Flying Libya's Friendly Skies

After a week of waiting for the inevitable invitation, UN Security Council nations, led by European nations and the U.S., have finally been asked by the Arab League to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.  Rebel forces who have courageously taken, lost, and retaken strategic cities throughout Eastern Libya, have been hampered consistently by Gaddafi's air strikes.  Air superiority is essential to any eventual military victory, and Gaddafi's ability to pin down rebels and bomb their weapons depots was perhaps the only remaining obstacle to a successful rebel march on Tripoli and removal of Qaddafi from his decades long dictatorship.

Photo by Sky News

The UN and the Obama Administration have received ample criticism for, in the view of some, waiting far too long to intervene directly in the struggle between Libya's rebels and the Qaddafi government.  The rebels who led the revolution against one of the world's most ruthless dictators have been driven back and are in real danger of defeat if Qaddafi continues air strikes with impunity on rebel positions.  Some argue that the U.S. should have immediately sent aid to the rebels at the beginning of the revolutionary conflict, and imposed a no-fly zone weeks ago.  However, lessons learned from the removals of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban came into play in the decision to wait for a coalition in support of intervention.  An unusual coalition was needed; not simply a coalition of our usually reliable allies, but a coalition placing the UN Security Council nations and Arab League nations on the same side, supporting the rebel cause with united desire to see Qaddafi removed and the Libyan people choose new leadership.

The Arab League has reliable intelligence sources within Libya's rebel forces, and according to those sources, the situation is approaching desperation almost entirely due to Gaddafi's air superiority across the nation.  Successful ground wars depend on air support, and the rebels' ground war is stalling.  Having U.S. and Arab nation fighters working together to enforce the no-fly zone offers new opportunities for cooperation, respect, and achievement between vastly different cultures.  The U.S. could have intervened unilaterally weeks ago, and the move would have been applauded in America and in a handful of other allied nations.  However, the Arab world would have objected to our exercise of military prowess over a fellow Arab leader, even one as universally despised as Qaddafi.  Establishing a no-fly zone jointly with Arab partners is a good move militarily and diplomatically.

U.S. F-22s are already in position to begin operations once the coalition is assembled, and the days of Gaddafi's terrorism against his own people and the world, are numbered.  The world should expect desperate acts from Qaddafi in the final days of his dictatorial rule.  Whatever he has stockpiled, he will use.  He knows all too well that his fate will be no different than Saddam's if captured and tried by his own people.  He is unlikely to let that happen.  The no-fly zone will not only end aerial bombardments of rebel bases and supply lines, it will also end the possibility of Qaddafi escaping Libyan justice by air.  The noose is tightening, and a truly international coalition will soon create friendly skies over Libya for the first time in 40 years.  A man who funded and encouraged terror in the skies, including over Scotland, will soon find his world crashing down upon him from above once more.

Newt, Get in to Win, or Get Out of the Way

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced this week that he is exploring whether he will possibly, maybe, but probably at least consider whether he will officially announce what we already all know:  he is running for president in 2012.  He claims he needs 6-7 weeks to "explore" the viability of his potential candidacy, which, translated into Washingtonese, simply means he will see how many donations his exploratory organization can generate in 6-7 weeks as an indication of the support he can expect from conservative backers.  Am I the only observer out there who finds it ironic that in the same interviews in which Newt criticizes the Obama Administration for exhibiting indecisiveness in its handling of uprisings in Libya and Iran, Newt himself exudes indecisiveness on running for president?

Newt, President Obama may be indecisive in handling world affairs, but at least he did not hesitate for one second to make it clear to the world in 2007 that he wanted very much to run for and win the presidency.  We knew what he wanted, even if we were unsure of exactly what he was politically, or what he might do once in office.  His ambitions were no secret.  Neither are yours, yet you approach them as if you should keep them to yourself until the last moment.  Campaign seasons are starting earlier and earlier, and those who know what they want and go all out for it, like candidate Obama did in 2007-2008, have more opportunity to influence voters.

Newt has had since the late 1990s to explore his viability as a candidate for the presidency.  He has been a rumored candidate in several previous presidential elections, and his strengths and weaknesses (skeletons may be a more accurate term) have been vetted in the media ever since he led the Congress that impeached President Clinton.  The media will continue to attack him and dredge up any and all past indiscretions whether he throws his hat into the presidential campaign ring or not, because Newt has palpable influence on conservative political thought.

Whether he enters the race today, 6 months from now, or not at all, he will be targeted by the White House and its media accomplices who view him as an ever-present threat to liberal ideology.  President Obama does not want to participate in any televised debates with Newt, who is far more prepared, articulate, and experienced in world affairs.  The White House would prefer almost any other potential GOP candidate to square off against.  What Newt will discover during his announced 6-7 week exploratory period is that he scares people on the left, and I don't mean because they consider his views radically conservative.  He scares them because he would be their most formidable foe.  Likewise, fellow conservatives seeking the White House fear Newt above all other potential opponents.  Newt's war chest is already building more rapidly than any other potential conservative candidate's.

In his sharp criticisms of the Obama Administration delivered at CPAC 2011, Newt aggressively stated his domestic priorities:  dramatic cuts to Federal government spending; dramatic permanent tax cuts for all taxpayers, which leads to business expansion and more jobs; and aggressive pursuit of domestic energy sources to lessen our dependence on Middle East regimes.

Although Newt wasn't exactly decisive on running for president in his exploratory announcement, his broadside attack on President Obama's foreign policy and national security indecision covered a lot of ground in just three sentences and illustrated why a debate matchup of President Obama and Newt Gingrich would be intriguing:

This was an administration which was very aggressive about an American ally, Mubarak in Egypt, and very confused about an American opponent, Gadhafi in Libya. This is an administration which doesn't notice the demonstrations and the brutality in Tehran, and it confuses Israelis building apartments with Iranians building nuclear weapons. And I think it's very, very dangerous.

Newt, if, as you say, at the end of your exploratory period (that you've had 15 years to explore) you expect to be in the race, get in now and be a decisive conservative leader.  Candidate Obama was in the race to win it already by March 2007.  He even had Secret Service protection that early, which certainly enhanced his image of viability as potential winner of his party's nomination.  Potential voters knew his ambitions, and he was not apologetic or modest about them.  Voters want decisiveness in their leaders.  Be all in, or all out, but never waffling in between two choices.  The Bible tells us it is better to be hot or cold, than to be lukewarm in our commitments.  If you lack the heart or the stomach for the long-haul campaign and the incredible pressures of the presidency if victorious, step aside now for someone with more vigor who is sure of what he or she wants.  If you have the heart and stomach for the brutality of a campaign and the job itself, then get in it to win it.

Chief Justice Obama?

President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with emphasis in Constitutional law.  He is a shrewd enough politician to get himself elected President.  He surrounds himself with advisers who, on paper at least, should be capable of simple tasks.  Apparently, at least one simple task is just too complex for President Obama's legal team:  understanding the difference between the executive and judicial branches of our Federal government.  If you retained attorneys who consistently advised you that you could do things that are unconstitutional, how long would you continue to pay for their services? Of course, if they advised you that you could ignore the Constitution and declare yourself the Commander-in-Chief, the chief executive of the Government, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all rolled into one omnipotent juggernaut of personality, you might like what you are hearing from those attorneys. 

First the White House Counsel advised the President that a Democrat House and Senate, upon his signature, could enact a law compelling citizens to purchase health insurance.  Thankfully, federal judges are voiding that law as unconstitutional, most recently in Florida, and states are moving to halt implementation of government-mandated health care.  Ultimately "Obamacare" as many call it, will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  As it should be under our separation of powers.  The judicial system determines constitutionality of laws.  This power is, in no way, given under the Constitution to the executive branch, which is empowered only to nominate individuals to serve as judges.  Court decisions are steadily demonstrating that the President's legal advisers missed the mark.

President Obama's advisers, however, have convinced the President to take an unprecedented unconstitutional action that is even more alarming:  unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and intentionally refusing to perform his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It would behoove President Obama and his advisers to review carefully the oath of office he swore to in January 2009 in light of his utter abandonment of a law:  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Currently this law is in effect, signed into law by President Clinton.  It is the law of the land until the judicial system, rising to the Supreme Court, declares definitively whether it is Constitutional or not.  Instead, the President's advisers, driven by the smallest percentage of his constituents numerically but loudest vocally -gay rights activists- convinced the President to announce that his Administration considers the DOMA unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the law by declining to defend it in legal actions brought against it by plaintiffs seeking for Federal recognition of same-sex marriage.  Naturally, this refusal to defend the law was not accompanied by a citation of constitutional authority permitting such action, nor could it have been, since the power to declare laws unconstitutional belongs to the Judicial and not the Executive branch.

The political left and willing accomplices in the media are currently attacking former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for pointing out the "Constitutional crisis" the President's action has created.  They have focused on one word Newt mentioned in an interview, "impeachment", and are portraying Newt, the impeacher of President Clinton, as simply being up to his old tricks, now calling for President Obama's impeachment.  However, as is usually the case in media coverage, the truth of what Newt actually said is being intentionally obscured.  Newt did not say that President Obama SHOULD be impeached at this time for his action.  What he DID say was that if a Republican president declared a law unconstitutional and directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing it, political liberals and the media would come unglued and certainly call for that president's impeachment.  Newt used an effective analogy in his NewsMax interview:

Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people. Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

The precedent that would be established by allowing a president to suspend a law, any law, that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, is indeed dangerous.  Capital Cloak believes that President Obama, in his heart, agrees with the DOMA, as he has spoken in favor of traditional marriage consistently until this sudden lurch off the Constitutional path.  The fact that he has agreed to this course of abandoning enforcement of law is a sign that in his Administration, the tail really does wag the dog.  A few loud voices representing gay advocacy groups appear to be convincing President Obama that their volume is indicative of how the entire nation feels about traditional marriage.  It is not, and if the President continues in this extra-legal action, he could find himself a one term President. 

Prop 8 vote breakdown in CA 2008

President Obama must keep in mind that 70% of African-American voters in ultra-liberal California supported Proposition 8Obama's advisers are already gambling that he can win reelection in 2012 with or without the support of traditional marriage advocates by steering him to suspend the DOMA despite having no Constitutional power to do so.