Obama’s disastrous U.N. resolution

[dilloduck]

It tells you everything you need to know about Barack Obama’s worldview that he sought authorization from the United Nations, and not from Congress, before launching military action in Libya. (The fact is, as commander in chief, he required neither.) But putting aside the president’s obeisance to an international body over one representing the American people, the U.N. resolution he secured could prove to be a disaster for the Libyan people and American national security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-disastrous-un-resolution/2011/03/21/ABGyW16_story.html

 

[boedicca]

He got all confused regarding who the other branches are in The Constitution, which makes one wonder how he could have taught constitutional law.

As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“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,” Obama responded.

Obama:

So he got authorization...from THE UN!

 

[Sheldon]

 

[Toronado3800]

That is kind of funny.

Perhaps he pulled a page from liberal ronnie's page when he decided it was time to bomb Libya? No picking on Obama unless you pick on ronnie as well.

Honestly we were just talking today in agreement. Congress should be forced to vote on something like this before we take action. Hell, either house, even one house or a 29 member Congressional fast response team. I'm in the settling mood. These things are too important to be up to one man, be it Ronnie, George, Bill, George, or Obama.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dat's tellin' `em - you go gurl...

Haley: Abstention From UN Resolution Condemning Israel Was a ‘Terrible Mistake’
January 18, 2017 – South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, President-elect’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was sharply critical of outgoing Ambassador Samantha Power’s decision to abstain from voting on a Security Council resolution in December condemning Israeli settlements, calling it a “terrible mistake” and a “sad day for America.”

“As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th,” Trump tweeted after the Dec. 23, 2016 vote. “U.N. Resolution 2334 was a terrible mistake, making a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority even harder to achieve,” Haley testified during her confirmation hearing Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Nowhere has the U.N.'s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally, Israel," she told committee members. “In the General Assembly session just completed, the U.N. adopted 20 resolutions against Israel, and only six targeting the rest of the world’s countries combined,” she pointed out. “In the past ten years, the Human Rights Council has passed 62 resolutions condemning the reasonable actions Israel takes to defend its security.

“Meanwhile, the world’s worst human rights abusers in Syria, Iran and North Korea received far fewer condemnations. This cannot continue. “It is in this context that the events of Dec. 23rd were so damaging. Last month’s passage of U.N. Resolution 2334 was a terrible mistake, making a peace agreement with the Israelis and the Palestinians even harder to achieve. The mistake was compounded by the location in which it took place in light of the U.N.’s long history of anti-Israel bias. “I was the first governor in America to sign legislation combatting anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanctions for the BDS movement. I will not go to New York and abstain when the U.N. seeks to create an international environment that encourages boycotts of Israel. “In fact, I pledge to do this: I will never abstain when the United Nations takes any action that comes in direct conflict with the interests and values of the United States,” Haley vowed.

The two-term governor also said that she supports moving the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Promising to take “an outsider’s look” at the U.N., Haley, who appeared poised and confident throughout the three-hour hearing, told the committee that she is “prepared to speak up on anything that goes against American values. And American values are something we should talk loudly about, all the time, to all countries.” “At the U.N. as elsewhere, the United States is the indispensable voice of freedom. It is time that we once again find that voice,” she stated.

The U.S. currently provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, Haley noted. Although she does not believe in “slash and burn” policies that would withhold funding if the U.S. doesn’t get its way, she said she is willing to take a hard look at the U.N.’s organizations and activities and ask: “What good is being achieved by this disproportionate contribution? Are we getting what we pay for?” In some cases, Haley noted, “the U.N. does more harm than good.” For example, U.N. peacekeeping forces have been accused of sexual abuse and spreading disease in areas they are supposed to be protecting. Trump told her he wants “a stronger voice and a higher profile” at the U.N., she told committee members. “I have no problem calling people out,” she said.

MORE

 

[irosie91]

be not stingy-----think about lots of HAPPY muslims