Whether President Obama acted constitutionally in authorizing military intervention in Libya is debatable. The Heritage Foundation states, “Rather than imposing a fixed, step-by-step method for going to war, the Constitution allows the executive and legislative branches substantial flexibility to shape the decision-making process for engaging in military hostilities.”
Two points are uncontestable: First, the purpose of military intervention is always to show strength, never subservience. By ceding to NATO and Europe rather than Congress in his decision to enter Libya, the President showcased us as weak followers rather than strong leaders.
Second, President Obama prioritizes global interests over American interests. “Obama has said the United Nations should intervene if a government or any group is slaughtering its citizens,” reports the Los Angeles Times. By the President’s philosophy, the U.S. should promptly lead a global police force into China. Good luck with that.
I want the President to show consistent muscle, secure the U.S.-Mexico border and proactively halt terrorism in its tracks—not roam the Arab world picking fights while bowing down to China. Like Reagan, I want a well-built military that declares to the world: “Mess with America and there will be hell to pay.”
I’m concerned that we are weakening our country by ever-expanding our military involvement in the Middle East while our national debt races toward $15 trillion, our unemployment rate soars near 10 percent and Standard & Poor’s threatens a second downgrade. I’m also concerned that our President and well-meaning hawks like Rove are guiding us toward globalism—where the International Criminal Court, not the U.S. Constitution, will referee American speech and behavior.
George Washington said in his Farewell Address: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is … to have with them as little political connection as possible. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to … take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation…”
Are we preventing or antagonizing terrorism? This month al-Qaida of Mesopotamia launched a 100-attack campaign to avenge bin Laden, calling Americans “enemies of God” who must die for bin Laden’s “pure blood.”
We crush one terrorist abroad and scores of new terrorists crop up in vengeance like fertilized weeds. We need to stop blowing cash in the Middle East, quit expanding our military in the Arab world and prevent the loss of precious American lives.
Special Agent and Whistleblower Vince Cefalu's Trial Against ATF For Retaliation Starts Monday | Katie Pavlich
House Republican: If Tahmooressi Isn’t Released, Mexico Will No Longer Be Treated as our Friend | Amanda Muñoz