2007: Sen Obama Said Constitution Did Not Allow President to Authorize a Military Attack
2007: Sen Obama Said Constitution Did Not Allow President to Authorize a Military Attack
It's amazing what can change in a few years. In 2007, Senator Obama stated the following: "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."
This was in response to this question: "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"
There are other unequivocal statements then Senator Obama made in reaction to George W. Bush and some of his policies he attempted (and for the most part, successfully) instituted.
We also know that Senator Obama (in 2005) wanted to reign in NSA surveillance even though, at the time, the Bush administration did not want to do that. Obama wanted to "limit bulk records collection." Beyond this, Senator Obama "wanted to require government analysts to get court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data." He also "wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance" and "wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related to surveillance court orders." Apparently, Senator Obama's heart went to those accused and "wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge government surveillance." There were a few other things on then Senator Obama's want list where government surveillance was concerned.
Two faces of Obama…
However, now that Senator Obama has become President Obama, he appears to not only to have changed his mind on these things, but also appears to be abusing them more than his predecessor.
We also know that he has changed his mind on gay unions, where he once believed (and stated) that marriage was between one man and one woman, now he is openly in favor of same-sex unions. Specifically, in 2008 he stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Yet, in 1996, as a senator, Obama filled out a questionnaire stating, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." A few years later, he wasn't quite sure what his position was any longer and responded "undecided."
In 2004, he went on record stating, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation." Part of it seems to have to do with the group he is speaking to. In 2008, when he spoke before Rick Warren's church, Obama stated, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
The reality with Obama (like many politicians) is that he says one thing, but likely believes another. It seems as though his intention is to get his foot in the door and of course, in order to do that, you must have as many votes as possible. To get those votes, your promises have to appeal to the largest group. He did that by saying things he believed people wanted to hear.
Yet, there are many examples where Obama opposed Bush for the very same things he (Obama) is now doing. He promised to pull us out of wars and said, "After 10 years of war, it's time for nation-building at home" (October 2012). Yet, he has not done that. He continues to push us into more wars with the latest one being Syria.
Didn't Senator Obama say, "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" as quoted at the top of this article? Why yes, I believe he did. Did the Constitution change since he became president?
It's one thing to change your views on something like same-sex unions and Obama has gone back and forth on that enough times to make one dizzy. But how do you justify condemning Bush for doing what he did, yet doing the same thing some years later? If it was illegal under Bush, it is still illegal under Obama now.
If the US begins to lob Patriot missiles into Syria, nothing good will come from it, for the average person. The elite will gather more wealth and power, which will help them nail down their coming one-world company that transcends national, sovereign borders. As far as the average human being goes, it will only have a negative impact. In fact, people in Syria will die because of our Patriot missiles.
If we enter into war with Syria, we will ultimately be entering into war with Russia, Iran, and possibly even China. Israel will also be dragged into as well as other countries in that area. It could quickly become more than simply a regional war. I discussed this possibility in a previous article.
Since then, I've been noticing that more and more commentators are highlighting the possibility of the fulfillment of Isaiah 17 if the US goes to war with Syria. Some are even referencing Amos 1:5, though my understanding of Amos 1:5 is referencing an event that already occurred with the Assyrians.
I'm pretty sure we should not look at current events and try to place them over the Bible to see if they fit. Let the Bible speak for itself and keep it in its own cultural and historical context. I'm not saying that I think everything has been fulfilled because it hasn't. There are things yet to be fulfilled.
As far as the Syrian war situation goes, obviously I have no idea what will happen. The only way we'll know is after the fact. If it does happen though, there's a great chance that the economy will not be helped because of it.
Just think though…if Obama really believed what he said in 2007 about the fact that the president does not have the authority to make a unilateral decision regarding attacking another country, we would not be sitting at this precipice right now. In fact, if Obama simply fulfilled his own campaign promises, we would also not be sitting here.
It's looking more like the chemical attacks came not from Assad's forces, but from the forces the US ostensibly supports; the rebels. This was sufficiently noted by Dean Garrison, in his article published earlier.
The global elite is doing what they do best. They are attempting to grab more power, while looting one more country (Syria). They are attempting to mask their efforts by using Obama to get us into yet one more military war. It's unconscionable, but this is what the elite does. They loot, they grab for more power and they have become unstoppable.
I keep reminding myself that God allows this and ultimately, He allows it for His purposes. In the meantime, we need to continue standing for what is right, even if the entire world accuses us of being wrong.
In the end, on the day He died, Jesus was alone. Everyone had deserted Him. God the Father turned His back on God the Son. Jesus was alone. He stood for what was right. He did what He had to do.
We will never be called to do what He did, yet we must always stand for what is right, whether anyone listens or not. As Christians, that is our calling. Fortunately, as Paul says in Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."
2007: Sen Obama Said Constitution Did Not Allow President to Authorize a Military Attack
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/in-2007-senator-obama-said-constitution-did-not-allow-president-to-authorize-a-military-attack/
Comments
Post a Comment