Darrell Issa's Unnecessary Contempt Vote Against Holder May Help Sink Romney's Ship In November!

Fist Bump For Eric Holder! Two Thumbs Down For Darrell Issa!

The same Darrell Issa who once Arrested for Felony Car Theft & who Plead Guilty to a Concealed Weapons Charge is now the SAME member of Congress who wants to hold A.G. Eric Holder in Contempt for some E-mails.

A Judge later Dismissed the Felony Car Theft Charges.

Now Fast forward to the 21st Century.

Congressman Issa where is Your Mercy for Eric Holder?

The same type of Mercy previously extended to you via a Judge when you were charged with Felony Car Theft?

Pres. Obama & Eric Holder are being blamed for a Gun Running Operation started under George Bush's Administration as "Wide Receiver" and later re-named "Fast & Furious" under Obama's Administration.

"Wide Receiver" placed thousands of Guns into the hands of Young, BLACK Men living in America, yet NO One in Congress said a Word!

"Wide Receiver" contributed to Thousands of Young, BLACK, Male Americans losing their lives via BLACK on BLACK Crime, yet NO One in Congress EVER opened their mouths to question George W. Bush on the program.

Pres. Obama used "Fast & Furious" to locate & help Destroy Mexican Drug Cartels, but yet the GOP Members of Congress want to FIRE U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

It was NOT Pres. Obama or Eric Holder who Murdered U.S. ATF Agent Brian Terry.

It was a Drug Cartel Leader.

Thus ATF Agent Brian Terry was Killed while in the line of Duty.

YES it was very Unfortunate, however he was Killed while in the line of Duty.

So how can Pres. Obama or Eric Holder be Personally blamed for Terry's Death?

What about the Thousands of BLACK Youth Murdered under George W. Bush's "Wide Receiver" Gun Running Program?

The Mothers of those Young, BLACK Males Murdered with Guns from the "Wide Receiver" Gun Running Operation Cried and Mourned just as ATF Brian Terry's Mother Cried and Mourned his Death at the hands of Mexican Drug Cartel Leaders who possessed Guns from Obama's "Fast & Furious" Gun Running Operation.

Its quite obvious this entire GOP-Sponsored Theater, led by Congressman Darrell Issa is Politically Motivated to Help Mitt Romney.

Instead its turning away Voters, even some GOP Voters.
i.e., its Backfiring!

Pres. Obama is sure to Benefit from this Contempt Vote against Eric Holder and Darrell Issa's Political Career will be Destroyed soon after.

All for the sake of Bitter Partisan Politics.

Thanks Congressman Issa!

Its so Sad!

You could have chosen to use your Congressional Oversight Authority to help Eliminate Medicaid, Medicare Abuse & Fraud, Increase Child Abuse Protection laws, help Eliminate Disability Payment Fraud, Affordable Housing Funding Fraud,

Investigate Widespread Employment Discrimination against Minorities and Women over the age of 40, Food Stamp Fraud, For-Profit School Student Loan Fraud carried out by School Administrators, etc.,

Instead Congressman Issa you chose to Harass America's First BLACK U.S. Attorney General over some E-mails.

E-mails which by the way were already Submitted to Congress Months ago.

This type of foolishness and waste of Taxpayer Money is why Congress currently has a 9% Approval Rating!

Keep Standing Eric Holder!

We have your Back!

GET OUT THE VOTE AND RE-ELECT PRES. OBAMA FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2012!








Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed


For veteran Congress watchers, President Barack Obama's formal claim of executive privilege regarding certain Justice Department documents related to Operation Fast and Furious will generate a sense of déjà vu.

Disputes over legislative access to executive documents occur in almost every presidential administration. Their resolution inevitably entails a set of legal and political considerations that change from episode to episode.

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

Whether or not the full House votes Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the likeliest resolution will be an informal settlement in which the Justice Department expands slightly on its current offer of disclosure, the committee narrows the range of documents it is demanding, or both compromise in a mutual, face-saving gesture.

At least, that would be likely in politically "normal" times.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

Deliberative privilege is not a legal absolute.

The executive branch concedes that when another branch of government demands privileged documents within the executive's control, they sometimes have to be turned over.

They have to be turned over when the demanding branch can articulate a compelling need for the information to fulfill one of its own constitutional functions -- a need that outweighs the executive branch's interest in confidentiality.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch.

It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government.

Resolving such a dispute sounds like a matter for the courts, but the judiciary is unlikely to be of much practical help now to the House.

If the House brings a civil action to enforce its subpoena, the matter is unlikely to resolved by the courts before the election or, indeed, before the expiration of the current Congress.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

The reality Congress faces in separation of powers disputes, no matter how genuine or how principled, is that the public will almost certainly not rally around Congress if it perceives the dispute as more political food fight than anything else.

With no Democrats supporting the committee vote -- and I am guessing few, if any Democrats supporting a contempt citation by the entire House -- that's just what this will look like.

Moreover, as with Whitewater, it will be hard for House Republicans to explain exactly what the problem is. Fast and Furious appears to have been a disaster, but the Justice Department has shared documents freely on Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department sent a letter to Congress in February 2011 that mistakenly denied reports about what the Bureau of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives actually did in Fast and Furious.

But the department has been forthcoming in sharing information about the events leading up to that letter, which Holder subsequently withdrew.

The fight, then, is not about a botched ATF operation or about a botched letter to Congress.

It is about how the attorney general reached his eventual conclusion that Fast and Furious was "fundamentally flawed" and decided how to respond to congressional and other requests for information about a program he now concedes should not have happened.

Politically, this now begins to sound like Whitewater -- a story hardly anyone can follow, which really does not seem to implicate fundamental issues of public policy or official integrity.

(One caveat: The dynamics of this dispute could change if it turns out that Republican Committee Chairman Darrell Issa actually has information that the process of responding to Congress after the February 2011 letter entailed specific instances of corruption.

Were he to bring such specific information to the attention of the White House, it would be consistent with past White House practice to release all documents related to that misconduct.)

A prolonged fight over Fast and Furious led by Republicans will do two things their presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, surely does not want.

It will fill up air space that could otherwise have been spent discussing the economy, and it will intensify the appearance of congressional Republicans as the obstructionists blocking the changes Obama so famously promised.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle.

Having months ago called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" -- in the face of such modern historical escapades as Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- the chairman is not well-situated to play a Sam Ervin-like role, policing the presidency more in sadness than in angry partisanship.

In short, unless the House has specific information not yet disclosed suggesting the information it seeks is closely linked to the exposure of government malfeasance we have not yet heard about, this fight will end in a standoff or the parties will finally compromise.

To put the matter in yet fuller context, here are some questions and answers about the dispute and the history of executive privilege:

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege.

That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

Where does executive privilege come from?

The Supreme Court has held that the authority of the executive branch to withhold certain documents from mandatory disclosure is rooted in the separation of powers.

The court stated, in United States v. Nixon (1974), that the importance of confidentiality to protect "communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties ... is too plain to require further discussion."

It concluded that "the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties."

In that sense, executive privilege is a form of power that the Constitution never mentions, but which the Supreme Court has found implicit in our constitutional structure. In that respect, it is just like Congress' investigative power, which is also not mentioned in the Constitution.

Why is the president involved in claiming privilege over Justice Department documents?

Withholding documents from Congress is always a sensitive matter, legally and politically. For this reason, presidents have long reserved to themselves the final decision of when and whether to invoke any kind of executive privilege against Congress.

President Ronald Reagan formalized this process in a November 1982, memorandum.

It states: "Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the executive branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches.

To ensure that every reasonable accommodation is made to the needs of Congress, executive privilege shall not be invoked without specific presidential authorization."

Why is the White House claiming executive privilege regarding Operation Fast and Furious?

Operation Fast and Furious appears to have been a gravely misbegotten attempt by the ATF to nab drug traffickers in Mexico by allowing lower-level gun traffickers to buy weapons in the United States for the Mexican cartels and then tracing the guns' movement, rather than stopping their export.

One of the guns may have been involved in the December 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

On February 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which mischaracterized the operation.

He incorrectly denied that ATF "knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico."

As a result, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Issa, has been investigating not only the original operation but also the circumstances that led to the erroneous February 4, 2011, letter.

For his part, Holder directed the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate Fast and Furious and publicly denounced the operation in October 2011 as "fundamentally flawed." The Justice Department has released to Congress more than 7,600 pages of documents revealing how Fast and Furious was initiated and carried out.

What the Issa committee is now demanding, and what the White House and Justice Department are withholding, are documents generated after February 4, 2011, relating to how the Justice Department handled its responses to Congress regarding Congress' oversight of Fast and Furious, following the erroneous Weich letter.

In his June 19 letter to the president seeking the invocation of executive privilege, Holder argued that to disclose these documents would " 'significantly impair' the Executive Branch's ability to respond independently and effectively to matters under congressional review."

More specifically, "Congressional oversight of the process by which the executive branch responds to congressional oversight inquiries would create a detrimental dynamic" that would, in turn, "chill the candor ... of executive branch discussions and 'introduce a significantly unfair imbalance to the oversight process.' "

Is the executive privilege claim valid?

United States v. Nixon held that, with the possible exception of documents pertaining to military and state secrets, executive privilege is not absolute but "qualified."
Under a "qualified privilege," documents that are potentially exempt from mandatory disclosure might still have to be released to another branch of government.

This would happen when the institutional needs of the demanding branch to acquire the information in support of its own constitutional functions are weightier than the harms that would follow should the executive branch be forced to disclose it.

Congress typically takes the position that this balancing process always favors Congress, a proposition with which the executive disagrees and for which there is no judicial precedent.

As matters stand, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: They would shed no light on any policy issue before Congress and would directly intrude on the executive branch's capacity to figure out how to respond to legislative inquiries, consistent with the executive's own independent constitutional role.

To Congress, the Justice Department is saying, in effect: You can ask us questions, you can judge our answers, but you cannot eavesdrop on the process by which we formulate our answers.

For its part, Issa's committee has not made clear in any concrete terms why it needs the documents it is demanding.

It has not, for example, made a prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing in the Justice Department's post-February 11, 2011, actions, on which the documents now demanded would shed some light.

As long as the dispute remains in this posture, the Justice Department's claim falls well within the executive branch's longstanding interpretation of its prerogatives under the separation of powers.




House Investigator Issa Has Faced Allegations As Well

The man driving the investigation into the General Services Administration, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, took the top seat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the GOP won a majority in 2010.

Issa has led several splashy investigations since. But he's also been dogged by allegations of his own.

Issa has made news in recent months by threatening to subpoena Attorney General Eric Holder, and by calling a panel of only men to talk about women's contraception.

The Car Alarm Voice

Issa made his fortune building and selling Viper car alarms. He is the wealthiest member of Congress, worth as much as $450 million. In fact, it's Issa's voice on the popular alarm's signature warning to would-be thieves: "Protected by Viper. Stand back."

What's less well known is how Issa got into car alarms in the first place.

"For years I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief. Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief, and it ruined the whole joke I'd had for 20 years in business," Issa said during an interview with WhoRunsGov.

Issa himself was accused several times of auto theft. In the early 1970s, he and his brother were arrested after police suspected them of stealing a Maserati sports car from a dealership in Cleveland. Issa says the police mistook his identity, and the charges were later dismissed.

Another time, Issa was arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon. Police found a handgun and a tear-gas gun — plus ammunition for both — in Issa's glove compartment.

Questions In The Past

These stories first arose when Issa ran for the Senate in 1998. An investigative reporter named Lance Williams was looking into the then-candidate's biography.

"He had been a soldier, and he claimed that he was part of an elite bomb detecting unit that guarded President Nixon at the 1971 World Series," said Williams.

Williams called up the Nixon Presidential Library, and was told that Nixon hadn't gone to any World Series games that year. Then Williams looked into Issa's purportedly stellar career in the Army.

"The biography that he was providing the press in the context of his campaign was all wrong. He had a bad conduct rating. He was demoted, and a fellow soldier accused him of stealing his car," said Williams.

Issa eventually took over the company that built car alarms.

Ryan Lizza, a reporter for The New Yorker magazine, detailed Issa's early business moves in a 2011 story.

The Fire

Issa had a warehouse full of electronics that, one night in 1982, caught fire. Investigators later found "suspicious burn patterns," Lizza reported, and found that Issa had done some odd things.

A co-worker claimed that before the fire, Issa had put important electronic prototypes in a fireproof box, and that he'd removed the business's computer and financial files from the building. Investigators also found that less than three weeks before the blaze, Issa had increased the company's fire insurance from $100,000 to more than $400,000.

"So you add the more than quadrupling of the insurance along with the taking the computer and putting the other stuff in a fireproof box, and you can see why both the arson investigators and the insurance investigators pointed a finger, you know, at Issa after this fire," said Lizza.

Issa said he had nothing to do with the fire, but the insurance company refused to pay the claim. The two later settled out of court.

It was in part because of these allegations that Issa lost his Senate bid in 1998. He went on to win his House seat, he worked to recall the governor of California, and now he chairs the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Issa would not talk to NPR about this, but he has told several news outlets over the years that he's surprised the allegations from his past continue to dog him.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, NPR, The Blaze, Youtube

Bill Clinton Walks Back His Bush Tax Cuts Extension Comments: Deja Vu' Cory Booker!

Remember when Bill Clinton told CNBC that he endorses a Temporary Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts? Well today Bill Clinton walked back his Bush Tax Cuts comments (just like Cory Booker did about Bain) and Apologized.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Clinton: 'I'm very sorry'

Bill Clinton regrets the swirl over comments he made earlier in the week in which he appeared to suggest he would be open to extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the former president said Thursday.

"I'm very sorry about what happened," Clinton said in an interview to air on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." "I thought something had to be done on the 'fiscal cliff' before the election. Apparently nothing has to be done until the first of the year."

Republicans seized on Clinton's remarks this week when he said lawmakers will likely put off a series of major spending and budget decisions. They argued the former president was siding with many in the GOP who call for the extension of the controversial tax cuts largely opposed by Democrats.

"[Congress] will probably have to put everything off until early next year," Clinton said Tuesday during an interview with CNBC. "That's probably the best thing to do right now."

The "fiscal cliff" consists of measures set to begin in January that would remove more than $500 billion out of the economy in 2013 alone. Those measures include the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and protection of the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the onset of $1 trillion in blunt spending cuts, and a reduction in Medicare doctors' pay.

On Thursday, however, Clinton argued that he, in fact, supported President Barack Obama's position, which calls for an end to the tax cuts only for those making $250,000 or more.

The former president emphasized he was mistaken about the timing of the fiscal cliff when he made his comments, thinking it would happen before the November election, rather than at the beginning of next year.

"I really was under the impression that they would have to do something before the election, and I was trying to figure out how they would kick it to last (through) the election," he said.

He continued: "Once I realized that nothing had to be done until the first of the year, I supported (Obama's) position. I supported extending them last year, but I think his position is the right one and necessary for working out a comprehensive (deficit reduction) deal."

The comments marked the second time Republicans pounced on Clinton in a week, trying to use his own words against Obama.

The former president last week complimented Mitt Romney's private equity career in an interview on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," which raised eyebrows among Democrats who have been using Romney's corporate history as an attack against the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

Last week, Clinton described Romney as a successful businessman and nodded to his "sterling" career.

Clarifying his remarks Thursday, Clinton said that just because he thinks Romney did well in the private sector doesn't mean he deserves to be elected president.

"You can be successful in business...if your shareholders do well," he said. "You can only be successful as president if the shareholders, the employees, the customers, and the communities do well–all of the constituencies of American market economics."

While Clinton has attended several top fundraisers for Obama this cycle, some critics argue Clinton's recent slip-ups are attempts to undermine the current president. Asked about his relationship with Obama, Clinton did not directly comment on his personal views of the president but pointed to his record of campaigning for him, instead.

"Look in 2008, when he ran for president and defeated Hillary in the primaries, I did 40 events for him. 40 in the election," he said.

He then said he repeatedly argues the president has "done a good job, a really good job under very trying circumstances" and stressed that he is "strongly committed" to Obama's re-election.

Thursday's interview came the same day a new CNN/ORC International poll indicated 66% of Americans hold a favorable view of Clinton, while 31% give him an unfavorable rating.

The former two-term Democratic president's favorable rating bottomed out in CNN polling at 51% in June of 2008, after Clinton took a very active role in advocating for his wife in her historic battle with Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.


Sources: CNBC, CNN, MSNBC

Bill Clinton Endorses Temporary Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts To Help Middle Class

View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.

Yes Bill Clinton recently told the Media that Pres. Obama & Congress should Temporarily Extend the Bush Tax Cuts in 2013.
Why?
Because ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts are Connected to the U.S. Tax Code for Middle Class and Low Income Citizens.
In other words if those Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to Expire Immediately, Middle Class & Low Income Voters would be Financially Ambushed!
Another reason for Congress to STOP Playing & Fix the U.S. Tax Code!


Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended Temporarily

Former president Bill Clinton caused additional headaches for the Obama campaign on Tuesday when he told CNBC that he wouldn't have a problem with Congress temporarily extending all the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of the year.

Clinton went on to insist that President Obama should not sign off on legislation that would extend the top end tax cut rates permanently, a concession that Republicans have demanded. In that regard both he and Obama are on the same page: They both believe the high-end Bush tax cuts need to be de-coupled, extended for the middle and lower classes and ended for the upper earners. But Clinton's insistence that he would have "no problem" extending all of the tax cuts for some amount of time puts the Obama campaign in an awkward position. In this hyper-political climate, Republicans were quick to pounce on the daylight between the current and former Democratic president.

The White House is readying for a tax cut showdown this summer. House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) indicated the House will vote on extending tax cuts before its August recess.

A Congressional Budget Office report released last month warned that the country may be thrown into a recession if the Bush tax cuts expired and scheduled spending cuts took effect as planned.

Clinton emphasized his opposition to the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, but conceded they might need to be temporarily renewed until the country gets out of what he called a recession.

"What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election," he said.

"I don't have any problem with extending all of it now, including the current spending levels." But the tax cuts are already set to be in place through the end of the year -- after the election -- and so Clinton's extension would take them further.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, Michael Steel, quickly pounced on Clinton's comments. "The fact that former President Clinton supports stopping all of the tax hikes scheduled for January 1 is very, very big news," he said, according to Politico.

This is not the first comment by Clinton that could pose problems for the Obama campaign. During a CNN appearance last week, Clinton praised Romney's work at Bain as "sterling," and questioned the strategy of criticizing private equity. Clinton himself dabbled in private equity.

In a sign of the new media landscape, Mitt Romney's campaign launched a parody Bill Clinton twitter account, highlighting comments by the former president that seemed to undercut Obama.

A full transcript of Clinton's remarks on the Bush tax cuts are included below, via CNBC:

MARIA BARTIROMO: So what about this upcoming fiscal cliff? Because a lot of people are worried and the markets certainly have been reacting to the-- to the idea that these Bush tax cuts will expire at year end along with the spending programs that will expire. Should those programs and those tax cuts be extended?
PRES. BILL CLINTON: What I think they should do is find a way to keep the expansion going. And I think the-- as weak as it is here, you know, unemployment in the euro zone I think is 11%. And-- Germany's doing well but the-- and a lot of the smaller countries are doing extremely well, many of which are not in the euro.

But they're trying to figure out a way to promote growth. And what I think we need to do is to-- find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long-term debt reduction plan as soon as they can, which presumably will be after the election.

MARIA BARTIROMO: So does that mean extending the tax cuts?

PRES. BILL CLINTON: Well, I think what it means is they will have extend-- they will probably have to put everything off until early next year. That's probably the best thing to do right now. But the Republicans don't want to do that unless he agrees to extend the tax cuts permanently, including for upper income people.

And I don't think the president should do that. That's going to-- that's what they're fighting about. I don't have any problem with extending all of it now, including the current spending level. They're still pretty low, the government spending levels. But I think they look high because there's a recession. So the taxes look lower than they really would be if we had two and a half, 3% growth. And the spending is higher than it would be if we had two and a half, 3% growth because there are so many people getting food stamps, so many people getting unemployment, so many people are Medicaid.

But-- the real issue is not whether they should be extended for another few months. The real issue is whether the price the Republican House will put on that extension is the permanent extension of the tax cuts, which I think is an error.

UPDATE (9:05 p.m. ET): Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna released a statement on the former president's CNBC appearance.

Two questions have been raised regarding President Clinton's interview on CNBC today. First, on extending the Bush tax cuts, as President Clinton has said many times before, he supported extending all of the cuts in 2010 as part of the budget agreement, but does not believe the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended again. In the interview, he simply said that he doubted that a long-term agreement on spending cuts and revenues would be reached until after the election.

Second, on the current condition of the economy, he said at the top of the interview that the main goal for those in Washington was "to keep the expansion going." Later, in the interview, he said government spending levels were higher and revenues were lower than they would normally be because there was a recession and we're still living with the aftermath of it.

It's obvious since we've had 4.3 million new private sector jobs in the last 27 months that we're not in a recession, even though we'd all like growth to be higher.


View Larger Map


Sources: AOL, CNBC, Huffington Post, NBC New York, Google Maps

Afghan & Iraq War Vet Suicide Rate Alarmingly High! 18+ Daily! (Videos)

WAR IS HELL!

Please Don't Bash U.S. Military Personnel Currently Serving To Defend Our Country.
Those SAME Members of the U.S. Military You are choosing to Blast & Criticize, are the SAME Military Personnel Working Hard each day to Protect You & Defending Your Rights as an American Citizen.

So unless You Have EVER Served in the U.S. Military Or Unless You have members of Your Immediate Family Who served in the U.S. Military, Please Refrain from Criticizing members of the U.S. Military.

Especially U.S. Soldiers who have been Deployed Multiple times.

Have you EVER served in the U.S. Military?
Have you EVER completed Basic Training?
Have you EVER served in a Combat Zone?
Have you EVER been Shot at by Iraq or Afghanistan Citizens?
Have you EVER suffered a Brain Injury or PTSD as a result of serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?

If your response is "NO" to those questions, than why are you complaining about the Actions of U.S. Soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan?

I have a Husband who retired from the U.S. Army after 23 Years of Active Duty Service.
He served in Vietnam & Saudi.

My husband personally witnessed 2 of his Friends getting their heads Blown Off by the Vietcong.
Witnessing such Tragedies Still affects him years later because he is a Human Being.
And during his time in Vietnam my husband was Injured.

My Father Served in the U.S. Army during War time.
My Uncles & Cousins served in the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy & Marines.
Now my Son & his Fiancee’ are also Serving in the U.S. Army.

I am Tired of Arrogant People, Especially Arrogant BLACK Men & Women, who NEVER served One day Defending this Country, Criticizing Members of our Armed Services.

I am also Tired of Politicians from both sides of the Aisle, using Our U.S. Military Personnel as Pawns to win Elections.

If Your Religion disavows War or Military Service, I respect Your Decision NOT to Serve in the U.S. Military.
But please don’t use Your Religion as an Excuse to Bash or look down upon our Brave Men & Women who choose to Defend this Country via U.S. Military Service.

I Don’t Condone the type of Violence which took place last weekend when that Army Sergeant Killed 16 Afghan Civilians but who are we to Judge?

Who are we to Judge?

NONE of us except GOD, the U.S. Army & that Army Sergeant knows what really happened or what that Man has experienced during each of his Deployments to Iraq & Afghanistan.

Since he was Suffering from a Brain Injury why was he Still being Allowed to Serve or why was he Still being Deployed to another Dangerous War Zone?

I can bet he was either BLACK or Latino!
I could be Wrong but in this instance I don’t think I am.

BLACK & Latino Soldiers are Often Deployed more frequently to Combat Zones than WHITE Soldiers.

For BLACKS & Latinos serving in the U.S. Military, Racial Discrimination is Still a Major Issue!

Now Add Racial Discrimination to the Stress of trying to Stay Alive while serving in a War Zone.

So unless You plan on Immediately Enlisting into the U.S. Military & Defending the United States Of America (Your Current Home), then please take that Anti-Military Sentiment Somewhere else!

God Bless Our Men & Women Who Serve This Country Via the U.S. Military!


View Larger Map


Sources: Al Jazeera English, Russia Today, Youtube, Google Maps

Mitt Romney Won't Win In 2012! Why? NO Latino Voter Support (Diversity)

The GOP lost the Presidential Race in 2008 & they are going to lose it again in 2012 for 2 reasons:

1) Presidential Candidates of Color is the New Political Trend.
2) George W. Bush Imitators are OUT!

i.e., The GOP Severely Lacks DIVERSITY!!!

GOP Leaders either didn't receive this memo or they chose to ignore it.

A New Fox News Poll reveals that 70% of Latino Voters would rather cast their Ballots for Pres. Obama than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum Or Ron Paul.
Why?
Because Presidential Candidates of Color are in & George W. Bush Imitators are OUT!

The World is tired of WHITE Men Controlling & Ruling EVERYTHING!

Am I Encouraging or "Preaching" Racial Hatred or Racial Division?
NO!!
I'm Just Being Brutally Honest.

Mitt Romney is Another George W. Bush.

MOST American Voters don't want that!
MOST American Voters also don't mind Supporting a BLACK or Latino Elected U.S. Presidents.

If GOP Leaders had recruited Marco Rubio for the 2012 GOP Presidential Race, Pres. Obama would Probably NOT have had a Chance. I said Probably.

Instead they chose Mitt Romney because the Bush Family gave Romney their Political Blessing.

Now the GOP is Losing Voters of All Races & Genders to Pres. Obama in Great Numbers.

This is why I know for sure the Democrats & GOP Will Both select Latino Presidential Candidates in 2016.

However for the GOP 2016 is 4 Years too late.

Color is In!
All WHITE Males are OUT!
I'm Just Saying.
Please Don't Hate The Messenger.





GOP Hopefuls Losing Ground to Obama Among Latinos, Poll Says

Despite growing disappointment in his handling of immigration issues, Latino voters favor President Barack Obama by six-to-one over any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, showed a Fox News Latino poll conducted under the direction of Latin Insights and released Monday.

The national poll of likely Latino voters indicated that 73 percent of them approved of Obama’s performance in office, with over half those questioned looking favorably upon his handling of the healthcare debate and the economy, at 66 percent and 58 percent respectively.

Released on the eve of the Super Tuesday primaries in the race for the GOP nomination, the Fox News Latino poll shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 35 percent of Latino voter support, to Texas Rep. Ron Paul's 13 percent, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's 12 percent, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's 9 percent.

But the poll shows that the overwhelming choice among likely Latino voters is President Obama. In head-to-head match-ups none of the GOP candidates would garner more than 14 percent of the Latino vote come November, the poll said.

"This is what we're seeing across the country," said Gabriela Domenzain, Obama campaign spokesperson. "The more Latinos learn about the candidates, the more they reject them."

Caught-up in the throes of a bitterly contested primary season, the GOP hopefuls seem to be losing traction among Latino voters.

For Latinos, Immigration is More Personal Than Political, Fox News Latino Poll Says
While the poll indicates that four of five Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 would vote for him later this year, Latinos who voted for Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain four years ago are now divided between voting for Obama and the Republican candidates.

Forty percent said that they favored Obama while 38 percent said they would vote for Romney.

Obama also leads Santorum 38 percent to 34, and Gingrich 40 percent to 38.
McCain grabbed 31 percent of the overall Hispanic vote.

"The 2012 election will be a pocketbook election, and Barack Obama has failed Latinos on the economy," said Alexandra Franceschi, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. "From higher unemployment to record debt to skyrocketing gas prices, Latinos are worse off than they were four years ago because of Obama’s record of broken promises and failed policies."

The shift in Latino voter leanings may reflect a growing divergence with the GOP over issues -- in particular, over immigration.

Although immigration came in fourth among issues cited as important by likely Latino voters --to jobs and the economy, education, and health care-- voter responses on immigration show a wide discrepancy with the positions of GOP hopefuls.

The Fox News Latino poll show likely Latino voters across the country overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act (90 percent), favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (85 percent), and believe undocumented workers help to grow the U.S. economy (82 percent).

During the February Arizona debate, both Romney and Santorum backed controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and all the candidates said they favored a stricter immigration policy.

Romney said he looked to Arizona’s controversial approach to immigration as a model and added that if he was president he would stop all federal lawsuits against state laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070.

He also reaffirmed his support for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and mandating the use of E-Verify to deter undocumented immigrants from finding employment.

Gingrich proposed during the debate the construction of a double fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and the deployment of thousands more Homeland Security Department employees to border areas. Santorum also said that he would beef up efforts to stop undocumented immigrants from entering the country.

Latino Voters Overwhelmingly Support Dream Act, Path to Citizenship, Poll Shows
"I think what you're going to see when the results come in is that we're going to see a good amount of Latino support," said Sylvia Garcia, the Gingrich campaign's National Hispanic Inclusion director. "We're finding a high amount of support among the Latino Evangelical community."

Paradoxically, immigration is also the issue in which President Obama receives his lowest approval rating among Latino voters --some 41 percent disapprove of the job he is doing regarding immigration, with the number climbing higher to 56 percent among Latinos between the age of 35 and 44.

One area where Republicans could gain back ground among Latino voters is by the choice of Vice President. Almost one-third of Latino voters say that they would consider voting Republican if there were a Latino on the ticket.

Both Florida junior Sen. Marco Rubio and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martínez have been mentioned as possible names for the eventual GOP presidential ticket.

Almost one-quarter of Latinos said they would be more willing to vote for a Republican if Rubio was on the ticket, with this number rising to almost four-in-ten in Florida, a potential swing state.

About one-fifth of likely Latino voters would be more willing to vote for a Republican if Martínez got the VP nod.

The Fox News Latino/Latin Insights poll was conducted by Latin Insights, a New York based independent research company, and compiled through a telephone survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,200 likely Latino voters.

The respondents were given the option of completing the survey in English and Spanish.

The margin of error for the poll is +/- 2.7 percent with 95 percent confidence.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Univision Network, Youtube, Google Maps

Richard Cebull Should Resign Or Be Impeached By Congress; Misuse Of Office & Racist Behavior In Workplace

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Federal Judge Richard Cebull (9th Circuit), a Federal Judge Appointed by George W. Bush in 2001, has Publicly Apologized for sending out an extremely Racist E-mail about Pres. Obama via his Official Judicial E-mail Account.

The E-mail suggests Pres. Obama was Conceived after his Mother had Sex with a Dog.

OMG!
That is so Disgusting!

Such Disrespectful Behavior from a Federal Judge!
A Publicly Apology from Richard Cebull is NOT good enough.

As a Federal Judge Appointed by a U.S. President & Confirmed by Congress, Richard Cebull is expected to Serve & Conduct himself in a Professional, Respectful Manner before the Public.

This is especially so whenever referring to a Sitting U.S. President.

How in the World can Richard Cebull be expected to continue Serving in his role as a Federal Judge and be expected to Treat Everyone Fairly, if he has expressed to the Entire United States via a Racist E-mail that he has a Problem with a BLACK, Elected President?

No a Public Apology isn't good enough!

Judge Richard Cebull Needs to Voluntarily Resign or Congress Should Impeach Him!
Period!






Richard Cebull says he sent Racist Obama e-mail


Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull apologized Wednesday for sending a racist email about President Obama from his office to a few friends.

"To say it's inappropriate and stupid is an extreme understatement," Cebull said Wednesday afternoon in his courthouse chambers in Billings.

"There is no doubt it's racist. It wasn't forwarded for that purpose," Cebull said. "If anything, it was political."

The judge admitted he forwarded the racially charged email he received to seven friends, including his brother, on Feb. 20 from his office computer.

The email eventually was forwarded to the Great Falls Tribune, which published it Wednesday. The Tribune said the email text read as follows:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this.

Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

"A little boy said to his mother, 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'
His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack!

From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

Cebull took responsibility, calling it "a hard lesson to learn. I apologize."

The judge said he is not a racist although he acknowledged people will think that because of the email.

"And I don't blame them. The fact is that isn't how I've conducted myself as a federal judge. Never has anybody asserted I was racist," he said.

Cebull was nominated to the bench by former President George W. Bush and confirmed in 2001. He has been Montana's chief judge since 2008. Prior to becoming a district judge, Cebull served as a U.S. magistrate judge in Great Falls and had been in private practice.

Cebull said he does not remember who sent him the email and said he had deleted it before Wednesday. The judge also said he did not write the introduction.

The judge said he was at a loss to explain why he forwarded the message.

Friends send him emails of a political nature, he said.

"It was a private communication. I didn't intend for it to go public," he said.
As a judge, Cebull said, he can't express in public political preferences but was naive to not consider the public consequences of his actions.

The judge has said he is not an Obama supporter.

Cebull said he has emailed the other federal judges in Montana apologizing for his conduct. He said he will never forward or send another email from his office that isn't business related.


View Larger Map


Sources: Billings Gazette, CNN, Current TV, MSNBC, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Jeb Bush: Will He Or Won't He Enter 2012 Election? Latino & Middle Class Voters!

Word on the street is that both Political Parties are eyeing former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as a Strong Contender against Pres. Obama this Fall.
The Bush Family has begged Jeb to run because GOP Leaders fear Mitt Romney is just too "Flip Floppy" to Beat Pres. Obama.

Many GOP Supporters are Hoping & Praying for Jeb Bush to step in during the Tampa Convention this Summer.

In the meantime Democrat Leaders are also keeping their Radars on Jeb Bush.

Considering how Crazy this 2012 GOP Presidential Primary has been Democrats would be foolish to take their eyes off of Jeb Bush.

Why?

Jeb Bush has a Strong Latino & Middle Class Voter following.

So will he or won't he enter the 2012 Elections?
Stay Tuned.





Despite Mitt Romney wins, both sides keep eying Jeb Bush

Mitt Romney’s tortured triumph in Michigan put him back in the GOP driver’s seat — but that hasn’t quelled the desire among some Republicans to trade up.
Yes, Republicans are still pining for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush despite his repeated and vehement refusal to be sucked into the 2012 Republican vortex.

And Democrats continue to cast a wary eye on a guy they see as more dangerous — and capable of connecting with middle-class and Latino voters — than Romney.

The Bush murmurs persist, even as a resilient Romney marches toward Super Tuesday with a commanding lead in cash, delegates and momentum over a sagging Rick Santorum.

“I have the perfect candidate — Jeb Bush. But he’s not running,” former George W. Bush chief of staff Andy Card told Charlie Rose on CBS on Wednesday, echoing the sentiments of many in his party.

“What Democrat would not worry about a popular leader from a critical state who sounds pretty moderate and can rescue the GOP from its anti-Latino death grip?” asked former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, who said he’s yet to find a Democratic elder who thinks the GOP is truly “unhinged” enough to consider ditching Romney for Bush.

Bush — who has refused to endorse Romney in 2012 as he did in 2008 and whose son endorsed Jon Huntsman — has fanned the flames himself, possibly to whet his party’s appetite for a 2016 run. After keeping a low profile during the hotly contested Florida primary in January, he popped up last week at the height of the Romney-Santorum duel in Michigan to declare his problems with the GOP presidential field.

“I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective,” Bush told a gathering in Dallas last Thursday, according to FOX News.

“I think that changes when we get to the general election — I hope,” added Bush, who has personally urged Romney to moderate his rhetoric on illegal immigration for fear of completely alienating Hispanic voters in states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

That got the attention of conservatives including Ann Coulter, who slammed him of prepping for a campaign, and Obama campaign officials who found his timing curious.
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and a friend of Bush, said she saw the former governor last Sunday and he laughed off any idea that he’ll jump in the game.

But even Navarro couldn’t resist indulging in a little starry-eyed speculation of what might have been.

“Why is he a fearful figure? You know, anybody who knows Jeb Bush and who’s heard Jeb Bush understands there’s a certain inspirational quality to him,” she said in an interview.

“He is smart, he is scary smart, and he has got a national network of supporters that he could turn on with the flip of a switch. And nobody could hold Obama’s feet to the fire in the Latino community like Jeb Bush.”

That opinion has considerable bipartisan support. “Don’t buy the bulls—- about us not being worried about Jeb,” added a veteran Democratic operative. “He’s a tough matchup even if his last name is Bush.”

Bush has said repeatedly that he isn’t running and the people around him say he couldn’t pull it off at this late date even if he wanted to. (“If Jeb had any intention of competing for the Republican nomination, he would have been at it from day one,” Navarro said. “Jeb does not play games.”)

Karl Rove, another Bush fan, recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed declaring the possibility of a brokered convention — a scenario that could theoretically result in a Bush candidacy — comparable to finding life on Pluto, although he didn’t rule out a contested convention where delegates shift their votes.

But Bush has said no to anyone who asked whether he’s interested, including his son George P. Bush.

Operatives in both parties say he’d be crazy to jump in now instead of waiting four years, when his Democratic opponent won’t have the benefits of incumbency.

But if 2012 has proven anything, it’s that logic isn’t always the most important thing. Republican operatives, speaking to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, talk about Bush in the glowing tones of a potential spouse who got away — and seems perfect in comparison to the person they stare at across their coffee every morning.

Likewise, Democrats have been gaming out the possibility of an Obama-Bush face-off, just as they have with other no-thanks Republicans, including Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels.

One third-party Democratic group was so concerned about Bush that it recently paid for a poll to gauge his performance in a head-to-head matchup against Obama, according to a Democrat briefed on the poll.

The survey revealed nothing that public polling hasn’t already covered — that Obama enjoys a substantial lead and that the Bush surname is still toxic.

That it was undertaken at all shows the extent of the concern over a possible Bush candidacy and, more important, a lingering uncertainty — even a touch of anxiety — in Democratic circles about Romney’s ability to make it over the finish line.

The Obama campaign loves watching Mitt Romney squirm in the spotlight — but they don’t want to see him so irretrievably damaged that it draws better candidates into the fray.

And while many inside the Obama campaign are itching to see the race resolved — so they can target Romney exclusively and hone their fighting skills — the prevailing sentiment is that the GOP infighting is a gift from the political gods.

“On some level, I’d love to get this thing going,” said a senior party official, quickly adding, “I know that sounds crazy, but it would be nice to lock Romney in.”
Obama’s brain trust was rooting for a Santorum victory in Michigan and were disappointed that efforts by unions and local Democrats to coax party members into cross-registering to vote for Santorum fell short.

But they were pleased with the way the Michigan primary went down — Romney’s two-Cadillacs-and-just-right-trees speech to an empty football stadium, the embrace of the polarizing immigration crusader Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona, the $4.2 million burn to win his home state.

And they have watched gleefully as Obama’s approval rating in the state has ballooned to 16 points in the latest Public Policy Polling survey — in part because of Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout.

“In 2008, the protracted primary allowed us to build our organization across the country and lay out an affirmative vision,” said Obama 2012 communications director Ben LaBolt.

“That’s not what the Republicans have done — they haven’t invested in organization and they’re leapfrogging to the right of each other on issues from Medicare to immigration,” he added. “Their primary has been an echo chamber where they have debated who is the most committed to tea party orthodoxy rather than laying out a plan to create jobs and restore economic security for the middle class, the issues most Americans are focused on.”

Romney, for his part, cast Tuesday’s 3-point win in Michigan as a narrow but important benchmark, another brick in the road to inevitability.

Despite a recent spate of good polls and encouraging economic data, Obama remains vulnerable, especially if Republicans get past their intraparty food fight to focus on the president’s inability to bring unemployment below 8 percent and a widely held belief that he pushed through health reform in lieu of working on the economy.

But Democrats, including those who sense Obama’s weakness, watched Romney’s speech Tuesday night with a sense of relief that Bush wasn’t the man at the podium.

“I think anybody who’s legitimate would make it a race with Obama at this point,” said a former adviser to Hillary Clinton in 2008. “If they did get someone who was reasonably grown-up now and — poof — we got a race. … And Jeb’s not just anybody, he’s got damned good skills, he can raise money and even people who hated his brother concede he’s the smartest Bush.”




Jeb Bush calls GOP Rhetoric "Troubling"

In the wake of Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate in Arizona - the 20th of the season - former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is expressing concerns about the nature of Republican discourse in the current election cycle.
Bush, the son and brother of former presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively, said he found the GOP debates "a little troubling" because the candidates are appealing to voters' emotions rather than more overarching political concerns.

"I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are," Bush said after a speech in Dallas on Thursday.

"I think it changes when we get to the general election," he added. "I hope."

Bush said that appealing to the less moderate voters in the Republican party could hurt the GOP nominee in the general election.

"I think it's important for the candidates to recognize though they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition," he said the same day, according to a CBS affiliate in Dallas.

The influential Florida politician has declined to endorse a candidate in this election cycle, and has even been cited as a possible last-minute Republican alternative to the current slate of GOP contenders.

Rick Santorum took a hit in Wednesday's GOP debate over his having supported the controversial education policy "No Child Left Behind" put forth by Jeb Bush's brother George W. Bush, a measure Santorum said he voted for only out of loyalty to the then-president.

"It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader," Santorum said, calling his support a "mistake."


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Politico, Univision, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP's War Hypocrisy! Bush's Iraq Vs Obama's Libya (McCain Defends Obama)

The Level Of Hypocrisy Demonstrated By Republican Party Leaders Over Pres. Obama's Decision To Help NATO Forces Get Rid Of Moammar Gadhafi's Genocidal Reign In Libya Amazes Me!

I Mean Speaker John Boehner Is Even Threatening To Sue Pres. Obama Over The Use Of U.S. Forces In Libya.

Can You Believe It??

I Don't Know How Most GOP Lawmakers Can Even Sleep At Night.

Considering How Badly They Have Treated America's First BLACK President Since His Election In 2008.

Such Hypocrisy!!!

Especially When GOP Leaders Didn't Seem To Mind Former Pres. George W. Bush's 8-Year Iraq Invasion Which Was Based SOLELY On Lies!! ("Weapons Of Mass Destruction"). i.e., "WAR ON TERROR"

In Fact G.W. Bush Wasted Billions Upon Billions Of Dollars In Iraq Even AFTER Saddam Hussein Was Captured & Killed!

Yet There Was NO Pressure From GOP Lawmakers To Pull Out.

NONE!

Nada!

Zero!

NO PRESSURE AT ALL!

Could It Be There Was NO Pressure To Leave Iraq Because Millions Upon Millions Of Dollars Were Being Awarded To Government Contractors?

Many Of Whom Were Friends Of Some GOP Lawmakers On Capitol Hill?

Could It Also Be That The Iraq Invasion Was More About OIL Than About A TRUE Humanitarian Effort?

Inquiring Minds Would Really Like To Know!

Well Now Suddenly The GOP Wants To Cry Foul On Pres. Obama Regarding His TRUE Humanitarian Effort To Help Libya's Citizens.

Thank God U.S. Senator John McCain (R) Has Enough Intelligence & Boldness To Call Out The Foolish Behavior Of His Fellow Republicans On This Issue.

In Fact McCain Said If Congress Attempts To Prohibit U.S. Ground Troops In Libya, Such Actions Could Be A Violation OF The U.S. Constitution.

So Is It Safe To Say That Republicans LOVE War For ANY Reason ONLY But If Its Enacted By A Republican President?

Yes!

As It Relates To The War Powers Act Of 1973, This Resolution is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.









War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.

On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.

“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”




It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House’s response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Weednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.

The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a “war” in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.

Since then, the conflict in Libya has dragged on longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya may be a diplomatic goal, the military mission is separate, and remains limited to protecting civilians.

The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities. But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.

While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon’s veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980,the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.

Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.

It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House’s interpretation of what “hostilities” means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations.

Mr. Koh argued that the administration’s interpretation of the word was not unprecedented, noting that there have been previous disputes about whether the 60-day-clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments where — unlike the Libya operation — there were troops on the ground and Americans suffered casualties.

Still, such previous cases typically involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited to take part, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence, like those in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. Libya, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardment of a government’s forces.

The closest precedent was the NATO-led air war over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, the Clinton administration’s legal team characterized the campaign, which involved many piloted American warplanes, as “hostilities” even though there was little exchange of fire from Serb forces after their air defenses were destroyed and there were no United States casualties.

In Kosovo, however, Congress appropriated specific funds for the mission before 60 days had passed. The Clinton administration decided that by providing the money, Congress had satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps