Senate Bill S.1867

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the

Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Conservative Cannibalism

Six months ago...two years ago...even a few weeks ago, I wouldn't have imagined writing this to any one. But I'm through with conservatives. No, I will not be so arrogant as to use the phrase "so-called conservatives" like many people on these groups do on a regular basis. I considered anyone who wanted to take back this country from the Progressives who have stolen it from us to be conservative. But that doesn't matter anymore.

From what I've seen on these groups the past several months I can't even imagine how we'll ever restore this country to its conservative integrity. We not only can't agree on what that means...we can't even agree that its okay that it means different things to different conservatives.

I've been fighting the conservative battles earnestly since the early days of the Clinton years. I've fought the IRS, the California FTB, the courts, and numerous corrupt officials. My family lost our first home because of those battles with the IRS. We lived in near poverty for several years because we fought for our convictions with every dime we had. And watched as our efforts went for naught because most conservatives decided that it was better to be asleep than it was to fight the corruption.

Then we fought the election of this current usurper in the White House. We fought over his very eligibility. We tried to warn people what would happen if he was elected and still most conservatives slept or mocked (and still mock) us for even questioning his eligibility.

Then we fought every battle for three years as this president and his cohorts in Congress began execution of their final game plan for the overthrow of the country we've loved our entire lives. And slowly people woke up. We won in Virginia in 2009. We even won a Senate seat in Massachusetts held by a liberal Kennedy for more than 50 years (and people actually complained he wasn't conservative ENOUGH). Then we fought and won back the House...even though we SHOULD have won back the Senate too. But we couldn't stand together enough to beat back even the establishment GOP in Delaware, Alaska, and other places to win the seats we needed.

Now we're looking at a legitimate chance to actually win back the White House, along with the Senate. And what happens? We decided the liberal media is right about us...we're our own worst enemy.

First we decide to kill a good man from Texas. Is he a poor debater? Sure. Does he have weaknesses? Absolutely. But we didn't just point out his weaknesses. We decided to decimate him. Take him out...destroy him and any chance he has of winning the nomination.

Then we get this nice outsider who could, it seemed, win the nomination. And we aren't satisfied. Did the Obama camp throw out those women with their accusations? Don't fool yourself. What possible good would it do them to bring those things up now. If he won the nomination, they would have locked up re-election by doing that next fall. This crap came from some of us...someone inside OUR party. Why? Because we are truly our won worst enemy.

Now we have another man in the forefront. The only man who wasn't taking potshots at the other candidates. The only one who actually put into practice the mantra of keeping the campaign clean. Why? No doubt in some part because he knows he has his own dirty laundry. But also because he believed that a candidate could win based upon the issues and not the thirty second attack ads.

And what happens now? He's being eating alive not by the liberal media or the Obama camp...but by our own people.

Even that other Texas candidate...that funny old guy with the really strange notions that we should actually run our country based upon the fuddy duddy old Constitution...he can't catch a break either. Why? Because so many of his crazy, lunatic supporters are the worst cannibals of all. Most of the ones we meet on here are incapable to accepting anything except their own definition of what a conservative is. And, of course, the rest of us respond by eating HIM alive in return.

So now what? As for me, I have some real friends I've made on here. Others who have winced every time they see another cannibal fest and wished they could figure out a way to make it all stop. Wished they knew how to get the rest of us to stop killing each other and all the candidates so we can go out and at least take the next step in restoring our country. Those people I will continue to share conversation with...encourage and perhaps even pray with. I'll go out and vote in our state primary come June and then figure out to what degree I can go help our nominee win against Obama next fall.

But I will not be participating any longer in our own self-destruction. For the many times I have spoken out in anger at the baseless attacks made against one candidate or another, I apologize for including anger in those responses. I will come say hello once in awhile to my friends here. But at this point I feel I've actually wasted the last 25 years of my life fighting for....for this. We honestly don't really deserve to have our country back. We would, if this is any indication, only destroy it ourselves as we fight each other over what its supposed to look like. I wish you all the best.

Bruised and Bloodied Conservatives

One of the most distressing characteristics of many conservatives is their penchant for thinking that ANYTHING that comes from a liberal must inherently be evil and should be shunned in every way possible.

Back in the days of Jesus there was a sect of the Pharisees known as the Bruised and Bloodied Pharisees. They weren't that way because they were battle tested or anything like that. They were so intent on sustaining the purity of their faith that they didn't even want to risk the chance that they might look upon a woman with lust. So when they were walking along and came upon a woman they would instantly close their eyes and keep walking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how they got their nickname.

Many conservatives treat their political views in much the same way. They want to maintain some sense of purity to their political views and thus whenever a liberal opens their mouth to speak they close their minds and reject even the possibility that they might say something of worth.

Newt is not one of those people. He is not afraid to let a liberal speak and should he find something of value in what they say, he is unafraid to admit it. Unfortunately for him, that makes him a bad person to our Bruised and Bloodied Conservatives. When explaining why on earth he would ever get on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi he said he thought, at the time, it was a good idea to let it be known that conservatives can show they are concerned about our environment and at least willing to at least identify conservative ways in which we can approach environmental issues...instead of summarily rejecting them simply because the left so ardently supports them.

The same thing occurred when Newt endorsed The Third Wave. The Third Wave is a semi-futuristic look at where American society is heading. Written by two extremely progressive authors, Newt found it deeply satisfying that even in their attempt to write about a future for America that they ultimately saw a future America with a far more decentralized government and far more individual liberty and responsibility.

It is not difficult to understand why many conservatives struggle with the way conservatives like Newt are able and willing to reach across the aisle to work with people with whom they fundamentally disagree on so many issues. For me, I find it refreshing when a politician can see the good even in something otherwise so deeply bad. That's a man who can more readily find solutions and find ways of acquiring the support he needs FOR those solutions.

Path to the Presidency

At this point, the GOP nomination process hasn't even vetted itself down from the eight or nine candidates still participating in the debates. That being said, I do think that the candidates have divided themselves into three categories: frontrunners, middle-of-the-pack, and also-rans.

Also-Rans
Huntsman: far to liberal to garner any foothold at this time in the GOP history.
Johnson: Ron Paul's Mini-Me.

Middle-of-the-Pack
Bachman: Had her chance to prove she knows more than she really does about the broader issues. Might be a good VP candidate (see later discussion)
Santorum: He is well rounded and knows the issues, but appears to be more like an attack dog, than a presidential contender. He, too, might make a good VP candidate.
Ron Paul: no one has more devoted followers. But no one also isolates himself from the mainstream GOP voters than he does. Might make a great Treasury Secretary, if he doesn't shoot himself in the foot and try to run independent.

Frontrunners
Gingrich: 21st Century Contract with America is going over well with voters. It is a long read, because of its detail, but as people take the time to read it you're seeing his numbers rise. His stance on Ryan's budget and Scozzafava in NY23 back 2009 make him a less appealing conservative. But no one can debate better than he can. He would sufficiently undercut Obama in a debate that Obama would have to call out the attack dogs to go after Newt personally...where he IS vulnerable.

Perry: once the frontrunner, but his poor performances in debates as others have attacked his record, whether accurately or not, has dulled him in the eyes of the voters. He has about six weeks, from now, to make or break his campaign. His energy independence plan, released today, will go a long ways towards deciding if the people want him or not.

Cain: the newest front-runner. He has appeal as a non-politician. He has handled pressure and attacks better than Perry and even though his 9-9-9 plan has received mixed views, and could be his Achilles Heel in any debate against Obama, he continues to do well. He is the only Frontrunner whom I think would consider joining another ticket as a VP candidate.

Romney: a noticeable flip-flopper and the least conservative of the frontrunners, Romney is s calm and cool debater and seasoned campaigner. He has the finances to compete with Obama as well. He is the hand-picked choice of the Establishment GOP, which is good for him, but doesn't go over well with the conservative segment of the GOP...which is very strong right now.

Road to the Nomination

Romney is clearly trying to manipulate the primary calendar to his favor. The earlier the primaries, the least likely Cain, Perry or Newt will be able to garner enough support to overtake him in NH, SC, and Nevada. He will likely win NH, no matter when that primary takes place. Romney is quietly working in Iowa, but at this point that Caucus likely goes to Cain, with Perry and Newt not far behind. South Carolina is a key primary. Cain, Perry and Newt are looking strong there, but Romney is likely to push hard there...and in Nevada. He feels that if he can come away with those three by the end of January he will have sufficiently drained the fight from most of the competition. If Cain or Newt or Perry (or someone else) comes in and "steal" SC or Nevada, then this thing will go much further into the Primary season than Romney would like.

If that's the case, Super Tuesday, March 6th, will be the next big test. However, leading up to Super Tuesday are a number of important primaries: NH* (23), Iowa* (28), SC (50), Nevada (28), Florida (99), Colorado* (36), Minnesota* (40), Maine (24), Arizona (58), Washington* (43) and Michigan (59). That represents approximately 488 delegates. I say "approximately" because of several factors. First, with several states moving their primaries up on the calendar there is a good chance the RNC will exercise their power to cut several states' delegate counts by 50% as per their rules. There is also the fact that several of the delegate counts are based upon bonus delegates from the RNC rules. So the numbers in parentheses are approximations. Also note that * represents states with caucuses which are NOT winner-take-all states.

Of those states listed above, Romney is strongly favored to win in Nevada*, NH, Colorado*, Maine*, Washington* and Michigan, totally, 189 delegates. Of those 189 delegates 131 come from states with a caucus. How many of those delegates Romney will win is anyone's guess. Some experts are suggesting that Ron Paul is focusing much of his efforts in the states holding caucuses because the results can be skewed by turnout. That, plus the fact that Romney is not holding huge leads in any of those states would imply that he might gain only 80-90 of those delegates. Of the remaining 51-61 delegates, they would probably be divided pretty equally based upon current polling numbers.

Cain, Perry and Newt are jockeying for wins in SC, Florida, Arizona, and Iowa* (235 delegates)...with Minnesota* potentially favoring Bachman, though Romney is a strong candidate there too. My rough projection is that Romney will walk into Super Tuesday with approximately 175 delegates. That leaves about 313 divided between Perry/Newt/Cain...and Ron Paul. These projection could dramatically change over the next 10-20 weeks, and probably will.

Super Tuesday is the official opening to the primary season and includes, at this point, these states: Alaska* (27), Georgia (76), Idaho* (32), Massachusetts (46), North Dakota* (28), Ohio (66), Oklahoma (43), Tennessee (58), Texas (155), Vermont (17), and Virginia (49). That's 566 delegates, or about 1/2 the number needed to land the nomination. This is why Romney is pushing for early primaries. He wants to walk into Super Tuesday with 300+ delegates in pocket. He'll win Massachusetts and Vermont, and will garner 20+ delegates from the three caucuses. By my projections, that would give him about 250-260 delegates. Perry will likely win Texas, which will push his count, depending on how he does in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries, to a near dead heat with Romney. The other eight states are the key. Romney could push himself into the 500+ delegate range or those delegates could split up any number of other ways, giving Perry a lead over Romney or pulling Newt or Cain into a three or four way race with Romney and Perry.

April could be the killer month for Cain/Perry/Newt. There are seven primaries that months, D.C. (19), Maryland (37), Wisconsin (42), Connecticut (28), Delaware (17), New York (95), Pennsylvania (72) and Rhode Island (19). Every one of these states could easily go to Romney. In order for either of the other three to stand a chance of beating Romney they have to do two things: A) the Cain/Perry/Newt group will have to win a large portion of the post-Super Tuesday delegates leading into April (Wyoming* (29), Kansas* (40), US Virgin Islands* (9), Alabama (50), Hawaii* (20), Mississippi (37), Missouri* (52), Illinois (69), and Louisiana (45)). That represents 306 delegates. Romney could be favored to pull in close to 100 of those delegates. That would give him about 450-500 delegates at this point. B) Someone in the Perry/Cain/Newt group is going to HAVE to win 2 or more of the seven states in April, representing 328 delegates. The two to focus on are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

With California's June 5th primary counting for 172 winner-take-all delegates, the Cain/Perry/Newt group will have to keep Romney below, by my estimation, 800 delegates before that primary. If they can do that, then there is a good chance that the campaign continues into September without a clear winner. In that case, the convention becomes the key.

Of course, with the way things have been going these past couple of months, everything in this blog could and should be obsolete in about three weeks. I think one scenario that could play out would be if Newt or Cain pulls out and endorses the other. Cain/Newt could be dead even with Romney by Super Tuesday and could focus their joint attention of stealing Texas away from Perry. In doing so, they could become the front runner. That would push Perry out of the race and propel them to big wins in the remaining March primaries and even to two or three victories in April. They could legitimately be within a couple of hundred delegates of the nomination before California. In which case, California becomes Romney's last stand. If he wins it and the rest of June's primaries, he will likely win the nomination. If he loses California, then he likely loses and we see a Newt/Cain ticket emerge from the convention...or Cain/Daniels...or Newt/Bachmann....or Cain/Thune...or Newt/West.

Beating Obama in 2012

Beating Obama in 2012 is not going to be as simple as it might seem. Yes, his presidency is a shambles. But with the GOP nomination process potentially coming down to a convention fight, that does not bode well for the GOP. While our top candidates are spending their money fighting each other, Obama is gathering half a billion dollars in preparation for what will amount to a two month dog fight next fall.

Once the conventions are over, the battleground states will be the same as they are today: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10). That represents 161 electoral votes. At this point, Obama is locked in with 186 electoral votes and the GOP nominee is locked in with 191 electoral votes. Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico will tilt to Obama under normal circumstances. That brings Obama to 226, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia are tilting GOP. That brings the GOP nominee to 243. That leaves Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the key toss-ups. If Ohio AND Pennsylvania BOTH go to one party or the other, it's over. But the GOP could lock it up with EITHER of those two states AND either North Carolina or Wisconsin.

I don't think there is any reason to think we cannot bring a victory to any of the four primary GOP hopefuls in a battle against Obama. As has often been suggested, the goal of the GOP must always be to nominate the most electable conservative. In previous elections it was probably true that we would have needed to nominate a Romney to run against Obama. But not this election. I think any of the four primary GOP hopefuls can beat Obama if we can pull ourselves together by the time the convention takes place.

Senate 2012 - First Look

Not all the candidates are in yet. And we're a very long way from November 2012. But I think it is a good time to make a first run at projecting what could happen in 15 months in the US Senate.

There are 23 Democrat/Independent and 10 GOP seats up for grabs. The current makeup of the Senate is 51-D/47-R/2-I. Let's do the easy part first. Let's look at the very safe seats on either side first.

SAFE SEATS:
GOP: Wicker (MS), Corker (TN), TEXAS (Hutchison is Retiring), UTAH (either Hatch or some other GOP), Barrasso (WY).

DEM: Feinstein (CA), Carper (DE), Cardin (MD), Gillibrand (NY), Whitehouse (RI), Sanders-I (VT), Cantwell (WA - ONLY BECAUSE NO GOOD GOP CANDIDATE HAS COME OUT)

The count after these seats is now: 36-D/42-R/1-I

At this point we have some potential change overs. I will list the seats likely to go to one party or another with the change overs in bold.

LIKELY
GOP: ARIZONA (Kyl is retiring but likely to go GOP anyway), Lugar (IN), Snowe (ME), NORTH DAKOTA (Conrad is retiring).

DEM: CONNECTICUT (with Leiberman retiring, this is likely going DEM, but this could change dramatically after both the Dem and GOP primaries), Stabenow (MI - this seat is vulnerable if a good GOP candidate comes out of the primary), Klobuchar (MN), Casey (PA - this could change very quickly depending on the GOP primary and the strength of the Red Tide).

Again, being very early in the races, several of these could change dramatically, including Connecticut, which has a few very strong GOP candidates in the primaries, and Maine, which is a very blue state and may not like what Snowe is doing.

The count now stands at: 40-D/46-R/1-I.

The following are the battleground Senate races. As you can see by the current count, if things projected above hold out, the GOP would need 5 of the following seats to take the Senate.

Florida - Nelson (D) - presently leans democrat but there are two or three very good GOP candidates in the primary.

Hawaii - Akaka (D) is retiring - Hawaii is a very blue state, but with former GOP governor Dingle running for this seat, it leans Democrat, but could easily go GOP.

Massachusetts - Brown (R) - Massachusetts being the blue state that it is, this could easily go Dem. If Heller stays GOP, that's a wash on the part of the predictions. But don't count Brown out. Despite angering many Tea Partiers for voting against TP wishes, he's still very popular in Massachusetts.

Missouri - McCaskill (D) - She is entrenched and can't be counted out. But she is extremely vulnerable, especially against Steelman or Akin.

Montana - Tester (D) - Denny Rehnberg will give Tester a serious problem, especially in an otherwise Red state.

Nebraska - Nelson (D) - the Cornhusker Kickback and conservative Nebraska could very easily throw Nelson out on his ear. The only reason this is still a toss-up and not already in the GOP column is the fact that there are so many GOP candidates vying to face Nelson.

New Jersey - Menendez (D) - a very blue state that gave us GOP Rep, John Runyan in 2010, could hop on Christie's back and send Menendez packing.

New Mexico - Bingaman (D) is retiring - if Bingaman had stayed in the race, this one could still have gone GOP. With Bingaman out, the chances are even greater the GOP could take this seat.

Nevada - Heller (R) - only his predecessor's sex scandal can possibly keep Heller from keeping his newly acquired seat.

Ohio - Brown (D) - Ohio is always a toss-up state and this year is no different. Though the Red Tide is pushing through Ohio too. Mandel could raise lots of money and unseat the vulnerable Brown.

Virginia - Webb (D) is retiring - this will be an interesting race. Former DNC Chair, Tim Kaine, will be running against Ex-Sen. George Allen. The deciding factor may be the heavy GOP tide from 2010.

Wisconsin - Kohl (D) is retiring - This, too, is a very interesting race. Ron Kind, former Dem. Rep, will be facing a GOP challenge which could be former Gov. Tommy Thompson (if he decides to run). That could be a good race.

West Virginia - Manchin (D) - West Virginia is still a blue state. But Obama's actions against the coal industry could cause problems for Manchin, especially if John Raese enters the race for the GOP.

Of the two GOP seats in this list, Heller is the safest. Of the eleven Democrat every one of them is in play...for reasons listed next them.

Pre-Season Prediction for the Final Senate Totals: GOP - 54 / DEM - 45 / Ind - 1

I honestly think that the numbers, depending up what happens in the next 15 months could move in either direction. We could be looking at something like 59 - 40 - 1, or we could be looking at 51 - 48 - 1. It will depend upon the state of the economy by then and the degree to which one party or the other can get their message across.

Libya War Crimes

I'd like to share a letter I wrote to the editor of our local paper regarding the crimes of Obama surrounding the Libya War. In doing so, please also consider reading the speech made by Tom McClintock on March 31 (http://www.tommcclintock.com/blog/house-floor-speech-on-libya) and watching a video of another speech he gave in July (http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-finally-a-congressman-tells-the-country-why-obama-is-so-dangerous/)

Now that forces supported by the US military are closing in on Qaddafi, I think it is again time to revisit the manner in which we became involved in this war. Yes, it IS a war, no matter how you try to paint it. Over the six months of this war, our representative, Tom McClintock has made several speeches regarding the unconstitutional nature in which this president brought our nation into the conflict. On March 31st, Congressman McClintock said:

"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe 'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'”

Later in that same speech her reminded us that even under the War Powers Act, the president is authorized to conduct war for sixty days (not six months) and only for the following reasons: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

I contend, along with Mr. McClintock, that our president did, indeed, engage in an overt and aggressive act of war against Libya. These very acts are nothing short of war crimes and clear violations of the president's executive authority. They are nothing short of impeachable offensives, no matter who the president is.

Some may suggest that the president was within his right to do these things because of our country's long standing treaties with NATO and the UN. But, as Mr. McClintock, again, pointed out, "The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization."

The president suggested that he didn't have time to consult with Congress before Libya faced a humanitarian crisis. Yet he had time to consult with the UN and NATO. Therein lay the foundation for the war in Libya. The United Nation's Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. The UN has declared their right to intervene in any country where they believe there is a threat to civilians of any significant nature. This is the most dangerous of all doctrines ever enacted by the United Nations. For by this doctrine the UN might feel compelled to send troops, or compel its member nations to send troops, to virtually anywhere in the world. By this doctrine, a sitting president of the United States was compelled to violate the very fabric of our Constitution and every law pertaining to such acts. Is this how we wish to have our country governed now? I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope Congress will have the courage to bring charges against our president for these egregious acts.

Why the Birth Certificate Issue Is Only of Secondary Importance

Our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace.

...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President." (Basically, forget the birth certificate!!! This is ALL you need to follow the law and to understand the term from “those days”.)

Here's the link: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Further, Obama agreed to this definition spelled out in S.R. 511, and he himself does not meet the criteria. The most obvious reason is that his father was from the country now known as Kenya..thus making him a British National.

Part II of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads: 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Being the son of a man who was a British National by means of his being born in the colony later known as Kenya made Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. a British National. ASSUMING BHO Jr was born in Hawaii (whether or not the BC we see online is real or not), he would also be considered an US Citizen by virtue of his mother's citizenship. There is no disputing this under the above assumption. The only questions that remain, under this scenario, are:

1) does the Natural Born Citizen clause of the constitution allow for a person born under dual citizenship to be president of the United States;

2) Did Kenya's subsequent independence from the British Empire remove both Obamas British citizenship?;

3) As of 1963, when Kenya became independent, Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. became citizens of Kenya. However, according to Kenyan law, as of age 23, the younger Obama could not maintain both an US and a Kenyan citizenship. SO question is...did the 23 year old BHO Jr. make such a choice? Did he choose to renounce his Kenyan Citizenship?

4) Was BHO Jr. legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham's next husband? If so, did that make him an Indonesian citizen as the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro? Evidence of Obama's school records in Indonesia would suggest that is a possibility. In which case, all this takes a wild turn since Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship at that time in their history. So question

5) If Obama did take on Indonesian citizenship under his step father, Lolo Soetoro, did he ever take back either his Kenyan Citizenship or US Citizenship?

6) And, does ANY of that adversely affect his eligibility to be president of the United States? What do the courts say about Dual Citizenship as pertaining to Natural Born status? What happens to his US Citizenship if he was made an Indonesian citizen and never made a conscious adult decision to restore his US citizenship?

Ironically, as I've said all along, the birth certificate issue is relatively moot and at best secondary in importance. It matters whether he was born in Hawaii, don't get me wrong. If he is born in Kenya or anywhere else int he world, his mother's age and his father's lack of US citizenship would make BHO not a US citizen of ANY kind. BUT, even if he's born in Hawaii...if BHO Sr. is his father, he, without question, became a British National and later a Kenyan Citizenship THROUGH his father. At best, making BHO Jr. a dual citizen.

The Lolo Soetoro situation only complicates matters...and may, ultimately, depending upon how the courts rule about dual citizens being considered natural born, make the Indonesia situation moot.

The real answers are most likely to be found in Obama's school records at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Unfortunately, these are records Obama has made sure we will not see.

For reference, one of the best sites for delineating the facts on how the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to Natural Born Citizens vs. other citizens is by Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. Donofrio does a completely thorough analysis of both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases. These cases would help to determine whether Obama is or is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Notice the wording of the Minor case regarding the court's decision that Minor was a Natural Born Citizen and compare that wording to SR 511, co-sponsored by Obama in 2008 to affirm that his future opponent, John McCain was, indeed, qualified as a natural born citizen to be president of the United States.

Minor case: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

SR 511 states: "Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;..Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Further understand that the "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born "Citizen." The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention. They clearly understood its meaning and the most common understanding of its meaning at that time was from Vattel's Law of Nations.

Later in 1790, the Naturalization Law of 1790 provided: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens. Once again clearly connecting to Vattel's definition as written in Law of Nations.