Guest Blog: Ron Paul - "Obama's Force Authorization is a Blank Check for War Worldwide" -- with Commentary by Brianroy, plus bonus videos

Obama's Force Authorization is a Blank Check for War Worldwide

written by ron paul

wednesday february 11, 2015

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/february/11/obamas-force-authorization-is-a-blank-check-for-war-worldwide/ 

      The president* is requesting Congress to pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) resolution against ISIS. Congress has not issued a similar resolution since 2002, when President Bush was given the authority to wage war against Iraq. The purpose of this resolution is to give official authority to the president to do the things that he has already been doing for the past six years. Seems strange but this is typical for Washington. President Obama’s claim is that he does not need this authority. He claims, as have all other recent presidents, that the authority to wage war in the Middle East has been granted by the resolutions passed in 2001, 2002, and by article II of the Constitution. To ask for this authority at this time is a response to public and political pressure.

It has been reported that the president is going to request that the authority limit the use of ground troops. However it would not affect the troops already engaged in Syria and Iraq to the tune of many thousands. This new authority will acknowledge that more advisors will be sent. Most importantly it will appear to have given moral sanction to the wars that have already been going for years.

Interestingly it actually expands the ability of the president to wage war although the president publicly indicates he would like to restrain it. The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.

The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.

We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.

Even if our policies led to no boots on the ground, the unintended consequences of blowback and the enemy obtaining more American weapons will continue. The CIA has said that 20,000 foreigners are on their way to Iraq and Syria to join the ISIS. Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams. Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.

It’s my opinion that giving additional authority to wage war in the Middle East is a serious mistake. Instead, the authority granted in 2001 and 2002 should be repealed. A simple and correct solution would be for our elected officials to follow the rules regarding war laid out in the Constitution.

Ironically there may well be some Republicans in the Congress who will oppose this resolution because of their desire to have an all-out war and not be limited in any way by the number of troops that we should be sending to this region. The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it’s in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.

There is no doubt that ISIS represents a monstrous problem – a problem that should be dealt with by the many millions of Arabs and Muslims in the region. ISIS cannot exist without the support of the people in the region. Currently it is estimated that their numbers are in a range of 30,000. This is not the responsibility of American soldiers or the American taxpayer.

Declaring war against ISIS is like declaring war against communism or fascism. The enemy cannot be identified or limited. Both are ideological and armies are incapable of stopping an idea, good or bad, that the people do not resist or that they support. Besides, the strength of ISIS has been enhanced by our efforts. Our involvement in the Middle East is being used as a very successful recruitment tool to expand the number of radical jihadists willing to fight and die for what they believe in. And sadly our efforts have further backfired with the weapons that we send ending up in the hands of our enemies and used against our allies and Americans caught in the crossfire. Good intentions are not enough. Wise policies and common sense would go a long way toward working for peace and prosperity instead of escalating violence and motivating the enemy.

---

Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute.    Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/february/11/obamas-force-authorization-is-a-blank-check-for-war-worldwide/

*     Since Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen and by Constitutional Law is NOT legally “President of the United States”, nor can Congress authorize such a violation of the Constitution (Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."    ), I have taken the editorial discretion to strike a line through the word “president” any time Obama is erroneously inferred as in any way legitimate to an office he is Constitutionally illegal to occupy and exercise ANY powers from.  -- Brianroy

-------------------------------------------------------------------


In this following post-Ron Paul blog Commentary, I would like to Hat Tip Bradlee Dean, the Harvard Law Review, and Infowars. I have also drawn on some what I have previously posted as well.  -- Brianroy



-------------------------------------------------------------------



The Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against a Foreign Enemy Under President Bush and the AUMF for Obama the Usurper On Behalf Of the Enemy Against Citizens of the World As Well As Perhaps Against The Most Law-Abiding And Peaceful Citizens Of The United States?


In regard to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to President Bush by Congress,  on September 14, 2001, 3 days after the attacks of 9/11/2001 on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon, President Bush issued Proclamation No. 7463, 66 Fed. Reg. 48,199 (Sept. 14, 2001) in response to the 9-11 attacks. The Congressional Intelligence Committee was then briefed, and in turn, have briefed others who succeeded them.    Congress formally legalized President Bush with Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224(2001) which states: The “President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” { Authorization for Use of Military Force (“the AUMF”), 115 Stat. 224}

All necessary force includes the means of coercive tactics in order to induce information that is reasonably believed to be posing an imminent risk to the National Security of the United States if it is not extracted. Since 9/11 was apparently planned some 14 months in advance, in or about July of 2000, the timeline of extraction is reasonably to be assumed for any vital information regarding knowledge of events planned up to and including 14 months from capture. The United States was attacked without provocation to an economic target that would ripple and perhaps cripple the economy by its prevailing business ties to banking and Wall Street, as well as an attack on the Pentagon.  In comparison, in the past few years "Obama the Usurper" and his West Wing run and train parts of as well as aid and abet Islamic terrorists while pretending to fight them and demanding more powers and funds to misappropriate to aid and abet the terrorists and fuel certain porkish political insider contractors who share the graft.  

In his September post 9/11/2001  address to a Joint Session of Congress, the President (G.W. Bush) promised that “[w]e will direct every resource at our command—every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war—to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.”

Unfortunately, by 2007 to 2008, President Bush had been compromised by Saudi graft and Saudi gifts, including a big fat gold solid necklace weighing more than several pounds, and looked the other way as the Saudi funded foreigner, Obama, illegally ran for President of the United States that he had NO legal business to run for nor to ever aspire to.  

As for claims of torture by the C.I.A. under President Bush of Al Qaeda, Obama the Usurper's fellow Muslims in arms...under U.S. Law, notice and legalization for "torture of enemy combatants", 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(3)(B), (if, or as necessary) was allowable as it was outside the protection of the Geneva Convention, and was at that time publicly served in that Joint Session of Congress post-9/11 address by President Bush.

Congress and later US Government Administrations cannot therefore pursue violations to the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441), or the Anti-Torture Act (1991), (18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A), because they have lawfully exempted George W. Bush by act of Congress. The same would NOT be true of Obama since he is NOT Constitutionally President of the United States, not having a U.S. Citizen Father, and the fact that “It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution”.  Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ page 272


And while Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) @ page 678  notes “Congress cannot anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it necessary to take”.  
there must first be the presumption of a “Constitutionally legal to be” President doing the activity of being President.  A USURPER has no safety in hiding behind the protections of an office he is not Constitutionally legal to claim authority over or of.   And even when a President is Constitutionally legal to be President of the United States --  which is certainly NOT the case with Obama (who his own ambassador and the Government of Kenya recognized as being Kenyan born, as well as he himself from Harvard as a foreign exchange student to his election to the U.S. Senate saying he was Kenyan born, as well as having a Kenyan national father who NEVER became a U.S. Citizen) – the Court guides us with decisions and/or counsel such as:
 Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/2/case.html

“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177 (dissent)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/case.html

“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.

"… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws

or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)@ 159 - 160

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html

      The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so...it is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. 

If the act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507.

US Constitutional Law mandates that the obligation of The President of the United States, is that it is his legal obligation and of the highest interest of the US Government to ENSURE the Security of the USA against Foreign Enemies: Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citing Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 509 (1964)); accord Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536, 546 (1956).    Obama the Usurper sides with the enemy -- Al Qaeda -- that the United States is officially at war with, committing TREASON, and attacks and targets the Constitutional rights and citizen status of U.S. Military Veterans, Christians, and Conservatives.  While George W. Bush fulfilled Case Law with the exception of allowing the Usurper Obama to run for an office he is Constitutionally forbidden from...Obama has habitually and unceasingly violated both the Constitution and the national security of the United States prior to and from the first day he usurped the Presidency on January 20, 2009.

Obama the Usurper, while falsely claiming to be a President of the United States given authority by the Constitution, which is a lie provable in a Court of Law if I have Article III Standing, clearly Obama the Usurper has violated America's trust in releasing top secret reports that aid her enemies, and hinder our intelligence gathering capabilities.  You will notice that the Court says in Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948) @ page 111 that “The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world.”  Obama has repeatedly violated what the U.S. Law is.


In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (03-6696) 542 U.S. 507 (2004) in a split decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the US Supreme Court stated:

“The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF.” { Authorization for Use of Military Force (“the AUMF”), 115 Stat. 224}

Our CIA and President Bush acted with authority and loyalty in protecting us against the enemies without even as they grew the Governmental Powers that would eventually turn against our own citizens within, committing evil with the good.  They then failed to protect us from the Foreign Natural Born Citizen Shia Muslim Marxist-Leninist Communist with homosexual proclivities named Barack Hussein Obama II,  and those enemies of the United States who were his friends and associations in persons and in groups, those who immediately abused power as the enemies within. 

Failure of Responsibility To Oversight By The U.S. Supreme Court To Do Its Job Is Hand Wagged At And Effectually Excused

The Supreme Court ideally is supposed to be a barrier of protection against unconstitutionality in the Federal Government.  But even Justice Scalia admits, that is not always the case.  In fact, in Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning 573 U.S. ___ (2014), No. 12–1281. Argued January 13, 2014—Decided June 26, 2014,  Justice A. Scalia argues that it is not unusual to see 50 years go by before successors of the earlier Supreme Court might realize and right a wrong.  Excuse me, but in 2059 A.D. there will be no more United States of America, only the realization that the Supreme Court of 2009 ff. really f*cked up and lost what used to be a free and Constitutional Republic because it REFUSED to do its job in rightly interpreting the Constitution, and ruling Obama unconstitutional and ILLEGAL to be in office in the first place.  Consider the times in which we live, and how that the rhetoric does NOT match the political reality of the tyrannies those of the illegal Obama Administration and a (might as well be sexually fully)  submissive Congress is attempting to dismissively and derisively pass on a vocally protesting American public.  Justice Scalia writes: 

I. Our Responsibility

     Today’s majority disregards two overarching principles that ought to guide our consideration of the questions presented here.

     First, the Constitution’s core, government-structuring provisions are no less critical to preserving liberty than are the later adopted provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, “[s]o convinced were the Framers that liberty of the person inheres in structure that at first they did not consider a Bill of Rights necessary.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U. S. 417, 450 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

 Those structural provisions reflect the founding generation’s deep conviction that “checks and balances were the foundation of a structure of government that would protect liberty.” Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 722 (1986) . 

It is for that reason that “the claims of individuals—not of Government departments—have been the principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 10); see, e.g., Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477 (2010) ; Clinton, supra; Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211 (1995) ; Bowsher, supra; INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983) ; Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982) . Those decisions all rest on the bedrock principle that “the constitutional structure of our Government” is designed first and foremost not to look after the interests of the respective branches, but to “protec[t] individual liberty.” Bond, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 11).

     Second and relatedly, when questions involving the Constitution’s government-structuring provisions are presented in a justiciable case, it is the solemn responsibility of the Judicial Branch “ ‘to say what the law is.’ ” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 7) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). This Court does not defer to the other branches’ resolution of such controversies; as Justice Kennedy has previously written, our role is in no way “lessened” because it might be said that “the two political branches are adjusting their own powers between themselves.” Clinton, supra, at 449 (concurring opinion).

Since the separation of powers exists for the protection of individual liberty, its vitality “does not depend” on “whether ‘the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment.’ ” Free Enterprise Fund, supra, at 497 (quoting New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 182 (1992) ); see also Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868 –880 (1991); Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U. S. 252 –277 (1991). Rather, policing the “enduring structure” of constitutional government when the political branches fail to do so is “one of the most vital functions of this Court.” Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).

  

Our decision in Chadha illustrates that principle. There, we held that a statutory provision authorizing one House of Congress to cancel an executive action taken pursuant to statutory authority—a so-called “legislative veto”—exceeded the bounds of Congress’s authority under the Constitution. 462 U. S., at 957–959. We did not hesitate to hold the legislative veto unconstitutional even though Congress had enacted, and the President had signed, nearly 300 similar provisions over the course of 50 years. Id., at 944–945.

Just the opposite: We said the other branches’ enthusiasm for the legislative veto “sharpened rather than blunted” our review. Id., at 944.    

Likewise, when the charge is made that a practice “enhances the President’s powers beyond” what the Constitution permits, “[i]t is no answer . . . to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand.” Clinton, 524 U. S., at 451 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

“[O]ne Congress cannot yield up its own powers, much less those of other Congresses to follow. Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.” Id., at 452 (citations omitted).

     Of course, where a governmental practice has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic, the practice should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional provision. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706 –744 (1999); Bowsher, supra, at 723–724; Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 –175 (1926); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 610 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (arguing that “a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned” should inform interpretation of the “Executive Power” vested in the President); Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U. S. 62 , and n. 1 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting). But “ ‘[p]ast practice does not, by itself, create power.’ ” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 532 (2008) (quoting Dames &; Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 686 (1981) ). That is a necessary corollary of the principle that the political branches cannot by agreement alter the constitutional structure.

Plainly, then, a self-aggrandizing practice adopted by one branch well after the founding, often challenged, and never before blessed by this Court—in other words, the sort of practice on which the majority relies in this case—does not relieve us of our duty to interpret the Constitution in light of its text, structure, and original understanding.

And Exactly Who And What Is Al Qaeda, And What Nation Chiefly Runs That Terror Organization, While Obama Orders Financial, Training, Logistical, And Preferential Assistance Over The Lives Of U.S. Military And Diplomatic Men And Women?    

In 2005, Robin Cook exposed Al Qaida / Al Qaeda as purely a United States CIA and Saudi Arabian venture, and shortly thereafter died under suspicious circumstances.  When he "fell" headlong 8 feet over a ridge, was he suffering a massive heart attack or was he assassinated by cold war retaliatory techniques which attempted to mask his death as merely a "heart attack".  The words that he published at the UK Guardian which got him very likely got him killed (rather than being that of natural causes), were:  

   "Osama bin Laden …was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development?INTCMP=SRCH

Where was the training done by the C.I.A.?  According to a former French Intelligence Officer, at a major military base run by the Saudis, almost right out in the open in Saudi Arabia's own capitol of Riyadh.

In regard to Al Qaida's / Al Qaeda's beginnings, Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former French military intelligence agent in 2004 most clearly stated that Al Qaeda derives its name from a computer database of names of those (Islamic mujahedeen members) trained out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and financed through the Islamic Bank for Development (in the 1980s) out of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  There were also member countries of the Islamic Conference, headed by Saudi Arabia, who were specifically linked in and part of that Al Qaeda mujahedeen in the 1980s and who obviously are still currently active harborers, logistic,  and aid with comfort suppliers to Al Qaeda terrorists even today.     

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738

In other words, Al Qaeda is an international Saudi led intelligence and terrorist operation, assisted by intelligence agencies of other member countries, and now that of the United States through the Central Intelligence Agency through Obama’s submissiveness and subservience to Islam, led by Saudi Arabia’s global terror agenda, which Obama the usurper has now financially – logistically – militarily supported and made the United States into a nation state sponsor of terrorism.     

How is it that Obama can get away with so much illegal activity of even being in power, let alone sponsoring global terrorism while pretending to fight against it?   As with how that the dictator Adolf Hitler rose to power and stayed there in 1930s Germany etc., there needs to be major news or major alternative news efforts to journalistically follow the money. 

I suspect that in many ways, the corruption of U.S. politics is so entrenched in select globalist U.S. Banks and select U.S. Corporations, that it will most certainly include some of those same U.S. entities which invested in a severely economically depressed Germany in the 1920s during the Weimar Republic (at fire-sale minimal prices and minimal costs) and then profiteered off of German Fascism, and themselves fueled Hitler's Rise to Power, and the German economy well into early World War II (1939-1941).  It is in some ways a similar pattern of historical processes and procedures, so that currently a definite same algorithm and eco-political scheme with a more advanced   idealego / image-of-superior-self   public relations conspiracy through the Council of Foreign Relations almost total control over U.S. Media and most of its major publishers – editors – producers – major media personalities that the same historical repetition from a globalist banker and globalist industrialist point of view could be said of the "war on terror" and their Obama and Muslim West Wing led support of Al Qaeda.  As long as select bankers and select globalist industrialists make money, until they themselves are attacked by Al Qaeda, U.S. industrialist and U.S. Federal Reserve controlling banking influence will keep Obama in power in the same way their predecessors supported Hitler and brought us into a World War II in Europe that could have been avoided.

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-corporate-america-supported-nazi-germany/5430838

The current policy of U.S. Globalists is examined  by Michel Chossudovsky which includes the use proxy terrorist groups (such as Al Nusrah, ISIS and other variants of Al Qaeda) to either overthrow or simply destabilize sovereign nations, which could draw regional fights such as that of the Ukraine and Russia into a nuclear weapons exchange both in the theater of war and to participants (such as the U.S.A.) far outside of it. 

We would do well to heed Michel's warning that: 

"The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

The “Communist threat” of The Cold War era has been replaced by the worldwide threat of “Islamic terrorism”. Whereas Russia and China have become capitalist “free market” economies, a first strike pre-emptive nuclear attack is nonetheless contemplated.

...War is upheld as a peace-making operation.

When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible. An inquisitorial social system emerges. The consensus is to wage war. People can longer think for themselves. They accept the authority and wisdom of the established social order."

(Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Long War against Humanity, (excerpt)

https://store.globalresearch.ca/store/the-globalization-of-war-americas-long-war-against-humanity/

Global Research, 2014)