Category Archives: Congress

Obama goes after Social Security recipients’ guns

Obama said that his top priority for his remaining time in office is gun control.

He’s already done it to our military veterans — getting the dysfunctional Veterans Administration to take guns away from veterans deemed “mentally unfit”. (See “Obama regime prohibits disabled veterans from owning firearms and ammunition”)

Now, Obama is extending the same BOHICA “courtesy” to Social Security recipients.

Obama guns

Alan Zarembo reports for The Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2015, that Obama plans to ban millions of Social Security recipients from owning guns, as “part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.”

For the links to the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook false-flag, go here.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), with a database of more than 13 million records, is used to prevent gun sales to felons, fugitives, drug addicts, illegal immigrants, domestic abusers, dishonorably discharged service members, and others. The law requires gun stores to run the names of prospective buyers through the computerized background check system before every sale.

Already, Obama’s Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has expanded the category of “others” to include veterans who are incompetent to manage their pension or disability payments, and are assigned a fiduciary. Conservative groups have denounced the policy as an excuse to strip veterans of their gun rights.

Social Security has never participated in the background check system. Now, Obama means to change that by including some 4.2 million Social Security (SS) recipients who “lack mental capacity” — whose monthly disability payments are handled by others (“representative payees”) due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disable — say that although such a ban would keep people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook.

Yale psychiatrist Dr. Marc Rosen, who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money, points out that “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.” Rosen said some veterans may avoid seeking help for mental health problems out of fear that they would be required to give up their guns.

Ari Ne’eman, a member of the National Council on Disability (NCD), said the NCD would oppose any policy that used assignment of a representative payee as a basis to take any fundamental right from people with disabilities.

Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said he “didn’t know the VA could take away your guns” and that his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety by the yardstick of financial competence.

After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, Overman was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability, and was deemed 100% disabled by the VA. In 2012, after declaring Overman incompetent and making his wife his fiduciary, the VA reported him to the background check system. So Overman surrendered his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back because he enjoys target shooting and has never felt he is a danger to himself or others.

More than a year and a half after Overman filed his challenge, the VA finally lifted its incompetence ruling, allowing his removal from the background check system. Overman, who hasn’t worked since leaving the military, said he and a friend are now thinking of opening a gunsmith business.

In the case of the proposed Social Security Administration policy to take guns from SS recipients, what is even more of a concern is that the agency has been drafting its policy outside of public view.

Even the National Rifle Association (NRA) was unaware of it. Told about the initiative, the NRA issued a statement from its chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, saying: “If the Obama administration attempts to deny millions of law-abiding citizens their constitutional rights by executive fiat, the NRA stands ready to pursue all available avenues to stop them in their tracks.”

On April 23, 2015, Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) introduced a bill to change the VA’s gun policy. H.R. 2001, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, would require a court to determine that somebody poses a danger before being reported to the background check system. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.

H/t FOTM’s maziel

~Eowyn

Bernie Sanders supporters’ knowledge summed up in one Tumblr post…

feel the bern

Hint: Civics is not their strong suit.

This is an actual post I saw being shared all over Tumblr Saturday night:

please remember

not many are aware, but a president is extremely, extremely, extremelyyy limited without a supporting senate and congress.

for example, if the majority of the party is republican, as it is with Obama, most of the bills and “promises” brought up will be vetoed and denied by the congress without us knowing, thus resulting in us blaming the president when in reality, the president needs OUR help even after being selected.

voting does NOT stop after the presidential election. the president of your choice winning does NOT mean the fight is over.

if you support and want all the things Bernie Sanders is in favor of, and want to see change, please vote for a senate and congress that will support and pass these ideas as well.

so if you’re “feeling the Bern”, don’t be upset if you don’t get the free college tuition. so please, please, please, PLEASE…vote for a respectful, progressive, open minded senate & congress (:

I’m guessing this person has never heard of the power of executive orders? Have they heard about the separation of powers?

I’m guessing this person doesn’t know how Obamacare was passed?

Since when does Congress veto bills?

I’m guessing this person doesn’t know that there are plenty of ways to locate bills that were introduced and determine if they were “vetoed” or “denied” (i.e., their final status)?

By “respectful” and “open minded”, does this person mean passing a bill so that we can find out what is in it? How progressive!

We. Are. DOOMED.

bernie sanders free stuff

DCG

Draft America’s Daughters Act will require millions of women to sign up for draft

Be careful what you wish for.

Feminists agitate for gender “equality”. And so, heeding their call, the Obama administration decided to open all U.S. military combat roles to women, including the elite Navy SEALS and Army Rangers.

Last December 3, Defense Secretary Ash Carter made that announcement, effective in the new year, which means 2016. To that end, Carter ordered the Marines and Army, along with the other service branches, to open about 225,000 combat jobs to women candidates – the last remaining occupational specialties that had barred female troops.

In so doing, Carter had rejected a request from the Marine Corps for a partial exception so as to keep the infantry, machine gunner, and fire support reconnaissance men-only. Carter said no: “We are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force.” (See “Obama opening combat to women means they will need to register for Selective Service“)

Since Carter’s announcement, U.S. military services have been submitting plans for incorporating women into all of their ranks, a process that could take months or years.

Now, the expected consequence of Obama’s decision is here.

Yesterday, a bill was introduced in Congress which would require women to register for the draft.

Army intelligence analyst Spc Brittany Gordon, 24, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in Oct. 2012

Army intelligence analyst Spc Brittany Gordon, 24, was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in Oct. 2012

Travis J. Tritten reports for Stars and Stripes, Feb. 4, 2016, that two House Republicans introduced a bill Thursday requiring eligible women in the United States to sign up for the military draft.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Minn., a retired Navy SEAL, filed the Draft American’s Daughters Act to stoke debate over the military’s historic move to fully integrate female troops into all combat roles. If the bill is passed, women from 18-26 years old would for the first time have to join men in registering with the Selective Service program and potentially be forced to fight in future wars.

“This is a very important issue that touches the heart of every family in America, and I believe we need to have an open and honest discussion about it,” Zinke said.

Hunter and Zinke maintain that the Obama administration made the policy change despite research and reservations from the Marine Corps and special operations community, and without adequate debate among lawmakers. 

Obama as king

Hunter said in a statement: “If this administration wants to send 18, 20-year-old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives.” For his part, Zinke said in a statement: “My daughter is a damn good Navy diver. I know women play an invaluable role in war. Many times women can gain access to strategic sites that men never could. However, this administration’s plan to force all front-line combat and Special Forces to integrate women into their units is reckless and dangerous.”

Two days before the bill was introduced, on Feb. 2, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley had testified to the Senate that they believe there no longer should be an exemption in the draft for half of the country’s population now that the military is all inclusive.

The Marines completed a study last summer that found women get injured more often and perform below males in combat. During an oversight hearing in the Senate on Tuesday, lawmakers repeatedly referenced the study and said they are worried the military could lower standards to accommodate more women in combat occupational specialties.

Zinke said the decision now means the country must contemplate changes to the draft. The Draft America’s Daughters Act will require millions of women to register beginning 90 days after it is signed into law. 

Men, who historically filled combat roles, are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old in case a draft is again needed. Women have been excluded from the Selective Service System, a decision that was upheld by a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that said as long as women weren’t allowed in combat units, they shouldn’t be subjected to it.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Rep. Duncan Hunter said in an interview that the change in policy “is a change to over 200 years of warfare in the United States.” Hunter urges his fellow lawmakers to ask themselves: “Do I think we have come far enough that my daughter should be drafted?”

Hunter said he will try to bring his bill to the floor so all members of Congress will have to vote on the issue because “This should involve every member of Congress. This isn’t a military thing, it’s a family thing, it’s a cultural thing.”

Advocates for women in combat roles dismiss the bill, saying that requiring women to register wouldn’t have much practical effect, as a draft hasn’t been used since the Vietnam War.

The issue of registration for women could become a campaign issue, depending how far the bill progresses.

On Wednesday at a townhall meeting, Hillary Clinton expressed her concern that the policy change could change the definition of an all-volunteer force. She said she wasn’t sure all women should register for the draft on the grounds that “I have a hard time imagining the kind of national emergency that would require the use of the Selective Service System.”

See also Obama’s other acts to socially re-engineering the U.S. military:

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Bombshell: Hillary’s unsecured emails contained names of CIA spies

Hillary For Prison 2016

Last Friday (Jan. 29) afternoon, the State Department released another court-mandated batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails from when she was secretary of state. But 22 emails (totaling 37 pages of text) were withheld, even with entire sections redacted.

Those 22 emails were withheld at the request of the intelligence community because although Hillary and her staff treated them as “unclassified,” the emails actually were “Top Secret”.

“Top Secret” is the federal government’s highest official classification level, defined as “information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The disclosure of Top Secret information is a serious criminal matter that normal Americans face prosecution and substantial jail time for perpetrating.

So what is in those 22 “Top Secret” emails?

Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne report for FoxNews, Feb. 1, 2016, that according to a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents, the 22 emails are withheld because they contain “operational intelligence” — real-time information on intelligence collection, sources (informants on CIA’s payroll), the movement of assets, as well as names of CIA agents. The presence of that information on Hillary’s unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives”.

The official was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature. The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time — from the installation of Hillary’s private email server in 2009 until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), who sits on the House intelligence committee, said Hillary had to know what she was dealing with: “There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not. Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo pointed out that the Top Secret information might have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, and that the Obama administration should assume that information has in fact gotten out. That, in turn, counsels changes in operations by the military and intelligence communities.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials because they weren’t marked as “classified”. She accused the Republicans of using it “to beat up on me.”

When ABC’s “This Week” reminded her that in her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement, she had acknowledged that markings are irrelevant (the agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked … including oral communications”), Hillary blamed her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

But Hillary is contradicted by national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. MacMahon said, “Everybody who has a security clearance [as Hillary had] has an individual obligation to protect the information. Just because somebody sends it to you … you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”

These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

Meanwhile, the release of other Hillary emails has revealed that then-Sen. John Kerry (who is now secretary of state was also using an unsecured, personal email account for classified information. 

Furthermore, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit shows that Patrick Kennedy, the top administrator at the State Department was, in the words of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go.” Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.

According to John Schindler of Observer, CIA and the entire intelligence community are in panic mode right now, trying to determine which intelligence officers and agents have been compromised by Hillary’s EmailGate. A senior intelligence community official called the 22 withheld emails “a death sentence” for CIA officers and foreign agents working for U.S. intelligence, saying, “if we’re lucky only agents, not our officers, will get killed because of this.”

 At a minimum, valuable covers have been blown, careers have been ruined, and lives have been put at serious risk. Our spies’ greatest concern now is what’s still in Hillary’s emails that investigators have yet to find.

And what about those 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted?

An exasperated Pentagon counterintelligence official said, “I’ll spend the rest of my career trying to figure out what classified information was in those. Everybody is mad as hell right now. The worst part is that Moscow and Beijing have that information but the intelligence community maybe never will.”

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s josephbc69

~Eowyn

Shocker, not: Hillary’s emails contained America’s top secrets

Maybe, just maybe, the end is near for the Clinton campaign.

Hillary For Prison 2016

I’ve reported on the many lies, twists, and spins on Hillary’s email scandal. A refresher:

The State Department cannot find emails of Clinton IT staffer Bryan Pagliano. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she does not need to apologize for using a private email account and server while at the State Department because “what I did was allowed.” Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from 5 US spy agencies. Hillary Clinton deleted half of emails from personal account used to conduct business as secretary of state.

And an  intelligence community review reaffirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department.

The FBI is investigating whether members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle “cut and pasted” material from the government’s classified network so that it could be sent to her private e-mail address.

Former Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told an audience that her boss Hillary Clinton used to use her BlackBerry to send info that didn’t belong on unclassified systems.

The beginning of the end?

The beginning of the end?

Now the NY Post reports that The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the US government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.

The Associated Press has learned that seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “top secret.” The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Read the rest of the story here.

This story broke after the State Department announced they would release some Clinton emails on Friday yet thousands will still be delayed. And how long will they be delayed? Until AFTER voters go to the polls in the first several primary states. What a coinkidink!

hillary and obama laughing

DCG

Pat Buchanan: Conservatives are in a civil war

Be sure to take our poll after you’ve read Buchanan’s essay!

circular firing squad

The Civil War of the Right

Patrick J. Buchanan • CNS News • Jan. 29, 2016

The conservative movement is starting to look a lot like Syria.

Baited, taunted, mocked by Fox News, Donald Trump told Roger Ailes what he could do with his Iowa debate, and marched off to host a Thursday night rally for veterans at the same time in Des Moines.

Message: I speak for the silent majority, Roger, not you, not Megyn Kelly, not Fox News. Diss me, and I will do fine without Fox.

And so the civil-sectarian war on the right widens and deepens.

And two questions arise: Will the conservative movement and Republican Party unite behind Trump if he is the nominee? And will the movement and party come together if Trump is not the nominee?

A breakdown of the balance of forces in this civil-sectarian war finds most of the media elite of the right recoiling from Trump, while Trump leads by a huge margin in Middle America.

National Review, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and the conservative and neocon columnists on the op-ed pages at The Washington Post and The New York Times have almost all come out viscerally against Trump.

He, in turn, has trashed several by name. Wounds have been inflicted that will not soon be forgiven or forgotten.

But while columns and magazines appear in print twice weekly, weekly, biweekly and monthly, millions listen to talk radio every hour of every day. And though websites might be updated daily, radio, more than print, is a medium that moves people.

Among the top talkers, Trump gets more than a fair hearing. Some of the talk shows with the largest audiences are sympathetic, others are supportive. And the Drudge Report, the daily newspaper of Middle America, tracks Trump’s every move.

In the media battle, then, the media elite are being swamped by Trump. And Trump is winning the political battle as well. According to almost every poll, state or national, Trump is ahead of all rivals, with his closest challenger trailing by 10 or more points. Among the populist and Tea Party right, Trump has lapped the field, and he is now competitive among Evangelicals.

How will the civil war on the right end?

Because the differences are not simply about personalities and politics, but principles and policies, it may not end with this election.

There is talk of having the anti-Trump conservatives unite behind the one establishment candidate — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Chris Christie — who emerges strongest after New Hampshire, to storm through the later primaries and take down Trump.

Yet such a scenario seems implausible.

That audience of 24 million that tuned in to the first Fox News debate and the 22 million that tuned in to the CNN debate were drawn to Trump, and Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, because these men seemed to represent real change.

Democrats who support Bernie Sanders and Republicans who support Trump may disagree on where America should go, but both agree on the need for America to radically change direction.

Yet, if this battle for the GOP nomination should yield another establishment Republican, would not all the fire and energy of the campaign of 2015-2016 soon disappear?

Consistency not being their long suit, some among the conservative elites who denounced Trump’s walkout from the debate, threaten to walk out of the party should Trump win.

But walkout is an option open to populists as well. And if, after the rise of the Tea Party, the capture of Congress in 2014, the Trump-Cruz-Carson rebellion, the GOP offers the silent majority yet another establishment candidate, will populists and Tea Party types rally to him?

Perhaps. One recalls that, after the Revolution of 1789, the march on Versailles, the guillotining of Louis XVI, the rise of Robespierre, and the Era of Napoleon, the French got the Bourbon Restoration — Louis XVIII, brother of the beheaded king, sitting on the old throne.

Still, if the populist-conservative struggle of the last five years, to put behind them the days of Bush 41 and Bush 43, produces Bush 45, or his moral equivalent, how many would shoulder arms and march for him?

And, again, the argument over the acceptability of Trump aside, there is a deeper conflict within the GOP and conservative movement that may be irreconcilable. Millions of conservatives and independents believe it was the Republican policies of the recent past that also failed America.

The Bush-Clinton-Obama trade policies produced the $12 trillion in trade deficits, which measures the net export of U.S. factories and manufacturing jobs, which explain the wage stagnation.

The Republican-neocon foreign policy of intervention and nation building is a primary cause of the present disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

The immigration policies championed by Bush Republicans as well Clinton and Obama Democrats produced the immigration crisis that propels the Trump campaign.

In short, it will be difficult for populists to unite with Beltway conservatives in 2016, when the former see the latter as part of the problem, not the solution.

See also “Seismic shift in U.S. political party system: Independents now outnumber Democrats & Republicans“.

~Eowyn

Mitch McConnell fast-tracks authorization to give Obama unlimited war powers

Yesterday, during a visit to ISIS-friendly Turkey, VPOS Joe Biden said that if a political solution can’t be reached, the U.S. is prepared to use military force to “take out” ISIS or Islamic State (IS) and so end the civil war in Syria. The Obama administration has been carrying out “precision air strikes” on Islamic State (IS), but to no avail. (Source: Bloomberg)

Biden could make that promise because warmongers in Congress are paving the way to give Obama (and future presidents) unlimited war powers with no expiration date.

In 1973, to prevent “future Vietnams,” Congress passed the War Powers Act over the veto of then-Pres. Richard Nixon, to restrain the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces overseas by requiring the executive branch to first consult with and report to Congress. Although the Act was generally resisted or ignored by subsequent presidents, who regarded it as an unconstitutional usurpation of their executive authority, the Act nevertheless acted as a constraint.

In 2014, Obama did exactly that by declaring war against the Islamic State — a move considered by many legal scholars and even many members of Congress as illegal and unconstitutional. As Mike Krieger recounts for Liberty Blitzkrieg

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate….

[Obama’s] refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) is fast-tracking an authorization that would give Obama unlimited war-making powers.

Mitch McConnell & Lindsey Graham

Sarah Mimms and Alex Rogers report for NationalJournal that late Wednesday (Jan. 20) night, McConnell surprised many members of Congress by fast-tracking a broad authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) authored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Fast-tracking” refers to “Rule XIV” — setting up authorization for a future vote without putting the proposed AUMF on the Senate calendar, which means a vote can come at any time, or not at all.

McConnell and Graham’s AUMF would give the president unlimited war powers, placing no restrictions on the deployment of ground troops, or on time or geography. Even Obama’s claim of legal authority to wage war against ISIS does not allow for “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” nor is it unlimited in time, but would have expired three years after reenactment, unless reauthorized.

Mc­Con­nell’s spokes­man, Don Stewart, admitted in an email on Thursday that the new AUMF will not “tie the president’s hands”. 

McConnell’s move is an about-face, contradicting what he himself had told reporters last month: “It’s clear the pres­id­ent does not have a strategy in place, so it would be hard to fig­ure out how to au­thor­ize a non-strategy.”

McConnell’s res­ol­u­tion already has four Re­pub­lic­an co­spon­sors: Sens. Lind­sey Gra­ham, Daniel Coats, Joni Ernst, and Or­rin Hatch.

Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Chair­man Bob Cork­er (R-TN), while saying that there is still a “wide di­versity” of opin­ions on the is­sue, nevertheless argues with the Obama administration that no new AUMF is even needed. He said of McConnell’s new resolution, “I don’t think it changes any­thing [because] I’m in the same place that I’ve been—and that is I be­lieve the ad­min­is­tra­tion has the au­thor­ity to do what they’re do­ing.”

A Democrat warmonger, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has ag­gress­ively ad­voc­ated for an AUMF, was thrilled Thursday that the Sen­ate could soon take up McConnell’s resolution. He argued that Obama’s war against Islamic State is illegal, “I don’t think there’s a leg­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for it. And I think the greatest danger we end up do­ing is al­low­ing the pres­id­ent to wage a war without Con­gress weigh­ing in.”

Mc­Con­nell’s proposed authorization for the use of military force will not “tie the president’s hands”. 

I cannot begin to emphasize how dangerous this new AUMF is, and what a threat to liberty McConnell et al. are.

~Eowyn