Obama or a Republican for President?

The United States will fare better with Obama as President than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee or Tim Pawlenty; probably even Herman Cain.

There are about 240 Republicans in the 435 member House of Representatives. Of those 240 about 60 are in the so-called Tea Party Caucus. And the Tea Party House Republicans are having a big effect on what the House of Representatives is doing, particularly with regards to balancing the federal budget. They even show promise of curtailing the growth of government.

If the likes of one of the Republican presidential candidates listed above, all of them establishment type Republicans—non of them Tea Partiers, becomes president of the United States, it will dilute the effectiveness of the House in curtailing the Obama agenda as all Republican Congressmen become subject to the leadership of the President. Certainly the 180 non-Tea Party Republicans will gain the upper hand in the House and we will be into another Bush-type era in Congress - more spending, more wars, more economic stress, more compromising with the socialistic Democrats on entitlements.

If Obama remains in the White House, the Tea Party Caucus will maintain its effectiveness. It will continue to grow as Obama keeps the grass roots TEA Party electorate concerned, active and vigilant, sending more libertarian type candidates to Congress. The battle between Congress and the President will produce another Clinton type standoff and the country will get a much needed break from government expansion. We might even get a balanced budget as we did with Clinton in the White House and a Republican Congress.

So an Obama win, despite having to put up with a foolish, childish president for another four years, will be better for the country than a more respectable, establishment type Republican in that seat.

There is a third alternative: put a libertarian type of Republican into the presidency. That would be the best case scenario of the three. There are two such candidates currently in the race: Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. But neither of them is going to win the Republican party nomination. The press and the Republicans will assure that outcome. End of discussion of an improbable libertarian presidency.

Should you vote for Obama? Only if you are a socialist or a masochist. I will be voting Libertarian in 2012 and smile when Obama rolls into another 4 year term.

Where lies hope? Real social and economic recovery is coming via the States.

Presidential War Powers and the Murder of bin Ladin

Per the constitution, only Congress may declare a war. The Founders put this in the constitution to prevent a president (also established as the Commander In Chief of the Military by that document) from throwing the country into a war for specious reasons and was the habit of kings working within a monarchy.

Not to be denied, the presidents of the United States continue to engage in such wars, illegally. Not since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has the United States legally engaged in war.

And now, the president of the United States has actually committed murder in the killing of Osama bin Ladin. What right does he have to invade any country, even our own, and, without an order of a court, pursuant to due process of law, search out an individual and kill him.

Could such an action as taken by the president be legally done? I think so, but only under the war provisions of the constitution.

Some will say that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president such authority. If it does then we have reverted back to the 18th century powers of the Kings of Europe, the very world we revolted against in Lexington in 1775 and condemned with the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Alan Colmes interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano discussing the killing of Osama bin Ladin within the framework of constitutional war and presidential powers. (12½ minutes)