matter who you vote for, you get more war then something has gone drastically wrong with our system.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

-James Madison

So what's your call? Is this war against Libya constitutional?  Are you bothered that he did not even consult with let alone get permission from Congress? Are you satisfied with Obama's explanation or not? Will your opinion change if this is a quick action ("days not weeks") as the President has said? Do you think any blowback will arrive from this? Do you want more interventions overseas?

The Politics of Repealing Health Care

Back in November we ran a piece on the mechanics of Repealing Health Care Reform which basically concluded that there are only 3 ways to repeal this new law:  (i) Congress can pass a bill which repeals this bill (in part or in whole); (ii) the Courts can declare the law unconstitutional; or (iii) Congress can "starve" the law by refusing to vote for its funding.  Of the three, we figured that the most realistic form of actions for Republicans determined to "repeal" the law would be #3 - starve it - as they likely do not have the votes in either house to actually do a flat out repeal of the law.  But now that the New Republican-lead Congress is in session, a new question is being posed by the American public with respect to repealing the Health Care Reform law - "Why?"  As in, remind us why are we repealing these new-found benefits exactly?  And with the President's numbers back on the rise (currently standing at about 53% give or take) the Republicans are having an increasingly hard time making the sale to the American public that we should forgo these new health care benefits simply because Obama created them.

Case in point, watch Republican Congressman Connie Mack (FL) struggle with Mike Barnicle on yesterday's  Morning Joe when Barnicle asks him, point blank, whether (a) the fact that his 25 year-old son can now stay on his health care coverage until age 26 and (b) the fact that his son cannot be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions should actually be repealed:  (watch from 07:16 to 08:30)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Many agree that the Republicans' attempt to repeal "Obama-Care" was purely political, but given that an increasing number of Americans actually don't want to see it repealed, is it good politics for the Republicans to continue down this road?