A Shameless Liar and Absolute Incompetent

Obviously I'm referring to Barak Hussein Obama.

I mean, folks... it started with the very first sentence of the President's address!

Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya...

I mean is this clown kidding...?!?!

France and Great Britain led international efforts with regard to dealing with Qaddafi! Anyone who's been paying even the least attention to events in Libya over the past few weeks is aware of this!

My God... our President is simply lying. The lengths to which this man will go in order to credit himself with false praise... simply stunning.

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...

Our dedicated diplomats...???

Does he mean the same dedicated diplomats whose job it is to ensure that our men and women in uniform don't have to put their lives at risk? Does he mean these state department diplomats?

The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a 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.

At his direction? Without authorization from Congress? With America's Secretary of Defense publicly stating that what happens in Libya is not a vital American interest and with Libya posing no immediate "ticking time bomb" military threat to the United States or even any of our allies?

Folks... there is simply no constitutionally justified excuse for Obama's misuse of his authority as Commander-In-Chief.

Member of U.S. House of Representatives and Senate once again bring shame upon themselves and the Legislative Branch of Government by renouncing their constitutionally mandated powers and responsibilities.

No my friends, I'm not saying that absent a declaration of war Obama's actions are unconstitutional. I'm not hung up on the "form" of the authorization as such. What I'm saying is that with regard to wars of choice - military attacks launched upon sovereign powers - the Congress of the United States was tasked by our Founders (and mandated by our Constitution) to share responsibility with the president (to be the ultimate decision maker in fact) regarding matters of "war" as opposed to peace.

I note with deep distress that my own Congresswoman, Dr. Nan Hayworth (R-NY-19) is according to all evidence remaining silent on the issue. Nothing on her website, no statements I could find via a Google News search.

I authorized military action... We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi... We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya... We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses... We targeted tanks and military assets...

All without the explicit support and approval of Congress.

All without a Congressional vote... all without Members of Congress putting their names to a document acknowledging their responsibility for sending Americans to war and spending hundreds of millions - perhaps ultimately billions - of dollars in a time where it's expected our nation will need to borrow up to $1.65 trillion dollars just to meet the federal government's operating expenses for this fiscal year alone! (This on top of the $14 trillion already owed with no way to pay it back.)

Understand, people... while Obama is a shameless liar and absolute incompetent, most Members of Congress are as bad if not worse when it comes to assuming responsibility and fulfilling basic constitutional duties.

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...

Greece...? Spain...? Two economic basket cases...?!?!

Turkey...? Turkey opposed intervention all along and is only "going alone" with NATO because that's the only way it can have any influence. Obama's latest flip-flop towards following the lead of France and Great Britain has only served to further strain relations with Turkey.

To call Obama's statement disingenuous is to understate!

In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition...

Broad coalition...? Folks... can we be serious for a moment? Bush had approximately twice the number of "coalition partners" with him when he (with Congress' prior authorization of the use of military force as the president saw fit) invaded Iraq as Obama can point to in contrast as supporting... er... France and Great Britain's war against Qaddafi.

Recall how Bush's claim's of world support were mocked.

Folks... who does Obama think he's fooling...?!?!

I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya...

Does anyone believe him? Seriously... is there one man or woman among you who doubts that we have (and have had for some time) special forces personnel "on the ground" in Libya - SEALS... Green Berets... CIA paramilitary?

[T]he United States will play a supporting role...

How much has "enforcing the UN Security Council Resolution 1973" cost us so far? How high will the tab run by the time President Obama announces... er... Mission Accomplished?

Again, folks - we're broke. Debt and deficits as high and far as the eye can see. We're still in Iraq and regardless of the spin Obama and Clinton throw out regarding "withdrawal of forces," our uniformed military personnel in Iraq are being replaced by... er... armed contractors answerable to Madam Clinton's State Department.

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.

Once again... this shouldn't be Obama's call! This is not "defensive." This is not a situation where there was simply no time to convene Congress and get approval (and funding).

Our Constitution simply does not authorize a President to do what Obama is doing. (And the fact that other presidents have acted in similar - yet perhaps not exact - fashion is no excuse for this president's actions. To put it as simply as I can: Two wrongs do not make a right.)

America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. ... The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. ... I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Even assuming all this to be true, an American president is not a king, not a dictator, not a warlord; the Founders gave us a Constitution that ceded to Congress - the Peoples Representatives (God help us...) - the power to take this nation into war. They did so deliberately, consciously rejecting the European model of Executive war-making authority.

Folks... scroll down through recent Usually Right posts. Note the posts highlighting the hypocrisy of both Obama and Biden using the two men's own past public statements. (No doubt one could find similar statements by searching through Mrs. Clinton's past public statements and those of other past and present Members of Congress...)

People. Tyranny is not necessarily synonymous with physical abuse. King George 3rd was not visiting genocide upon the people of the 13 Colonies. His "crimes" were not those of a Hitler or a Stalin. Yet I ask you to turn to our Declaration of Independence to put the matter into perspective:

...a long train of abuses and usurpations...

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

My friends, clearly President Obama has knowingly (and his past statements previously referred to prove this) usurped Congressional authority unto himself.

My friends, clearly President Obama find the Rule of Law "for thee," not "for he."

My friends... this is soft tyranny. This is power corrupting... corrupting before our very eyes.

Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.

Yes. We remember. You signaled to Qaddafi that simply leaving office would not "save" him; that exile was not an option; that either he must retain power or "be held accountable. Yes, Mr. President... we remember.

I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

Yes. (If memory serves this was some time after your Vice-President, Joe Biden, publicly insisted that Hosni Mubarak was not a dictator.)

But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

EXCUSE ME...?!?!

Folks... is it me...?

Connect all the dots of Obama's various pronouncements. Am I the only one who sees... disconnects...?

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 U.N. mandate and international support.

But lacks a U.S. Congressional mandate and Congressional support as a matter of law.

It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.

Well there ya go, then! Who needs a Constitution, a Legislature, or Separation of Powers Doctrine when we have... er... the Libyan opposition?!

My fellow Americans... this is a sick, sad, pathetic joke. Only it's not! It's real! It's really happening!

Nan Hayworth... Chuck Schumer... Kirsten Gillibrand... each of you willingly shirk your responsibilities. Each of you know that by doing so you violate and dishonor your oaths of office.

Again, people, this is not about "supporting" vs. "opposing" the President's actions; this is about Members of the House and United States Senators taking (or rather not taking) their responsibilities under the Constitution seriously.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of partisanism over patriotism I would expect from Schumer and Gillibrand... but Nan Hayworth's actions (inactions): to me they're sadly inexplicable.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe.

And why couldn't you have "kept the country safe" while abiding my the Constitution as you yourself claimed to have understood it back in 2007 when you were a U.S. Senator?

My friends... every violation of the Constitution strikes at the true heart of the safety of our beloved Republic.

And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform.

And again, this president - as a senator - stipulated that decisions such as this are by Constitutional Mandate to be made only in accordance with Congressional authority.

This man is a hypocrite, a liar, and a serial violator of the Rule of Law.

Unless there is literally no time to convene Congress and request authority to attack another nation (for purposes of preemptive or after the fact self-defense) no president has unilateral power to wage war absent clear Congressional authority.

I’ve 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.

Ah... but when it comes to our "core interests" that is where Congress has a clearly mandated role to play.

People... think upon it: The Constitution doesn't allow a president to engage this nation in a simple Treaty with a foreign nation absent two-thirds concurrence of the Senate; yet we're supposed to believe that the same Constitution which limits a president's treaty making authority bestows unlimited authority upon a president to wage undeclared war upon a sovereign foreign nation?

People... think upon it: The Constitution requires Senate confirmation of Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; yet we're to believe that no Congressional authorization is necessary for a president to launch a war against a sovereign foreign nation...???

My God... am I the only one who occasionally READS the Constitution...?!?!

The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations;

Yet not to regulate War with foreign nations...? Absurd!

The Congress shall have Power To...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

The Congress! Not "the president." The Congress!

And note... even should "offenses against the laws of nations" be deemed to have occurred, it is up to the Congress of the United States to define such offenses and make determination as to punishment.

The Congress shall have Power To...declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...

Some of you have bought into the false semantic argument concerning "declaring war" vs. "waging war." There is no argument! The key point clearly outlined within Article 2, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution concerns which branch has the AUTHORITY to commit this nation to the course of the sword. Clearly the Constitution delegates such authority to Congress and only to Congress.

My God, people... a president doesn't even have authority to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" absent Congressional authority!

Folks... it's all right there in the Constitution... in black and white...

While I could highlight portions of the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and even the Constitutional Convention debates, all of these would be simply corroborating material. What's clear and undeniable is what I've just laid out from the pages of our Constitution itself!

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. ... That's why we’re 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.

Both the greater "War on Terror" (operations against al Qaeda) and specific military actions in Afghanistan (as well as Iraq) were authorized by Congress prior to President Bush taking the nation to war.

Obama knows this.

My friends... Obama truly is a shameless liar and an absolute incompetent. Worse, beyond being willing to twist and manipulate the truth in order to subvert it to his aims, President Obama is undoubtedly willing to subvert our very Constitution - subvert the Rule of the Highest Law of the Land.