Who is this Joanne Kloppenburg? Whoever she is, she’s giving the Republican incumbent judge in Wisconsin a run for his money.
As of this moment, the New York Times is reporting that with 99% of the votes counted, “the pair were separated by fewer than 600 votes from among more than 1.4 million cast. The leader had flipped again and again throughout the night.” See the results here.
The election in Wisconsin comes in the middle of a battle between Republican Scott Walker and his recent efforts to take away the collective bargaining rights of public workers. The election, held yesterday, was a sure win for the Republican, David T. Prossner before Governor Walker began to initiate his union busting policies. Prossner is seeking his second 10 year term on the state’s Supreme Court.
But here comes Joanne Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general – virtually unknown by the state’s voters – giving the Republican judge the hardest fight of his political career.
With various cases filed in Wisconsin against Scott Walker’s bill, many consider this election to be of utmost importance. A win by Prossner will maintain the 4-3 conservative vote in the court, while a win by Kloppenburg could be the deciding vote in many of these cases.
With an election this close, there has to be a recount on the horizon.
I know it may be quicker to list the groups the GOP are for, but I have some time and some blog space, so here goes…
Are you on GOP’s hit-list? Well you are if you’re one of these;
Latinos
Blacks
Muslims
The Middle Class
The Poor
Gays
Democrats
Independents
Women
The Educated
Seniors
All Union Members
Teachers
Children who were born
Anyone who believes in saving the planet
Public Workers
If you belong to any of the group or groups mentioned above, then watch out. There is a constant effort on the part of the Republican party to dis-empower you in the name of “Balancing the Budget” or”‘Big Government intruding on our Constitutional rights as American citizens”–take your pick. But don’t be disheartened, there is a way you can get on the Republican’s good side. Any one of the groups listed below should be your goal if Republican Love is what you crave;
The Ultra Rich
A Fetus
Keep pushing America, you too can be ultra rich or a fetus someday!
As we near the time for the gathering of soothe sayers, spin doctors and corporate-made shills to throw their hats in the ring for the circus of illusions that the 2012 presidential elections promises to be, I’m reminded of a technique commonly used in marketing. The target consumer’s tendencies, mood and environment are studied and well-known by those merchants whose livelihood depends upon consumers viewing their products favorably. Careful consideration of wording, colors, slogans and exterior design of packaging is taken to ensure that the product is not only noticed, but that the product and its insignia or logo is remembered.
There will be jingles, there will be catchy phrases and celebrities who speak on behalf of a product that may or may not be beneficial to the consumer. If our favorite reality show star is the spokesperson for a brightly packaged processed meat product, it may just slip past us as to how much unhealthy sodium and fat content is inside the beautifully designed package.
And so it is with our political leaders. Not a hair out-of-place. Teeth freshly installed for the occasion. Talking points memorized and ready…or for one poor soul copied onto the palm of her hands. Every couple of years locally and every four years nationally, we are presented with the same warmed over, refurbished campaign rhetoric in a different suit.
Fellow Americans, we have been studied well.
The architects of this illusion we have of participation in the direction of this great nation, know us better than we know ourselves. Figuratively speaking, the political saturated fats and artificial ingredients will be disguised as organically grown, sun-kissed health food, just as sure as the marionettes of the super wealthy disguised as public servants, will be packaged to appear as if they actually have answers. The sincere and well-meaning political leaders who serve faithfully their duties are like a faint background noise in comparison to the cartoonish officials that get media play.
So as the political circus of campaign 2012 begins be careful what you consume, the contents may not be as beautiful as its wrapping.
In the words of an R.J. Reynolds tobacco company executive “WE DONT SMOKE THAT SHIT, WE JUST SELL IT. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE TO THE YOUNG, THE POOR THE BLACK AND STUPID”. You do the math.
John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives had this to say at a news conference last week;
“Let’s all be honest, if you shut the government down, it’ll end up costing more than you save because you interrupt contracts. There are a lot of problems with the idea of shutting the government down. It is not the goal. The goal is to cut spending.”
His Democratic counterpart in the Senate, Leader Harry Reid chimed in with this;
“I’m happy to say that negotiations toward a compromise are moving forward. Not as fast as I would like, but they are moving forward.”
And even the President himself, Barack Obama made his opinion known, when he said;
“We know that a compromise is within reach. And we also know that if these budget negotiations break down, it could shut down the government and jeopardize our economic recovery.”
So if everyone is saying the same thing and the need to continue funding the government is evident, why are we facing a potential government shutdown on Friday of this week? The answer is simple… The Teaparty.
One of the self-appointed leaders of the Teaparty, Congressman Mike Pence had this to say;
“If liberals in the Senate want to play games and shut down government rather than make a down payment on fiscal discipline, I say shut it down.”
The problem is one of compromise, or lack thereof. When campaigning for the 2011 mid-term election, Republicans promised the Teaparty the moon, the stars, and even a small section of the galaxy they can rename Teabaggers-ville. Another promise was to cut the federal budget by $100 billion – another far-fetched promise, but one that fell within the teaparty’s requirement to reign in federal spending at all cost. Given these promises from Congressional Republicans, the teaparty voted in masses, putting the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives, and gaining seats in the Senate.
Now, four months after Republicans have gained power, the teaparty is looking for Teabaggers-ville. They want what was promised to them and thus far, the Republicans haven’t paid up. Not because they don’t want to, but because they simply can’t.
When President Obama came out with his budget, it included additional spending of $41 billion. John Boehner and his fellow Republicans in congress cried foul, demanding that the president review his proposal. He did, and came back with $33 billion in cuts. But this wasn’t enough for the Boehner and the Teaparty, who voted for, and approved a House budget with at lease $61 billion in cuts.
The adults in the room couldn’t agree on a final budget, so two separate CRs (continued resolutions – temporary spending agreements) were put into place. We are now just five days before the second CR expires, and everyone involved is saying the right thing. Everyone, that is, except the Teaparty.
What happens in the event of a government shutdown? Slate reports;
Certain necessary activities would continue—anything related to defense, inpatient or emergency medical care, air traffic control, securing prisoners, or disaster assistance, for instance. But legally, federal agencies would have to wind down nonessential business. That means hundreds of thousands of employees would go on furloughs, from the Treasury to Health and Human Services to the Department of Education, to be paid whenever a continuing resolution passes. Thousands more contractors would just lose their gigs. Parks would shut down. Offices would clear out. Phones would go unanswered.
Nobody knows exactly how it would shake out, not just yet. The president has broad discretion to decide what counts as necessary and what does not, says Stan Collender, a longtime budget expert and a partner at Qorvis, a D.C. communications firm.
But everyone dreads the prospect. The last time the government shut down was during the Clinton administration. For five days in November 1995 and 21 days between December 1995 and January 1996, the lights went off. In the first shutdown, 800,000 workers stopped heading into the office. In the second, about 284,000 stayed at home, with an additional 475,000 working on “non-pay status.” These were not just pencil-pushers either. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave up on monitoring the outbreak of diseases. Workers at 609 Superfund toxic-waste sites stopped cleaning up.
Another promise the Congressional Republicans made to Americans was job creation. Based on the information presented above, it seems that shutting down the government is not the best way to create these jobs. If the Teaparty is truly for fiscal responsibility like they would haver us believe, they will ask their congressional representatives to do what’s right for the economic longevity of this nation, not shutting down the government to fulfill some empty campaign promise.
Apparently, Republicans think women will lie about being raped or being the victim of incest, in order to get a “free abortion.” This claim is coming from a Republican in the Indiana Congress. His name is Eric Turner.
Mr. Turner introduced what is being considered the most restrictive abortion bill in the nation. The bill will make it illegal to have most abortions after 20 weeks. Present law makes certain abortions illegal after 24 weeks, or when the fetus is visible.
Realizing the implications of this bill, a Democratic congresswoman Mrs. Gail Dickens tried to introduce an amendment to the bill exempting “women who became pregnant due to rape or incest, or women for whom pregnancy threatens their life or could cause serious and irreversible physical harm.” But Mr. Turner would have none of it. He stepped to the podium and had this to say;
With all do respect to Rep. Riecken, I understand what she’s trying to do. But as you know that when the federal health care bill was going through Congress there was a lot of discussion whether this would allow for abortion coverage and of course we were all told it would not. And the bill, my house bill 1210, would prevent that for any insurance company to provide abortion coverage under federal health care bill. This [amendment] would open that window and I would ask you to oppose this amendment.
I just want you to think about this, in my view, giant loophole that could be created where someone who could — now i want to be careful, I don’t want to disparage in any way someone who has gone through the experience of a rape or incest — but someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.
Leave it up to a Republican male, to determine what’s right for the women of this country.
The recent employment figures show 216,000 jobs were created in March, allowing the unemployment rate to fall from 8.9% to 8.8%. And according to David Dreier, Republican Chairman of the House Rules Committee, John Boehner is the one responsible for these newly created jobs.
Contain your laughter!!!
Mr. David Dreier praised John Boehner, saying;
Speaker Boehner has consistently been saying not only, “where are the jobs,” and we’re all gratified that the positive signs of getting our fiscal house in order played a big role in creating 216,000 non-farm, payroll jobs last month and brought the unemployment rate from 8.9 down to 8.8%.
So what exactly is Mr. Dreier talking about when he says “getting our fiscal house in order?” Well, to answer that question, we have to look at what House Republicans have concentrated on in the last 2 months since they took control of the House of Representatives.
House Republicans have voted to repeal President Obama’s health care law. According to a report by David M. Cutler, repealing healthcare would “slow job growth by 250,000 to 400,000 annually.” The report also show an increase in medical spending by $125 billion by the end of this decade, and another $2,000 increase in yearly insurance premiums for families.
Republicans in the House have also voted to defund NPR. Exactly how many jobs will this create? Zero. But it will take away $22 million dollars from the organization. Sigh!
Repealing Planned Parenthood…. Jobs created? Another big ZERO, as per The Huffington Post
House Republicans are intent on cutting $61 billion from the budget. This must be where the 216,000 jobs came from! Well, let’s take a look. The Senate hasn’t agreed on this $61 billion cut, so in essence, this budget cut, called H.R 1 is not law. Jobs created? Zero. In fact, many economists agreed, that if the Republican’s budget cuts detailed in H.R. 1 go into effect, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost.
And so the confusion continues. If the bills that House Republicans have voted on haven’t created any jobs, then how exactly is Mr. Dreier crediting John Boehner with creating 216,000 of them last month?
Well, Dreier knows he is lying. But its something Republicans have been doing for some time now. It’s called the power of persuasion – you say something often enough, eventually, although it may be a lie, it will be accepted as truth by many.
The Daily Kos features a graph showing industry growth under the last three presidents – Clinton, Bush and Obama. And according to their figures, Obama seems to be the most ‘pro-business-growth’ president among the three. But don’t tell this to Koch Brothers, who earlier this week called the president, the most anti-corporate president ever. Charles Koch went on to say;
“He’s the most radical president we’ve ever had as a nation, and has done more damage to the free enterprise system and long-term prosperity than any president we’ve ever had. His father was a hard-core economic socialist in Kenya, Obama didn’t really interact with his father face-to-face very much, but was apparently from what I read a great admirer of his father’s points of view. So he had sort of antibusiness, anti-free enterprise influences affecting him almost all his life. It just shows you what a person with a silver tongue can achieve.”
Well if President Obama is doing so much damage to America’s free enterprise system, then why are U.S. businesses showing more profit than ever? The Huffington Post had this report;
U.S. corporate profits hit an all-time high at the end of 2010, with financial firms showing some of the biggest gains, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis show. Corporations reported an annualized $1.68 trillion in profit in the fourth quarter. The previous record, without being adjusted for inflation, was $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006.
Michele Bachmann, a potential Republican presidential candidate chimed in with this piece of wisdom;
I think that the agenda that we have seen – we know that sixty-three percent of all households have seen a major decline in their personal wealth, a decline in their personal income, and an increase in their debt level. That’s all attributable directly to Barack Obama’s principles. I don’t think it’s by accident we’re seeing people struggling and we’re seeing redistribution of wealth. I think Barack Obama is getting exactly the outcome that he hoped for.
If you listen to these billionaire cry-babies, you’ll realize the magnitude of their greed. For no matter how many profit records are broken because of the economic policies of this administration, the Koch brothers and the Republican party will continue calling President Obama a marxist, socialist, communist, who hates corporations and is actively redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. The facts however, says otherwise.
Republicans have long wished for the time when the poor and suffering would move out-of-the-way, and allow the millionaires, billionaires and Corporations to prosper. In their view, poor and middle class Americans are trying to take away all the programs the government has established to benefit the rich. Republicans call these “entitlement programs,” and the sooner they’re able to push and squeeze others off these programs, the sooner the rich can benefit.
No place is this more evident than in Florida, where a new Teaparty candidate, representing the Republican party, held a townhall meeting to address his supporters. Mr. Allan West, the House representative for Southeast Florida told the crowd that he would love to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and federal income tax, while retaining tax cuts for billionaires. West also wants to stop the extension of unemployment benefits to the middle class and refers to the government providing these benefits to middle class Americans as, “rewarding bad behavior.”
In reference to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, West thinks that leaving these services in tact will deplete our GDP by 2030 or 2040. His plans would be for the eventual dismantling of these services that again for the most part assist the poor people and middle class. Spokeswoman for DCCC Jennifer Crider said;
“Everyone agrees we need to cut spending, but Representative Allen West is making the wrong choice by forcing seniors to shoulder the burden and while not asking Big Oil companies making record profits to sacrifice even the smallest amount.”
Social Security is a program that mostly pays for itself. Over the last few years, however, the program has began to show signs that it will eventually fall short of its goals of comfortably providing for its beneficiaries, mainly because more people are entering into retirement and also because the labor force is reduced due to the economic downturn. Republicans, who have been trying to dismantle the program for decades, are now using the economy and the federal deficit as reasons to bring social security to its knees. Some Democrats, like Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, are determined to fight these efforts of the Republicans. In a recent interview, Mr. Reid said;
“I have said clearly and as many times as I can, leave Social Security alone. Social Security does not add a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has and for the next 30 years it won’t do that.
“So what I’ve said, if you want to look at something to take care of the out years, let’s do it at the right time. It is not in a crisis at this stage. Leave Social Security alone. We have a lot of other places we can look that are in crisis. Social Security is not. I repeat, for the next approximately 30 years people will draw 100% of their benefits.”
Mr. West’s thinking is common amongst Republican party members. Many Republican governors nationwide have begun breaking down the middle class in order to support their rich donors. Recent examples in Wisconsin, Detroit, and Florida are just some of the states where Republican governors are creating laws geared towards removing any form of assistance from the middle class worker, and transferring that assistance to the rich. Rick Scott of Florida recently proposed a bill that will cut school subsidies in his state by $1.3 billion, while at the same time, giving a tax cut of $1.6 billion to millionaires.
It is a transfer of wealth like we haven’t seen in quite a long time, and it started over 30 years ago when Ronald Regan introduced the idea of trickle down economics. The concept embraces the belief that giving to the rich will in turn allow them to provide jobs to the middle class, thus trickling down the wealth. But this idea failed in the Reagan years, causing the president to raise taxes in an effort to fight off a downward turn in the 1980 economy. And although it failed then, trickle down economics was embraced by conservatives over the past 30 years, and contributed heavily to the most recent recession that started in 2007/2008 under the Bush administration. According to reports from The Atlantic;
When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.
Unfortunately, here we are in 2011, and the trickle-down trend has continued. Republicans are now taking away from schools, education, cutting back on planned parenthood and public radio, in an effort to finance the bank accounts of the rich. Will the American people wake up from their slumber before it’s too late? Will we ever realize that the last 30+ years of trickle down economics did nothing for the middle class, and everything for th über rich? If we continue to go down this path we’ve been on for the past 30 years, why should we expect a different outcome?
America can once again be what the founding fathers intended it to be. The preamble to the constitution says it best;
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Despite a hold that a judge placed on Scott Walker’s union busting bill, Walker couldn’t wait for the legal process to unfold. On Friday, he published the bill on the state’s legislature website. According to the posting, the state’s law requires all bills to be published within 10 working days of its becoming law.
Also customary, according to Journal Sentinel;
The measure sparked protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.
The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.
Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But nonpartisan legislative officials from two agencies, including the one who published the bill, disagreed.
“I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state,” said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. “I don’t think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective.”
Walker signed the bill March 11. Under state law, it should be published within 10 working days, which was Friday.
One of the ways Republicans propose to bring the budget under control, is the elimination of all funding for Planned Parenthood… ALL! However, one Republican/Teaparty senator, Scott Brown – representing Massachusetts, thinks this is going too far. After House Republicans voted and approved the cuts, Senator Brown had this to say;
“I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
Although the Hyde Amendment prohibits all public funding to be used for abortion services, Republicans have long argued that agencies like Planned Parenthood should not receive federal funding because it allows other funds to be made available for abortions. The cuts, if approved in February, would save $300 million. Republicans have promised their supporters and the Teaparty to cut as much as $61 billion from the federal budget.
As Muammar Qadhafi authorized his army and air force to board planes and drop bombs on protesters in his own country, the International community came together and decided that the only way to stop the massacre of innocent people was to create a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya. President Obama joined European and Arab forces to enforce the no-fly zone, in an effort to ground Qadhafi’s bombers, thus stopping the killing of the Libyan people.
Seemed like the right thing to do at the time. The allied forces came together over the weekend and the ‘no-fly’ resolution they all agreed upon, was put into effect. Here in the United States however, although a new poll by CNN states that over 70%k of Americans are in favor of the resolution, Democrats and Republicans alike are now pondering whether or not President Obama should be impeached for violating the Constitution for declaring war on Libya.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution is often referred to as the War Clause. It grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, stating; “The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
This power was given to Congress by the Framers of the Constitution and has certain exclusive authority – in addition to the declaration itself, Congress is also responsible for supplying the necessary funding to keep the war going. But the Constitution also grants exclusive authority to the President as Commander-In-Chief of the military forces, and determining which body should exercise their authority and when, is where the confusion comes in. It’s often referred to as “the zone of concurrent powers”.
In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important–in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.
Presidents have used their authority in this capacity for decades. The most recent, the Iraqi War by President George Bush, was done without initial congressional declaration. Slate documents other times Congressional declaration was not done in major conflicts;
That practice confirms that the president, under his commander-in-chief and other executive powers, has very broad discretion to use U.S. military force in the absence of congressional authorization. Presidents have done this, in military actions large and small, over 100 times, since the beginning of the republic.
The largest and most consequential unauthorized military action is the Korean War launched by President Truman in 1950. Another big conflict without congressional authorization—and, indeed, in the face of an overt congressional vote that declined to provide such authorization—was President Clinton’s Kosovo intervention in 1999.
Some less significant unilateral uses of military force in the past 30 years include Haiti (2004), Bosnia (1995), Haiti (1994), Somalia (1992), Panama (1989), Libya (1986), Lebanon (1982), and Iran (1980). The executive branch has issued public legal opinions explaining the constitutional basis for most of these actions.
Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich told Raw Story;
“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.”
But Kucinich didn’t stop there. He then went on to question whether President Obama should be brought up on impeachment charges. In the interview, he told the site, “And I’m raising the question as to whether or not it’s an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
And the President states his constitutional authority as Commander In Chief;
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
This is not a new issue. This question has been asked before, and chances are, after President Obama’s tenure is over, it will be asked again. The President, as Commander In Chief is legally and constitutionally within his rights to take the actions that are underway in Libya.
If Dennis Kucinich and his Democratic and Republican congressmen feel that the actions of the President were unconstitutional, the Constitution gives them the authority to cut off funding to the military. And that too, would be legal. How far will they take this?
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.