The (Brilliant) Rand Paul Amendment

Rand Paul really gets it.  He is offering a short and sweet amendment to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution on Syria.  And it brilliantly cuts right to the heart of the matter, in part by quoting . . . Obama.

The amendment quotes from a response Obama gave the Boston Globe back in 2007 as a Senator, in which Obama said that “the President does not have the 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.”

Paul’s amendment then provides constitutional backing for Obama’s statement—and finally declares that “it is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria."

Puleeease let there be a vote on this!  1. It’s right.  2. Those who are o.k. with Obama as dictator will have to come out and vote accordingly.

And, yes, 3. Congress throwing Obama’s words at Obama would be delicious!

You can see the amendment for yourself here.

Rand Paul Gets It

Yesterday morning I noted that Obama has left the door wide open to attacking Syria even without Congressional authorization.  Yesterday afternoon, I was heartened to see Rand Paul has noticed as well, and he gave Secretary of State Kerry not a little heat about it:

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Madison was very explicit, when he wrote the Federalist papers, he wrote that history supposes, or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates is that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the constitution vested that power in the Congress. It is explicit throughout all of Madison's writings. This power is a Congressional power and it is not an executive power. They didn't say big war, small war. They didn't say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground. They said declare war.



Ask the people on the ships launching the missiles if they are involved in war or not.

If we do not say that the constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us. You're making us into theater. We play constitutional theater for the president. If this is real, you will abide by the verdict of Congress. You're probably going to win. Just say it is real and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose and say, 'oh well, we had the authority anyway, we're going to go ahead and go to war anyway.'

Downfall XI: Will Obama Attack Syria Without Congress?

I should start by saying the above is not a stale headline.  Yes, Obama has said he will seek Congressional authorization for an attack on Syria. 

But what most are not noticing is that he has not said (and in a press conference just now seemed to take pains not to say) is that if Congress says “No” then he will not attack.  Moreover, both NBC and Fox are reporting that Obama intends to attack Syria whether Congress approves it or not.  Donald Sensing concludes that this is, therefore, not speculation but comes from that White House itself.  And he wonders “how members of Congress of either party feel now that they've learned their votes on the matter are not actually relevant to the President.”

Sensing is on top of this as few are.  And I agree with him that there is the possibility of a serious Constitutional crisis over Syria if Obama goes full dictator and bombs Syria even if Congress refuses authorization.

And polls indicate strong majorities of the public oppose an attack on Syria, especially if it is not authorized by Congress.  This could be one act of tyranny he won’t get away with.

Such an event would wake up more that Obama likes to play the dictator with utter contempt of Congress and of Consent of the Governed.  It would greatly lessen tolerance of his tyrannical tendencies in Congress and even in the snooze media.  It would even weaken his base, much of which is profoundly anti-war and opposes strikes on Syria.  I think there would be the very real possibility that national anger would be such that impeachment in the House might be hard to stop and conviction in the Senate a possibility if still a remote one.

In short, if you think anger over Obama is bad now . . .

But note that I did put a question mark in the headline.  I doubt he is foolish enough to defy Congress by attacking Syria without authorization.

But then I have overestimated Obama before.  And, frankly, I’ve overestimated America as well.

Syria: Stay Away

It’s interesting that the very same people who decried W.’s war on Iraq are now oh-so-eager for a less justified war on Syria.  Peter Mullen cuts to the heart of the matter, and if you think I’m hard on Obama . . .

Is that crackpot Obama really about to fire Cruise missiles at Syria? . . . This is the bloke, you remember, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely two minutes after coming down from his Inauguration podium.

Yes, Assad is evil.  Heck, I’ve hated his regime and that of his daddy long before it was fashionable to do so.  But take a good look at the rebels, who are more of a danger to the U. S. not-so-by-the-way:

Everyone agrees that Assad is a nasty piece of work and guilty of terrible crimes against his own people. But take a look at the people opposing him. These number thousands of barbaric terrorists, jihadists, Salafists, members of psychopathic Sunni sects, would-be martyrs for Islam, more than half in love with uneaseful death. And if Blair was Bush’s poodle, Cameron and Hague are Obama’s lapdogs. When Vladimir Putin visited London recently for talks with David Cameron, he asked a pertinent question: “These people murder their opponents, cut them open, remove their livers and eat them. Are these the sorts of men you seek to supply with arms, Mr. Prime Minister?”

I’m no fan of Putin, but he has lately been getting into the habit of being more sensible than Obama.  (I know.  That's not hard.  But credit where credit is due . . .)

Best let those lovely people fight it out:

The consequences of an attack on Syria are incalculable, and there is no rational foundation for such a reckless exploit. Assad is a devil but his opponents are all demons too. Leave them to it then, for if Satan be divided against Satan, how shall his kingdom stand?

Not to mention that Armageddon is in the neighborhood . . . in more ways than one.

If Obama were smart, he would stay away.  If . . .