The Expansion of Presidential Power
May 14, 2010

Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.

The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.

Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.

This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.

Saving Obama and the Democrats
May 05, 2010

Here is the problem for liberals: we need to protect the Democrats from the anger their policies have generated while pushing them to implement the promises they made to win the 2008 election.

The most unfortunate outcome in the November 2010 elections would be significant political gains by the movement led by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party reactionaries. A close second negative would be the takeover of Congress by the Republican Party committed to downsizing and disempowering government from its responsibility to protect the nation and the most vulnerable people from the wild swings of the capitalist market.

President Obama's policies make it difficult to rally the voters who voted for hope and change, his glittering generalities not yet implemented but of special importance to liberals. On March 29, Obama changed federal policy by allowing and promoting drilling for oil offshore California and the eastern seaboard from Florida to Virginia, violating the promises he made to environmentalists. Despite the terrible explosion and oil spill that now threatens vast areas of the US, Obama insists that he will continue the new drilling program once the current crisis has been overcome. The oil companies were preferred over the environmental groups,

In his State of the Union address on January 27, Obama confirmed his campaign promise by calling for repeal of the “Don't ask, Don't tell” DADT policy. Less than a week later, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee that repealing the policy that prevents gay men and women from serving openly in the military was “the right thing to do.” But that policy has not been repealed. DADT is still the law of land.

America's Soft Power
Mar 01, 2010

The United States cannot solve the problems of the world on its own, and the world cannot solve them without the United States.

As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Dick Cheney's Path to Bipartisanship
Feb 23, 2010

President Obama has finally achieved the bipartisanship for which he has been virtually begging since his agenda collapsed in Congress in the first year of his term. And the Republican partisan who showed him the way was former Vice President Richard Cheney, the meanest gun in politics. In his recent exchanges with Vice President Joe Biden, Cheney opposed virtually every Obama policy except for one: Cheney approves Obama policy in Afghanistan.

Finally, Obama knows how to get bipartisan support: concentrate on military intervention abroad, For generations, the presidents of both parties have unified the nation by fighting undeclared wars all over the world. The parties draw together to support the US troops sent abroad to fight "Just" wars and to establish American military bases, a Roman strategy without the pizza.

Cheney's approval arrives just in time to help Obama replace his failed agenda to reform health care, to regulate financial institutions, to solve the crisis in unemployment. With the Congress in total gridlock over domestic matters, Obama will gain political approval from Republicans and Independents by concentrating on Afghanistan and Iraq, with Iran waiting-on-call followed by likely insurgencies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Priorities determine bipartisanship. Cut Medicare but capture Osama Bin Laden.

Obama Needs to Deliver Change
Oct 13, 2009

Obama's very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.

Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president's decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.

President Obama Receives Nobel Peace Prize
Oct 09, 2009

Recognizing the importance of reducing the danger of nuclear weapons, the Nobel Committee today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama.

Obama has “created a new international climate,” the Committee said. “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position…The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.”

In awarding President Obama this great honor, the Committee has recognized the importance of the President’s efforts to restore American leadership on critical issues of our time, particularly in regard to nuclear weapons.

In his historic April 2009 speech in Prague, the President vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons. Words are important, but words without action mean little. Thankfully, President Obama has already taken a number of concrete steps toward that goal by:

Early Progress and Challenges on Nuclear Weapons Issues
Jun 10, 2009

On June 10, John Isaacs gave a talk to a group of advocacy and think tank representatives under the banner of Connect U.S., a network in support of responsible U.S. global engagement through grantmaking, policy advocacy and community-building.

In assessing progress and obstacles in less than four months of the Obama administration, Isaacs said: "To use a playground vernacular, those working on nuclear weapons issues are lucky duckies."

Isaacs pointed out that in January, the Connect US community presented a three point agenda on nuclear weapons issues.  The President said thanks, sure I will back these, and raise you several items that you did not call for.

Isaacs added: "Not only that, but we wanted to see high level engagement on our issues.  We got that coming out of our ears."

However, Isaacs warned:  "But the most important question mark on nuclear issues:  our agenda has been endorsed at the highest levels but it is a long way from being negotiated, approved and enacted."

Complete text below.

START RE-STARTS
Apr 01, 2009

Progress.  Finally.  On nuclear weapons reductions.

Today, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev announced an agreement to negotiate a new legally-binding treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires in December.

The agreement also gives momentum to the "reset" between the two countries after years of dismal relations.

The two presidents will meet in Moscow in July, and may hope to have an agreement to initial at that time.  

There is a problem of timing.  The existing START agreement expires on December 5, 2009.  Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (R) has already indicated that a treaty must be sent up to the Senate by August to have a ratification vote completed by December.

Take the Nuclear Option Off the Table
Jan 19, 2009

On January 13 and 14, Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the confirmation process for her nomination to be Secretary of State. She was approved by the committee 16 -1 and is sure to win confirmation in the Senate.

While the office has undergone many changes since it was established in 1789, for several generations the State Department has concentrated on diplomacy in all aspects of foreign-policy. However, in her testimony before the committee, Clinton said she would use “smart power” including “diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” To some, the inclusion of “military power” as though it were within her authority, was a surprise. Further, she went on to specify that “military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed as a last resort.”

What’s on Obama’s plate?
Dec 17, 2008

What’s on Obama’s plate?

We’re not talking chicken or fish, we’re talking more like nuclear terrorism and the war in Iraq.

When Obama gets sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, he’ll have more than a full plate of items to deal with, addressing issues like the war in Iraq,  the U.S. and now global economic crisis, global climate change, energy, terrorism, health care, the list – unfortunately – goes on and on, and on.

The Council for a Livable World’s research center has prepared – along with 60 leading national security experts – a transition report on how the Obama administration can effectively address the gravest threat to U.S. security: the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

The executive summary and full report is available here.

The Council believes that given the rise of terrorist networks and the amount of unsecure nuclear weapons material worldwide, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats to U.S. and international security.

“Every presidential candidate since 2000 has said that loose nuclear weapons are the most serious threat to international security. Yet for the past eight years we’ve done very little to address loose nukes seriously,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council and our research Center in a press release today. “What we need now is strong leadership as promised by President-elect Obama during the campaign.”

Besides unsecure nuclear weapons materials, we also have actual weapons to deal with. Almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States continue to maintain about 16,000 nuclear weapons. The arms control process has been stalled since the late 1990s when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was rejected by the Senate.

The experts in the report recommend that Obama Announce intent to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and begin working to build the bipartisan support in the Senate needed for approval.

Basically, the Bush administration was not only was sleeping (though we wish it was only that) on arms control issues, it actually reversed arms control gains made in the past 40 years. When Obama and the 111th Congress gets in office, they’ll have an historic opportunity to provide some real leadership on the most serious component of our national security.

Now you know our priorities, what are yours?