Obama the Neocon

Mar 24, 2011 | Politics

In violation of the U.S. Constitution, President Obama has launched a semi-war against Libya, a nation that did not attack the U.S. and was not a threat to its self-interest or national security. But Obama and the neoconservative warmongers who inspire his unjust actions don’t even pretend to put America first. They presume foreign policy is morally “noble” if it sacrifices America’s self-interest, her wealth, her soldiers and even her national security. And the more such values are sacrificed, the more “success” they presume.

Although the U.S. Constitution properly designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, it also specifically states (in Article I, Section Eight) that the power “to declare war” resides solely in the legislature – in the U.S. Congress — the body that also has the “power of the purse,” to provide funding for legitimately-declared wars. In the same section Congress is given the power to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions,” which implies that foreign nations properly may do likewise.

Yet Obama has invaded Libya without securing a declaration of war from Congress, and is intervening in what amounts to a civil war between equally-illiberal Arabs, one side of which seeks only to “suppress insurrection.” Does this mean an insurrection in the U.S. against an illiberal Obama can be legitimately supported by foreign powers (say Canada) in a bombing campaign to degrade U.S. defenses and establish a no-fly zone on the East Coast?

It’s simply ludicrous for Obama to rationalize his actions on the grounds that he obtained permission from the U.N., NATO or the Arab League. The U.S. Constitution neither requires nor allows any of that; though it does require that Obama get permission – an explicit war declaration – from the U.S. Congress. He hasn’t done this, which is an impeachable defense, regardless of whether his predecessors committed the same wrong.

These entities are either innocuous or dangerous, for they either do not hold America’s interests as their primary aim (NATO) or actually stand opposed to America’s interests, security and the Constitution (U.N., Arab League). That’s why Obama took this route – as did Truman, Bush I, Bush II and Clinton. They all put America second or last, the supposedly “moral” stance. We’ve seen such evil before, as when Democratic presidents pushed America into disastrous wars — see Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Truman (Korea), JFK and LBJ (Viet Nam) — not solely out of U.S. self-interest, but to “make the world safe for democracy,” which means: safe for a political system America’s Founders did not want and actively opposed... [Mar. 23 2011]

Facebook Capitalism Magazine

Mar 12, 2011 | Politics

Freedom of Association is a Right; Collective Bargaining Is Not A Right

Mar 10, 2011 | Politics

[...] the freedom of association is a right shared by all Americans and protected by the First Amendment. In contrast, collective bargaining is a special power occasionally granted to some unions. In upholding North Carolina’s ban on government union collective bargaining, a federal court wrote in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) budget bill in Wisconsin in no way infringes on any Americans’ right to associate and lobby government. What it does do is allow Wisconsin employees to choose not to join a union and keep their job at the same time. It also forces the government unions in Wisconsin to collect their own union dues instead of using the power of the state to withhold them directly from employee paychecks.Now there is a question you’ll never see in a New York Times poll: “Do you favor forcing all state employees to join a union and empowering government unions to take union dues directly from employee paychecks?”