To quote Ann Barnhardt…With that in mind:
“If Israel tries to defend itself against muslim aggression – which remember has been agitated by Obama himself – or defend its sovereign territory, Obama/Soros will cast these actions of Israeli self-defense and self-preservation as “human rights violations” and move in.
DO WE NOW FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LIBYAN ACTION WAS? It was simply to establish a precedent.”
It is no coincidence Hussein Obama called for Israel to retreat to '67 armistace lines precisely at the same time he established this precedent challenging the 1973 War Powers Act he cited when he began bombing targets in Libya.
With Germany backing Obama's push for 1967 Israel border deal,the UN is likely to follow. Should Israel attempt to defend her current borders, Germany, America and France (Sarkozy will be along any minute - as Abbas is negotiating in Paris as I write this http://tinyurl.com/69c29wx ), the OIC block – together under the UN umbrella – will assist the Muslim hoards in their endeavor to eliminate Israel.
Samantha Powers last seen drooling in anticipation . . .
OBAMA: 'Limited' US Role in Libyan War Means No Need For Congressional Authorization...
Every major figure from the founding era who commented on the matter said that the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to commit the nation to hostilities. Notably, this included not only people with reservations about presidential power, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but also strong advocates of the President’s prerogatives, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. As President, Washington on several occasions said that he could not undertake offensive military actions without Congress’ approval. Hamilton is especially significant, because his views on the need for a strong executive went far beyond those of his contemporaries.
Yet Hamilton made it very clear that he read the Constitution not to allow the President to begin a war — as he put it at one point, “it belongs to Congress only, to go to war.”Candidate Barack Obama agreed in 2007 that “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.”
Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, of course, posed an imminent threat to Libyan nationals engaged in the recent civil war in that nation. How did the Colonel or his army threaten Americans?
This time around, Congress has offered less resistance than in earlier presidential uses of force in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. They have not roused themselves even to pass a non-binding “sense of the Congress” resolution that the President should seek approval. In the 1990s, there were actual debates in Congress about the wisdom and constitutionality of various wars. Now, silence.
It is easy to violate the constitutional domain of a body that is unwilling to collectively defend its powers and unwilling to take up the responsibility of their exercise.
The War Powers Resolution never worked in practice as intended. It is now moribund and should be replaced by a new effort in the courts or Congress to apply the original public meaning of the Constitution and thereby right the balance between starting and making war.
Read the full story here.