A video produced by the comedy group Second City Network suggests that “Because Obama” may be losing its credibility as an excuse for government action.

The cause, organized by what the video portrayed as the “Americans for Whatever Barack Obama Wants Did You Know He was Friends with Jay Z?” group, aims to fundraise $1.6 trillion to support the President’s effort to begin World War III – in addition, as one of the video’s actors puts it, to “World War IV, and any moon war the President may want to start.”

“We can make World War III reality,” they say. “Why? Because Obama!”

The video is illustrative of a broader trend revealed by FreedomWorks in a 23-page report released last week that reflects waning support for the President’s agenda among the Millennials who voted for the President when he first ran in 2008.

According to the report, just 24 percent of 25-32 year olds support a larger government that would provide more services at a higher cost. Though this does not translate into equally significant disapproval of the President among the age group, a majority does disapprove of his performance at a margin of 47 to 45 percent.

In 2008, Obama made history by obtaining 66 percent of the under-30 vote – the largest percentage of any presidential candidate since exit polling began in 1972.

“Remember, when we voted for him in 2008 and 2012, we promised to support him no matter what!” the World War III campaign’s youthful activists remind their viewers. “There is no way that he or the cabal of corporate interests, spy agencies, and shadow bankers that tell him what to do would ever mislead us!”

That’s a pretty accurate depiction of diehard Obama fans, but FreedomWorks’ numbers show that a majority of Americans are not convinced that the cabal of special interests behind the President’s agenda really have good intentions.

Gallup found as recently as May 2013 that just 54 percent of Americans thought the federal government had too much power to 36 percent who thought it had the right amount and 8 percent who thought it had too little. After the targeting of individual groups by the IRS and the disclosures over the summer that NSA officials had lied to Congress about spying on Americans, those numbers had changed pretty substantially, according to FreedomWorks’ report. Today, 61 percent of Americans now believe the federal government has too much power to 30 percent who believe it has the right amount and 5 percent who believe it doesn’t have enough.

Even for the 95 percent of Americans who believe the government doesn’t need more power, proponents of World War III in the video point out another benefit that a global conflict would have to offer: “How good will Michelle’s arms look in sleeveless army fatigues?”

Yet in all seriousness, “Because Obama!” is becoming the best description of why voters are losing their confidence in the good intentions of an overpowered government. As Second City’s video implies, the arguments in favor of a more intrusive government are going to become less convincing as more Americans continue to realize how Obama’s policies have adversely affected them.

To be elected, a politician must please his constituents. However, to be a powerful legislative force, a politician must be an obedient member of a party – Democrat or Republican. Since most constituents are busy making a living, raising families and focused on immediate community concerns, loyalty to the party most often prevails

Clearly, President Obama arrogated to bomb Syria.  However, the American public was strongly opposed.  Seeking political cover, Obama sought the approval of Congress.  Immediately, the power elites, Majority Leader Reid (D), Minority Leader Pelosi (D), Speaker Boehner ( R ),  and other power players  endorsed using military force against Syria.  The deal was made – bomb away. These leaders could force reluctant members of their respective party to “take one for the team” and vote as the party dictates.  

A political insider explains how politics is played in D.C.:

“At the end of the day, a lot of these Democrats are going to be with the president,” a House Democratic aide told Politico. “Because the choice is to vote against [the Syria resolution] and turn the president into a lame duck and destroy his credibility, or swallow it and vote for something that you’re not wild about. When you’re faced with that kind of decision, most of these fence-sitters are going to come aboard.”

However, there was a new political force.  Knowledgeable Americans strongly told their Senators and Representatives “NO” to the Syrian resolution.  This was momentous.  Politics as usual in D.C. was defeated by a knowledgeable and engaged public.  Knowledge and the ease of communicating – the Internet – has changed politics in America.

Ten years ago the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, and blogs were non-existent or rudimentary.  Inventive techies and entrepreneurs rapidly advanced Americans' ability to communicate with friends and anyone of similar interests. With the explosion of media technology, Americans anywhere and everywhere have become informed and knowledgeable.  In matters political, the more Americans know and understand about the power and process the more we distrust our elected officials. With knowledge and the ease of communication, Americans have spontaneously said “NO” to attacking Syria.  The overwhelming conclusion is our Middle East policies and actions have not been in our national interest – actually a disaster - and must be stopped.  

Peggy Noonan, a Washington insider and thoughtful observer, senses the change. 

“The Syria debate isn't, really, a struggle between libertarians and neoconservatives, or left and right, or Democrats and Republicans. That's not its shape. It looks more like a fight between the country and Washington, between the broad American public and Washington's central governing assumptions.

In the Syria argument, the moderating influence is the public, who doesn't seem to have a basic confidence in Washington's higher wisdom.”

Yes, We the People do not have “basic confidence in Washington's higher wisdom.”  However it is more.  As We know more and more of the arrogance and corruption of the D.C. elites, We seek smaller, limited  and honest government.

House & Senate/Schedule: Both the House and Senate are back in business after five weeks.  The House will be in session through the end of next week, September 20th and will then recess for a week. The Senate, meanwhile, will be in continuous session through October 11th.

Legislative Highlight of the Week: On Thursday the House will vote on a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government for the next fiscal year beginning on October 1st. The details of the CR have not yet been released - whether it will fund the government for a full year or if anything else will be attached to it. Regardless, the most crucial component of this CR is that it must defund ObamaCare, which House leadership has not committed to doing.  With ObamaCare' implementation beset by problems at every turn, defunding it for a year through the CR ought to be an easy call, and FreedomWorks has issued a Key Vote against any CR that fails to defund ObamaCare.

House/ObamaCare: On Wednesday, the House is expected to vote on the No Subsidies without Verification Act, H.R. 2775, sponsored by Diane Black (R-TN). Currently, the administration has admitted that it may not be able to verify whether the recipients of insurance premium subsidies under ObamaCare are actually eligible for the money. This bill would protect taxpayer dollars from fraud by stopping those subsidies from flowing until HHS can verify that they have the ability to ascertain whether applicants are really eligible for them.  FreedomWorks will be issuing a Key Vote in favor of the bill.

House/Energy & Commerce: On Wednesday the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on health, will hold a hearing on ObamaCare's implementation.  The hearing will focus on the multitude of delays and glitches in the health care law's implementation leading up to its October 1st start date.

Senate/Syria: Although subject to change depending upon the President's actions, the Senate may start the procedural votes and debate over the authorization of force for Syria this week. Given the multitude of economic red lines being cross here at home, it seems illogical that the U.S. ought to get involved in another expensive military operation overseas that could easily lead into another prolonged (and thus even more unaffordable) war. With America's economy still sagging and our debt at nearly the size of our entire economy, we can neither afford the expense not the distraction of yet another war. Thus, FreedomWorks has issued a Key Vote against any resolution authorizing force in Syria.

In every one of these situations: the push to attack Syria, the NSA spying on citizens, funding and implementation of Obamacare; proponents want to allow the government to do something it should not do, but claim we will be able to stop it if it goes any further. That thinking is backwards. The way to stop the NSA from gathering citizens' data, to keep the attack on Syria from escalating, and to stop Obamacare, is not to allow them to get started (funded) in the first place.  

Before the Obama Administration began discussions on a possible attack on Syria, there was talk of impeaching the President over his selective enforcement and alteration of Obamacare. Such talk was going nowhere, of course, because while the House of Representatives can impeach a President, that is only the equivalent of charging him with a crime. The Senate must convict with a two-thirds vote before he can be removed from office.

Since the Senate has been two-thirds controlled by one party for only six two-year terms in a century and a half, that almost always means that impeachment and conviction can only occur when the President's allies in Congress turn on him.  Not only must they shun allegiance to their leader, they must also be convinced that removing him from office serves both the interests of the nation and their own narrow political fortunes. That has never happened. 

Instead of pushing for an impeachment, which is a virtual impossibility, many, rightly so are focusing on the devastating effects of ObamaCare and how to defund it.

Over a million people have signed the online petition to cut funding from Obamacare. They know that the way to defeat this law is first not to let it go into effect. Rather than simply delaying portions of it, defunding stops the whole thing in its tracks, before the train wrecks. Delaying portions of the law and assuming the system it creates will fall apart, runs counter to the history of government programs.

When it comes to the intrusion on our civil liberties, what we know of the NSA data collection is shrowded in secrecy and talk of national security. But in general, the agency has obtained warrants through the FISA court to collect a record of almost every phone call, text message, and email sent or received in the United States. They gather this information, which includes at least phone numbers, time, and duration of call, as well as similar information about email, and store it on their servers. 

When an NSA employee wants to access some part of that data, they can often bypass internal procedures they are supposed to follow to gain access to it. Having given up our Fourth Amendment protection against having our data collected by the government, we now find that the promised internal controls don't work.

Much like ObamaCare, that had to be passed in order to "find out what is in it", and again like the revelations coming out about the NSA - we shouldn't go to war to find out what we're being dragged into.

We can be fairly sure that some kind of chemical weapons attack was carried out on civilians in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria. We don't know who did it. We do know that the Syrian rebels were housed in civilian areas, using civilians as human shields, a war crime. While that doesn't excuse the use of chemical weapons, it does mean they lose any claim to moral superiority over the Assad regime.

The Obama administration contends it does not to want to get rid of President Assad. But while the public rhetoric calls just for a slap on the wrist, the language of the suggested war resolution is virtually open-ended:

(a) AUTHORIZATION-The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to: (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria; (2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and (3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future.

None of the limiting language means anything, especially with a President who doesn't believe he needs that authorization in the first place. 

Now comes Senator McCain, an advocate of intervening in the Syrian civil war, to say:

“The Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in, and it’s an unfair fight. And no one wants American boots on the ground,” the senator explained. “Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there will be a impeachment of the President if they did that. But I understand the incredible cynicism.”

Impeachment is an iffy business, and Senator McCain knows it. It would especially be true if the war in Syria were to escalate. History shows the President usually gets a short-term bump in approval, as Americans, whether they favored a war or not, rally behind the Commander in Chief. 

The time to stop an expansion of government power is before it occurs. Afterward, not only does the government have more power to secure its authority, but the tendency is to accept the status quo.

Congress should pass no continuing budget resolution that funds any part of Obamacare. The NSA should stop collecting data on Americans who are not criminal suspects. Congress should not give President Obama the authority he seeks to attack Syria.  If he ignores the Constitution and does so anyway, they at least will not have given him their blessing. 

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
—James Madison, Speech in the Virginia State Convention of 1829-1830

Unilaterally, President Obama intended to bomb Syria.  Being a loyal team player, Secretary of State Kerry dutifully set the stage for the attack.   The Washington Examiner reports: 

On Monday, Aug. 26, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a rare speech at the State Department in which he said the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was “undeniable” and a “moral obscenity.”
Then, on Friday, Aug. 30, Kerry made an impassioned defense of unilateral military action, calling the chemical attack a “crime against humanity.

After the British parliament voted against war with Syria and polls showed Americans were overwhelming opposed to war, President Obama abruptly decided to seek the approval of Congress.  In other words, because of a strong, public disapproval, Obama the sought the cover of Congress.

Then, on On September 3rd, Senator Corker inquired about the President's intended mission.  There was a revealing and deeply troubling answer by the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

Sen. Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.” 

In a response to Senator Menendez, General Dempsey also stated:

Sen. Mendez: General Dempsey, what do we envision, in broad terms, this potential military campaign to be in terms of its effect? What do we expect at the end of any authorized action to see the results look like? What is our expectation?

Gen. Dempsey: Yes, thank you, chairman. The task I’ve been given is to develop military options to deter — that is to say, change the regime’s calculus about the use of chemical weapons and degrade his ability to do so — that is to say, both activities directly related to chemical weapons themselves, but also potentially the means of employing them — and anything further than that I would prefer to speak about in a classified setting.

General Dempsey knows his task and duty to “change the regime’s calculus about the use of chemical weapons and degrade his ability to do so.”  However, he cannot articulate the objective,  “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

Incredibly, it seems President Obama was about to bomb Syria, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not know what the President is seeking to achieve.  

The President's unilateral pursuit of war is a dangerous abuse of power. This is precisely why America's Founders strongly warned against one person declaring war.  As I wrote in a previous post :

Our Constitution requires Congress to declare War.   George Mason stated the the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" power to decide on war.  James Wilson believed the vote and debate by Congress"will not hurry us into war.

Harmfully, President Obama and many, other presidents and Congresses have not followed the Constitution and have gone to war without an honest and thorough debate resulting in an unclearly defined mission without articulated objectives.

Fortunately, but temporarily, America was spared of another war because of the strong and vocal opposition by the American people.  However, America's political elites - Obama, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid,  Boehner, and others – citing or endorsing a nebulous and undetermined “national security interest,” have all supported a war with Syria.  

Alas, only a strong and persistent “NO” by the American people will stop the undefined, ineffectual and dangerous attack on Syria.

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge

Civil war has raged in Syria for over two years.  Thousands of defenseless people of all ages and diverse, ethnic groups have have been killed, maimed and had their livelihoods destroyed.  Recently, there have been reports that the Syrian government is killing people with poisonous gas.  What is America's moral duty, if any, to intervene?  What is our national interest?  What is the appropriate force?  What are the consequences.  Who will be impacted? What is the cost?  Who makes the decisions?  

These are very vital moral, political and practical questions.  If America selects to use force or collaborate with others employing force, our Constitution requires Congress to declare War; Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have Power … To declare War.”  The clear intent of the Constitution in terms of declaring war:  It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.
 
In 1995, Doug Bandow wrote an excellent paper on the Constitution and the necessity of a Congressional and national debate before “declaring war.”  Bandow recalls the consensus among our Founders that a President is not entrusted to start a war.  As Bandow wrote in The Future of Freedom Foundation: 

… Virginia's George Mason, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, approvingly observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.

Wrongfully and harmfully, Congress and many Presidents have not honored and abided the Constitution.  Congress has not Declared War since World War II.  Yes, Presidents have had discussions with Congress and a War Powers Resolution was enacted (questionably constitutional), but every use of power since World War II has not had the full debate of Congress and an open and honest discussion with the American public.  

Two years ago, President Obama unilaterally declared war on Libya by ordering a bombing on them.  Congress did not vote to "declare war," and hence there was no open debate with America.  President Obama knew this violated the intent and purpose of the Constitution.  In 2007, then Senator Obama, responding to a question pertaining to the President's power to initiate a bomb attack on Iran, strongly asserted that a President did not have the power to unilaterally declare war.   

“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.”

America's attack on Libya is a prime example of why Congress must Declare War.  A debate and vote (politically dreaded by Senators and Members of Congress) would have caused a complete appraisal of the mission; an investigation of the human and material costs, the objectives, and potential repercussions between the combatants and the impacted individuals and societies. 

A serious debate will invariably produce better decisions than the unilateral actions of the President and/or his administration.  Again, as James Wilson said over two hundred years ago: 

It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.  It is impossible to know or speculate what decisions would have been made. 

Congress and the American public would have had the opportunity to have known of the many militant forces, including Al-Qaeda,  associated with hostile ethnic and religious groups active in Libya and the entire region of North Africa.   An honest debate would have forewarned us of the stealing and spreading of weapons to American enemies.  It is reasonable to presume that America, Libya, North Africa and the world would have benefited from a thorough and honest debate.   

Right now, similar to unilaterally ordering the bombing of Libya, the Obama Administration is setting the stage to execute an attack on Syria.  Secretary of State Kerry has proclaimed the gas attacks by the Syrian government are undeniable and are a moral obscenity. 

“The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” Mr. Kerry said.

“By any standard, it is inexcusable,” he went on . “And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”

Tragically wrong and ignorant is the Speaker of the House Boehner's understanding of the Constitution and the duty of Congress to declare War.  The Washington Examiner reports: 

“The president is commander-in-chief.  With that power comes obligations,” Boehner said.  “One, of course, is to consult with Congress on the options he sees as a viable response,” Boehner said. “Meaningful consultation should happen before any military action is taken.”

No.  Syria has not attacked the United States.  As then-Senator Obama correctly stated in 2007:

“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.”

Shamefully and dishonorably, Congresses and Presidents have intentionally failed to abide by the Constitution.   It is time for the President and Congress to abide by the Constitution and choose together to declare war... or not.  Are we not a nation of laws?  This is a vital question.  Does the law prevail?  Does the Constitution prevail?  Or does the arbitrary decision of the ruler prevail?

Allen West dropped by the Blogger Hangout at the RNC Convention on August 30, and was very gracious with his time. On his legislative agenda for 2013, he discussed tax reform and regulatory reform as a means to unleash small business success. He took a quick little shot at Harry Reid too, challenging him to pass the job creating legislation that has been blocked from a full vote at the Senate. I asked him about Sen. McCain's Convention remarks about the current state of the Middle East. He came out in strong defense of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel's right as a sovereign nation to take action to protect itself from Iran, and he made a point of stating that America needs to take a supportive role in relation to its allies in the region. He paints a bleak picture of what's going on in the region due to a lack of American leadership.

Finally, he states that the reason that the momentum is on the side of the GOP is because we are talking about principles, stating that when Republicans stand on Conservative values and talk about the Constitution, we win.