Dangerous Men

“...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

― Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution

President Obama (D) appointed Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three others to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in “pro forma” session.  According to the Obama administration:

“The President nominated Mr. Cordray last summer.  Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate blocked his confirmation.  They refused to let the Senate go forward with an up or down vote.  It’s not because Republicans think Cordray isn’t qualified for the job, they simply believe that the American public doesn’t need a watchdog at all.  Well, we disagree.”

“…Here are the facts:  The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised.  The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks.  In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds.  But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running.  Legal experts agree.  In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.”[1]

The Senate Rs were doing what the Senate Ds did back when Bush was President and Obama was a Senator: pretending to be in session over the end of the year by gaveling in for a few minutes and ignoring the President's nominees.  But now that he’s President, Obama decided the Senate can't do that.

“Do As I Say, Not As I Do” says President Obama

This isn’t the first time our “Constitutional scholar” President has changed his interpretation of the powers of the executive branch now that he’s President:

• In 2007, Candidate Obama promised not to use signing statements as a candidate (video) and reneged after he was elected.
• Candidate Obama acknowledged it is un-Constitutional for the President to attack a country without authorization from Congress.  Yet as President he has bombed Libya, and launched drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen killing hundreds of civilians.
• Candidate Obama also said the USG cannot detain US citizens without due process[5].  President Obama has executed US citizens without due process.

“Do As I Say, Not As I Do” says the Opposition

Now the opposition party is in an uproar about the President violating the Constitution by appointing four bureaucrats:

• Rush Limbaugh, who also pretends to be a Constitutionalist, said “Obama is acting outside the Constitution,” and “defying the Constitution.”   He called it “lawless behavior,” and analogized Obama’s action as taking “a pee on the Constitution.”[2]
• Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) called it an “unprecedented power grab,” and said, “The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution.” 
• Other “limited government” conservatives called it another example of how liberals “pay lip service to the Constitution.”

Where were those same champions of the Constitution when:

• Ron Paul pushed to end the Fed, which emits fiat paper money and devalues the savings of all, but those controlling the financial system, by bailing out big banks?  Why do the same champions of the Constitution ridicule Paul for advocating gold-backed money when Art I Section 10 of the Constitution states that “No state shall… make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts…”?
• The USG pursued undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya?  Art I Section 8 of the Constitution says only Congress shall have the power to declare war.[3]
• Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) which allows indefinite detention without due process for US citizens (which the federal government was doing anyway?[4]  Provision 1021 of the bill, which grants the President the authority to have the military indefinitely imprison US citizens, violates our 4th and 5th Amendment rights to be secure in our persons and to be subject to due process of law.
• Congress passed and continues to renew the PATRIOT Act which violates our 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures?
• Congress created the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, which routinely violates our 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures?
• The Obama administration executed American citizens without due process?

How will our champions of the Constitution vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which threatens our 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression?

“A Dangerous Man”

Both sides quote the Constitution while they're out of power and ignore it once they’re in power.  Nothing gets the loyal opposition quoting the Constitution faster than when the other side tries to get one over on them.  But when both sides agree to violate the Constitution, watch out.  Of the Republican candidates for President this year, only Ron Paul criticizes the attack on our liberties at home and calls for following the Constitution.

Now both parties are beating the drums for war against Iran.  Only Ron Paul, called “a dangerous man” by opponents in his own party, warns against overreacting and starting a war with Iran (video), pointing to the million deaths of Iraqis and thousands of deaths of US troops in Iraq as an example of what we risk.[6]

Ron Paul is a dangerous man.  He means it when he talks about following the Constitution.  And people are listening.

___________________________

[1] “America's Consumer Watchdog,” The White House Blog, Dan Pfeiffer, Jan 4, 2012, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/04/americas-consumer-watchdog on Jan 7, 2012).

[2] “Rush Limbaugh: ‘Lawless’ Obama Is ‘Taking A Pee On The Constitution’,” by Jon Bershad, Jan 5, 2012, (Accessed at http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-lawless-obama-is-taking-a-pee-on-the-constitution/ on Jan 7, 2012).

[3] Congress cannot delegate the authority to declare war to the President as it has with it's Authorization to use force legislation.  That is an attempt to amend the Constitution which requires a different process than passing legislation.

From Ron Paul’s speech in the House, 8 Oct 2002 on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

“This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.”

[4] “Obama Says Bill Breaks With Our Values, Signs It Anyway,”  The Atlantic.com, By Conor Friedersdorf, Jan 3, 2012, (Accessed at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/obama-says-bill-breaks-with-our-values-signs-it-anyway/250828/ on Jan 7, 2012).

[5] “Barack Obama's Q&A,” By Charlie Savage, Boston Globe, Dec 20, 2007, (Accessed at  http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ on Jan 9, 2012).

[6] “Rick Santorum calls Ron Paul ineffective, dangerous,” By Michael A. Memoli, Jan 8, 2012, (Accessed at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-santorum-record-debate-20120108,0,7996570.story on Jan 8, 2012).

The Defeat of America By Terrorists

“And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” - George Bush Sept 14, 2001 in NYC (video)

Crowd roars, chanting: “USA.  USA.  USA.”

Killing Americans

A decade ago on 9-11, foreigners on American soil killed thousands of civilians in four horrific commercial airplane crashes.   Three days later New Yorkers rallied around the President as he promised to strike back at “the people who knocked these buildings down” and dared spill American blood.

Within weeks, the US government retaliated by invading Afghanistan.  Before the decade had ended, the US government, already expert in killing foreign civilians, had invaded two foreign countries and killed thousands more Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Yemeni civilians.  US troops still occupy Afghanistan and Iraq today, regularly attacking Pakistan and Yemen with drones: all in the name of “fighting terrorism” and “protecting our freedoms.”

Or so the US government would have us think.

The Terrified States of America

“Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’

“They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” - Then-President Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, explaining why terrorists attacked Americans. 

After 9-11, there was little talk of federal regulations that prevented airlines and citizens from defending themselves on airplanes and helped the attacks succeed.  Instead the federal government and the media terrorized citizens with public talk of WMD and mushroom clouds.  Playing on those fears, the US government justified limiting the very freedoms it pretends to defend with:

• the PATRIOT Act
• the TSA
• the Department of Homeland Security
• seemingly endless undeclared and therefore un-constitutional wars
• Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
• torture
• extraordinary rendition
• assassination lists.

The federal government bureaucracy grew in response to 9-11 and most Americans sat back  as the federal government listened to their phone calls, opened their mail, frisked them in public places without probable cause of criminal activity, and forced them to show their identity papers while traveling.  Most Americans are still sitting back.

“Targeted Kill” Lists Under Bush

"I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials.  He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority." - Then-national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice November 2002, after Bush administration killed US citizen Kamal Derwish with a Predator drone.[1]

Less than a week after 9-11, on Sept. 17, 2001, President Bush signed a classified directive authorizing the CIA to kill or capture suspected al-Qaida members and create detention facilities where suspects could be interrogated and tortured.[2]  The directive didn’t distinguish between foreigners and US citizens.  If the US government thinks a US citizen is a “terrorist threat” to the US, the government will imprison or execute that person without due process, despite their precious freedoms Bush would outline three days later in his September 20th address to Congress.  Bush also authorized a “kill list” of terrorist leaders to be executed by the CIA.   

One year after 9-11 in November 2002, the US government killed American terror suspect Kamal Derwish with a Predator drone in Yemen as “collateral damage” when it was targeting another person on the “kill list.”  Most Americans let their government kill an American without due process and without complaint.

“Targeted Kill” Lists Under Obama

"And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda." – President Obama on the assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

Our “constitutional scholar,” President Obama is no better than Bush when it comes to killing US citizens without due process.  Obama’s Director of National Intelligence in 2010, Dennis Blair, acknowledged that the US government would execute US citizens without due process in court if they were involved in terrorism.

In June 2010, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under the Obama administration wrote a secret 50-page memorandum to rationalize its planned execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.[3][4]  And on September 30, 2011, the Obama administration announced the US had killed two American citizens in Yemen: Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.[5][6]  Unlike Derwish, a US citizen killed during the Bush administration, the Obama administration intended to execute Awlaki, also a US citizen. 

Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney, speaking of Awlaki’s execution, assured Americans that it was all legal (video), but repeatedly refused to state whether the Obama administration would supply any evidence even after the fact:

Carney: He was obviously also an active recruiter of al Qaeda terrorists, so, I don’t think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.

Tapper (reporter): You don’t think anybody else in the government would dispute those assertions…?

Carney: I wouldn’t know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the fact that he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.

Tapper: Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges?

…

Tapper: Can you show us or the American people?  Has a judge been shown?

Carney: Again, Jake, I’m not going to go any further than what I’ve said about the circumstances of his death.  And the case against him which you’re linking.

…

Tapper: Is there going to be any evidence presented?

Carney: I don’t have anything for you on that.

After their deaths, when the two men could not defend themselves against government accusations, anonymous government sources detailed the accusations against them which President Obama echoed.[9]

“Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans.” - President Obama [10]

According to Obama, Awlaki was an American “guilty of planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans.”  Doesn’t our system of government require that evidence must be given in a court of law before a final determination of guilt can be made? 

Assassination is not Due Process

“The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone.  Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law.  The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury, and executioner by presidential decree.” – Ron Paul writing in the NY Daily News, Oct 3, 2011

The fifth amendment was added to the US Constitution to protect individuals: no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  The fifth amendment is one of ten in the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect Americans from a too-powerful government.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to explicitly limit the powers of the federal government.  Everything in the Constitution is based on a mistrust of government—an expectation that those in power will tend to abuse their power. 

Today the unrestrained executive branch fulfills the worst expectations of those who wrote the Constitution:

• It has created an assassination list, where individuals are executed without due process.[11]
• Moreover, the evidence against those on the list is classified—a case of the fox guarding the henhouse as the American people are forced to trust the government to determine whether the government is breaking the law.

Sadly, most Americans forgo their fifth amendment rights as they willingly relinquish their liberties and trust the government.  “This is war,” they tell themselves.  But how can this be war if no war has been declared per the Constitution?

If this really is war, why did the Obama administration go to the trouble to write a secret 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to attempt to justify its planned execution of Awlaki?

Ron Paul labeled the killings an assassination, warning Americans to beware of accepting government executions without due process.[12]  You didn’t have to search very long on your radio (45 minutes into this podcast) to find mouths that roared about “crazy Ron Paul” and how Awlaki was an “enemy combatant” and didn’t deserve any of his rights.  Would those same “mouths that roared” be calling Ron Paul crazy if he defended their first amendment right to freedom of expression if the government decided to take it away?

It’s a short step from accepting an undeclared, un-constitutional war, concentration camps, and government executions of American citizens without due process, to accepting the execution of Americans for other seemingly good and expedient reasons.[13]

Evidence of America’s Defeat

 

The evidence:

• submissive citizens in porno-scanners, hands up high, legs spread like prisoners, waiting for their jailers’ permission to move
• submissive parents standing by and watching as their children are molested by TSA agents
• the “land of the Free” as a surveillance state—if US troops overseas truly were fighting for our freedoms—and they’re not—they’d be losing the war[14][15][16]
• Americans cheering the murder of other Americans who oppose US government invasions and ignoring the murder of foreigners for the lies of the US government.

Over ten years ago on the night of 9-11, then-President Bush addressed the nation and predicted the victory of justice and peace over terrorism:

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.”[17]

Bush was wrong.  In America, the terrorists won.

_______________________

[1] “Killing Americans: On uncharted ground in attack,” Matt Apuzzo, AP, Sept 30 2011, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9873878 on Oct 1, 2011).

[2] “Timeline: History Of Harsh Interrogation Techniques,”Corey Flintoff, Apr 22, 2009, NPR, (Accessed at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103376537 on Oct 7, 2011).

The existence of this directive was discovered by an ACLU FOIA request.

[3] “Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen,” By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, Oct 8, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all on Oct 9, 2011). 

[4] “Secret White House memo made case for legally killing Anwar al-Awlaki: Report,” BY Tina Moore, DAILY NEWS, Oct 8, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/10/08/2011-10-08_secret_white_house_memo_made_case_for_legally_killing_anwar_alawlaki_report.html on Oct 9, 2011).

[5] “Anwar al-Aulaqi, U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda, killed in Yemen,” By Sudarsan Raghavan, Sept 30, 2011, Washington Post, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html on Sept 30, 2011).

[6] “2nd American in Strike Waged Qaeda Media War,” By ROBBIE BROWN and KIM SEVERSON, NY Times, Sept 30, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/samir-khan-killed-by-drone-spun-out-of-the-american-middle-class.html on Oct 5, 2011).

[7] “Al Qaeda's Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen,” CBS/AP, Sept 30, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml on Oct 7, 2011).

Government sources didn’t mention the Pentagon recruiting Awlaki when he dined at the Pentagon after 9-11 (video), nor his attendance at a prayer group for Muslims in Congress.[8][9]

[8] “EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11,” By Catherine Herridge, FoxNews, Oct 20, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/ on Oct 7, 2011).

[9] “Some Muslims Attending Capitol Hill Prayer Group Have Terror Ties, Probe Reveals,” By Jana Winter, FoxNews, Nov 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/11/congressional-muslim-prayer-group-terror-ties/ on Oct 7, 2011).

[10] “Remarks by the President at the "Change of Office" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Ceremony at Fort Myer, Virginia,” Sept 30, 2011, ” (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/remarks-president-change-office-chairman-joint-chiefs-staff-ceremony on Oct 1, 2011).

[11] “THREATS AND RESPONSES: HUNT FOR AL QAEDA; BUSH HAS WIDENED AUTHORITY OF C.I.A. TO KILL TERRORISTS,” By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON, NY Times, Dec 15, 2002, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/world/threats-responses-hunt-for-al-qaeda-bush-has-widened-authority-cia-kill.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm on Oct 11, 2011).

[12] “Ron Paul on Anwar al-Awlaki’s Demise: ‘I Think It’s Sad’,” The State Column, Oct 01, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-on-anwar-al-awlakis-demise-i-think-its-sad/ on Oct 7, 2011).

[13] “Ron Paul: US could target journalists for killing,” By Philip Elliott, Associated Press, October 5, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/10/05/ron_paul_us_could_target_journalists_for_killing/  on Oct 7, 2011).

[14] “Post-9/11, NSA 'enemies' include us,” By James Bamford, Sept 8, 2011, (Accessed at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CA0FDA14-61EA-4015-A80B-1F6D34C59183 on Oct 9, 2011).

[15] “Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers,” By ERIC LICHTBLAU, NY Times, July 10, 2008, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?pagewanted=all on Oct 9, 2011).

[16] “Coming soon to a trash bin near you: The FBI,” By David Morgan, CBS, June 13, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/13/national/main20070845.shtml on Oct 9, 2011).

[17] “President Bush Speaks to the Nation,” PBS, Sept 11, 2001, (Accessed at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism/july-dec01/bush_speech.html on Oct 7, 2011).

Have You Heard the One About the Constitution?

The old joke behind the Iron Curtain before the Soviet Union fell apart was: They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. The American version is: US citizens pretend the Constitution is valid, and Congress pretends to follow it.

In grade school, we're told we are a nation under the rule of law and, as the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution protects the rights of the states and our rights as individuals.

Outside of the classroom, we might be aware as each branch of government continually erodes our Constitutionally-protected freedoms. Recent examples are:

• the Supreme Court Kelo decision,
• Congressional lapses such as the Patriot Act and the various bailouts in vogue,
• sundry Executive intrusions big and small including denial of habeas corpus in the US and at the Guantanamo detention camp, and the 1997 Gore telephone tax.

These get short-lived media play and US citizens gradually forget about them as Big Brother, aka the federal government, grows in power.

The "Constitutional issues" that hold the attention of the media and the public are "safe" issues, mainly R and D bickering. The bickering leads some to think the Constitution is more of a nuisance, something to be gotten around, and not a document that defines and intentionally constrains the federal government.

The most recent noise about Hilary Clinton's (D) qualification for a cabinet office is the latest of the "safe" Constitutional issues that excite the two dominant parties written about nowhere in the Constitution, as they squabble about who is king of the hill for the day.

Recent examples of the "safe" use of the Constitution by one party to harass the other:

• Obama (D) is not a legitimate candidate for President per Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (Arnold is watching this carefully).
• Clinton (D) impeached per Article I Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, but not convicted for lying about semi-consummated sexual relations with a federal employee.
• Clarence Thomas (R) confirmed after nomination hearings per Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, where newly nominated Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano (D) (more change you can believe in), was attorney for Anita Hill (D), who opposed Thomas as a potential sexual harasser. One memorable example Hill gave was his mention of a pubic hair in his Coke (not the real thing).

One Constitutional issue that politicians won't consider, because it truly limits the power of government and their power, is the exclusive Congressional power to declare war. Both parties benefit from the increase of government power and do nothing to jeopardize that power. If Bush aggrandizes the executive office, then Obama can use it when it's his turn.

Consider the recent history of the lack of adherence to Article I Section 8 and the power of Congress "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water":

• Truman (D), citing UN authority, in 1950 sends troops to the Korean war, fighting the communist North without a declaration of war by Congress. US troops are still in South Korea 58 years later.
• Eisenhauer (R) sends 14,000 troops to Lebanon in 1958 to "fight communism" without a declaration of war.
• Kennedy (D) sends 16,000 troops to Vietnam in 1961 continuing Eisenhauer's policy of "fighting communism" without a declaration of war.
• Kennedy (D) sends 1500 US-trained Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs fiasco that led to the Cuban missile crisis. There was no declaration of war, but there almost was a nuclear war.
• Johnson (D), after US-caused Tonkin Gulf incident, uses Gulf of Tonkin resolution to send troops to Vietnam in 1964. US leaves after eleven years and after hundreds of thousands killed. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not a declaration of war. (For those thinking Congress can vote for funding without declaring war, refer to US Constitution Article V.)
• Nixon (R) expands the Vietnam war into Laos and Cambodia--still no declaration of war. Vietnam war continues until 1973.
• Carter (D) funds mujahadeen for terrorist activities in Afghanistan against Soviet Union in 1979. During his administration, as in that of his successors and predecessors, US troops remain in Korea.
• Reagan (R) sends troops to Lebanon in 1982-84. More than 240 killed.
• Reagan (R) sends troops to invade Grenada in 1983 without a declaration of war.
• Reagan (R) sends 2000 troops to Panama without a declaration of war.
• GHW Bush (R) sends 24,000 troops to Panama to remove former ally Manuel Noriega from power without a Congressional declaration of war.
• GHW Bush (R) organizes UN-authorized but not Congressionally-declared Gulf War of 1990-91. The US moved troops into the Middle East using the Rapid Deployment Force created during the Carter administration.
• GHW Bush (R) sends troops to Somalia in 1992 to help distribute food for the United Nations.
• Clinton (D) changes the mission in Somalia, and in 1993 has US troops support the UN in nation-building. After the battle of Mogadishu and the deaths of eighteen US soldiers, all US troops were withdrawn. All without a Congressional declaration of war.
• Clinton (D) continued the embargo considered to have resulted in half a million Iraqi deaths and the bombing of Iraq in the "no fly zone" for eight years.
• Clinton (D) authorized the 1995 bombing of Bosnia with no declaration of war.
• GW Bush (R) invaded Afghanistan in 2001. There was no Congressional declaration of war. The war continues seven years later.
• GW Bush (R) invaded Iraq in 2003 to remove former ally Saddam Hussein from power. There was no Congressional declaration of war. The war continues five years later.
• President-elect Obama (D) wants to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He says he wants to eventually withdraw from Iraq. He has also been mentioning Darfur. More change you can believe in?

Have you heard the one about the Constitution? It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land.