Launch Codes Not Biggest Concern

Through the circumvention of our Constitution, our president has the unprecedented power to wreak massive death and destruction upon a whim. 

 

Under the constitution is the president granted authority to “DECLARE WAR” – send America into war?  Answer: No 

Under the constitution is the president granted authority to wage – guide and direct - war?  Answer: Yes.

The question for modern America has become; has the constitution been circumvented to allow the president authority under an guise of waging war to grant him the authority to declare war?  These waters have been mightily muddied over the last 225 years. 

Under Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war.  Without directly stating it, the framers made it clear they did NOT want to entrust the spilling of blood and the expenditure of capital wealth along with the nation’s resources and the obvious initiating of the most devastating action known to mankind, entrusted to just one person. 

Our founding fathers additionally understood that circumstances could arise where immediate action would need to be taken.  As such, the president was empowered to repel sudden attacks to our country’s boarders or imminent actions that threatened our borders without waiting for the approval of congress.  Alexander Hamilton argued that there would be no need for a declaration of war by congress in that war was already being waged. 

Congress has declared war on eleven occasions: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I (2 separate declarations) and World War Two (6 sperate Declarations).  So, the question becomes, with no congressional declarations of war and with no immediate impeding disasters, how was authority granted to wage Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait (1991 Gulf War), Iraq and Afghanistan? 

 Korea was never classified as an American war.  It was classified as a “Police Action.”  We were part of a United Nations (U.N.) initiative to repel an attack on a sovereign nation.  America, at the strong urging of the U.N., agreed to lead and guide that U.N. initiative.  President Truman stated that no Congressional approval was needed as the United States was acting under the authority of the United Nations charter.  

Vietnam was fought under joint Congressional approval through the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” or the “Southeast Asia Resolution.”  This joint Congressional resolution and statutory authorization allowed President Johnson to employ armed forces in Southeast Asia without a “Declaration of War.” 

During the Vietnam War, President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia without notifying Congress.  This led to the adoption of the “War Powers Resolution” or the “War Powers Act” on November 7, 1973.  It stated objective was to curb the president’s power to commit armed forces without the consent of congress.  Since its passage, both Congress and presidents have found ways to side-step or skirt the legislation in one form or another.  

The 1991 Gulf War was fought under the joint Congressional resolution and statutory “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991.” 

After we were attacked on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation.  This provided far broader discretionary powers to our commander-in-chief.  This was closely followed on October 16, 1992 with yet another joint Congressional resolution and statutory authorization, the “Iraq War Resolution,” allowing and giving consent to engage in the Iraqi War. 

 The fifteen-year Afghanistan War has been waged under the 2001 “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation.  The action stemmed from the then ruling government of the Taliban refusing to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S.  The Taliban was providing refuge and save haven to Al-Qaeda. The stated objective was to dismantle al-Qaeda, which had executed the September 11 attacks, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban government from power. President Obama has continued this war under the same Congressional statutory authorization even though we have successfully crushed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.  They have now taken refuge in Pakistan.

In December 2015 the “Authorization to Use Force Against Terrorist” legislation was expanded to include ISIS. 

It should be noted that while the stated and often misinterpreted objective of the “War Powers Resolution” or the “War Powers Act” on November 7, 1973 was to limit presidential authority it also gave the president much broader powers.  It clearly states that the president can act, without congressional approval, should the United States, its territories and possessions or its armed forces be attacked. 

Also, there are no limits placed on a president requiring him to gain the consent of congress for what is termed small scale military actions.  This allowed Ronald Reagan to attack Muammar al-Qaddafi in 1986, Bill Clinton to employ missile strikes in Afghanistan and other areas of the world and, of course, for president Obama to launch Tomahawk missiles willy-nilly.  Congressional action is also not necessary should the president CLAIM we are under the THREAT of imminent attack ANYWHERE and it is therefore necessary to use military force to protect Americans. 

This greatly expands the original edict set forth by our framers that only included the repelling of sudden attacks to our country or to prevent imminent actions that threatened our borders. 

The American “forever war crowd” argues that through all these endless “Congressional statutory authorizations” - with presumably more to come – that congress is giving its consent and thus providing the necessary “Declaration of War” required in the constitution.  It is also argued that in today’s world waiting for congressional approval from those who can’t reach a consensus on how to bake a cake, could result in catastrophic consequences. 

 What we as American are challenged with is, first and foremost, to recognize that when we elect a Commander-in-Chief, we are indeed entrusting the spilling of blood and the expenditure of capital wealth along with the nation’s resources and the obvious initiating of the most devastating action known to mankind to one person which clearly circumvents both the spirit and intent of the constitution.  

Repeals of all these “Congressional statutory authorizations” and a simple return to the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is hardly forthcoming.  Which, in and of itself, is terrifying enough without ever introducing launch codes into the discussion.

"ME FIRST” Hardly Warrants a Party

It has been suggested that there is a segment of our population that is primarily focused on a “Me First” philosophy and agenda.  This is relatively easy to initially dismiss when considering that the malaise has been temporarily employed by every generation until they mature – until they have lived long enough to learn that self-gratification typically leaves one feeling shallow and unfilled. 

What is so troubling today are the periodic reminders that these assumed maturities levels are not only been routinely dismissed but are distained by those who have surpassed the age of reason.  Such a reminder most recently comes to us in an article in the Star Tribune Newspaper entitled “I’m a TV newswoman, and no thanks on the lady uniform.”  Its author is Jana Shortal, a Reporter for Kare 11 television in Minneapolis. 

Shortal’s issue is the dress code requirements for women who appear on television news.  She takes us through her personal frustrations and the awful discontentment she has felt over the years in having to meet those requirements.  She insists that all she wants to do is tell her stories.  Yet, dress requirements have diminished her self-fulfillment and thus hampered her from achieving the greatest possible satisfaction she believes can be derived from her job.  The basic battle cry of the article is “THAT’S NOT ME” and I refuse “TO NOT BE ME” any longer.  She says she has now taken, by virtue of a new program introduced on Kare 11, to dressing only in the manner that pleases her.  She’s been liberated. 

Before we throw her a party, we should consider the elements missing from Shortal’s thinking. 

Let’s first state the obvious.  The entire article was focused on one thing – herself. 

Next there was no mention as to why a dress code is necessary.  No consideration for those she is paid to serve.  No consideration as to the realities of sacrifice in the pursuit of a greater good or excellence. 

Television is a visual medium.  As such, the viewers have expectations when watching.  If expectations are not met at a restaurant, a clothing store, or any other enterprise that serves the public, the public will not return.  There is also the reality that when expectations are exceeded people are eager to return.  

Classic examples of this television reality today would include those that have no interest in football yet enjoy watching “Fox NFL Sunday,” the pre-game show before NFL football telecasts.  Viewer comments range from how engaging they find the personalities, to their enjoyment in their exquisite wardrobes.  They emit an air of class and style and respect for their audience.  This is reminiscent of attending a Johnny Mathis concert.  Wild applause, whistles and shouted compliments greeted him surrounding his impeccable appearance when he returned on stage for his second set performance.  

Shortal can still tell her stories without having to meet expectations in appearance.  She can dress in bib-overhauls if she wishes.  There is radio.  There’s the internet and of course, like her article, there are blogs and various other forms of print media.  So why her insistence to remain where she feels uncomfortable?  This certainly brings her motives into question.  

And most importantly is the absence in her treatise as to her primary responsibilities.  First and foremost, should be the viewer.  This means not just journalistic professionalism in providing knowledge in the form of accurate, reliable information but her additional responsibility to make it as visually appealing for the viewers as possible.  

Then of course there’s those who sign her paycheck.   The job has yet to be created that doesn’t require an acceptance of some unpleasantness, sacrifice and a mindset that can often require going beyond the call of duty.  Those who feel comfortable in demanding that their contentment be their employers primary concern rather than the excellence in the service or product they provide are not those we should be throwing a party for. 

“ME FIRST” has never been admired, nor should it ever be admired.  The source of Shortal’s actual frustrations and unhappiness lie not in adhering to a dress code but rather in her own self-absorption.  Once she loses the “ME FIRST” mentality, life will open avenues of contentment and happiness she has no idea exist.

True American Hero

The Loss Is Immeasurable

“Thrilla in Manila”  Frazier’s damaged eye allowed Ali to score with rights

I had the opportunity in my lifetime to witness many great sporting events in a variety of athletic endeavors.  While all will be forever treasured, two that still conjure up the same strong emotional responses as when first experienced.  

Number one was the USA Olympic hockey team capturing the Gold Medal in the 1980 Olympics.  Only one other event comes even close to the magic of that 1980 moment.  They both are extremely moving in that they acted as testaments to exemplary courage and character.

It occurred on Wednesday, October 1, 

1975 at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon 

City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  It 

was a fight for the World Heavyweight 

Boxing Championship.  Its combatants 

were Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.

Ali, under the name of Cassius Clay, won the 1960 boxing Olympic Gold Medal and Frazier had achieved the same accomplishment in 1964.  Throughout their boxing careers they became fierce competitors.              

The fight began in typical fashion with Ali dominating the early rounds. 

During the fifth round Frazier began to make his appearance felt.  At one-point Joe hit Ali with a right that appeared to shake the champ.  Ali’s attempts to counteract that right, left him exposed to the far more lethal blows from solid left hooks that began finding their way to Ali’s head. 

At the start of the sixth round Frazier connected with a tremendous left hook.  Ali was noticeably dazed.  Seconds later, yet another painful left staggered Ali. Sports writer Jerry Izenberg wrote; "They were tremendous hooks…, normal fighters would not have continued—it would have been over.”   The 33-year-old Ali could still take a punch.  Two years earlier, on March 1, 1973, Ken Norton broke Ali’s jaw in the first round of a 12 round bout that went the distance.  Ali fought eleven rounds with a broken jaw.

After the eleventh round Frazier’s face was swollen almost to disfiguration.  His trainer, Eddie Futch, asked Frazier why he wasn’t doing more to stop Ali from landing all the rights to his face.   A training accident in 1965 had left Frazier almost blind in his left eye.  He told Futch he couldn’t see the right handed punches coming.  This ugliness was multiplied by the excessive heat in the arena which prevented the use of ice bags between rounds.  The ice kept melting.

In the twelfth round Ali had his way with Frazier.  He landed both lefts and rights, one right after the other.  This further damaged Frazier’s eyesight.  By the thirteenth round Frazier’s vision was minimal making it extremely difficult for him to protect himself.  He took an awful beating; as did Ali when Frazier, amid the pummeling forced an exhausted Ali into the middle of the ring where Frazier could inflict his own kind of punishment.  By the end of the fourteenth round both men were totally exhausted.  

It became obvious that only a miracle would allow either fighter to even rise from his stool, let alone fight the fifteenth and final round.   Ali told his manager Angelo Dundee to cut off his gloves.  He was done.  Dundee refused to do so.  Futch told Frazier he was stopping the fight fearful that even one more round would prove disastrous to his fighter’s physical well-being.  Frazier vehemently objected.  Ali, with the aid of his corner men and the ropes, rose to his feet.  Without the ropes for support there was little doubt Ali would have collapsed.  Although angry and determined, Frazier could not get up from his stool and Futch threw in the towel.  One couldn’t help but think those in attendance received a very brief glimpse of the bravery – the heart, courage and character – of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy, France and Iowa Jima.  

Great leaders lead by example – by actions - by behavior - and not by words.  They bring out the very best in us as demonstrated in Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.  Ali publicly humiliated and abused Frazier by his constantly calling him "The Gorilla."  Ali obviously underestimated Frazier’s strong will, his confidence, and above all his toughness and stamina.  Ali paid the price.  He had to withstand the very best of what the very best had to offer.  In doing so he was forced to validate his never-ending cry of; “I am the greatest” through his  remarkable stamina and incredible will to never give-up.  “I’m gonna do it because I want to be the heavy weight champ for the third time - because I can do it.   And you can do it too.  No matter what you are in life - no Matter what color, no matter what religion – it’s never too late to start all over again – NEVER FORGET THAT!!!!”  ~ Muhammad Ali

From one American sports fan’s perspective, to clearly understand the greatness that was Muhammad Ali is to remember the “Thrilla in Manila” – the astonishing, courageous performance of an American hero who ALWAYS walked the talk.