It's a Marathon no a Sprint (MnaS) - The Problems Faced are Nothing Out of The Ordinary (nOTO)

It’s a Marathon not a Sprint (MnaS) –– The Problems Faced are Nothing Out of The Ordinary (nOTO) 

  

A friend of mine wrote: 

"Dear Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and countless others that died on our behalf and left behind wives and children..I apologize. It seems you have died in vain. In spite of outward appearances and the wealth of a few (Jay Z, Oprah, Michael Jordan, and Floyd Mayweather) we may very well be worse off than ever before. The ignorance contained in certain genres of rap and hip hop (not all of it mind you) and crack cocaine have ruined at least three generations of our people." 

I understand my friend's message. Moreover, it inspired me to respond.

I believe I understand what he would like to see –– more uplifting lyrics in the mainstream. Marita Golden, award-winning novelist, nonfiction writer, distinguished teacher of writing and co-founder of the Hurston/Wright Foundation stated, “Often, what we write, the music we write and pictures we paint are dialogues with our deepest consciousness.” Base on her observation, “the ignorance contained in certain genres of rap and hip hop,” is an indication of the level of pain, anger, and sickness within society. Be-that-as-it-may, I disagree, and believe the lyrics and ignorance in some music are not a significant issue.         

Crack cocaine. There is no denying that crack cocaine has had an extraordinary impact on the last three generations.

“In spite of outward appearances and the wealth of a few (Jay Z, Oprah, Michael Jordan, and Floyd Mayweather) we may very well be worse off than ever before.” Here too, I understand my friend, and his intent, as well as his focus on emphasizing the point. However, I feel this does him and anyone reading it a disservice. I take my friend seriously and respect him a great deal. We, all races with the exception of the natives to America are far from worse off than EVER before. Nevertheless, the working class, poor, and criminalized are disproportionately Black when compared to the overall population [which I believe is the source of my friends frustration]; we need to fix that.

My thoughts on continuing progress:

Establish the proper perspective. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863 (150yrs ago); the U.S. Civil War ended in 1865 (148yrs ago); and the last of the “Jim Crow” laws were ended in 1965 (48yrs ago). In short, that is not that long ago. For the majority of people navigating life starting 150 years ago there was extreme uncertainty, and specifically for Black people freed from the slave economy, but faced with extremely limited options the outlook was dismal. Today, Black people are far from such a situation.

Focus on reality, not the dream. The famous preacher gave the now LEGENDARY “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963 (50yrs ago) in front and estimated crowd of 250,000 people. The best line of the speech to me: We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. To me that means focus on oneself/ doing your part with dignity and discipline, for in achieving success for self, it contributes to all; and that the struggle is ongoing, there is no end. Think of the “Roots: The Saga of an American Family” model [fiction or non-fiction, plagiarism or truth, it’s a model to emulate]. The family depicted in Roots, consistently struggled to make its way, and prepare the next generation to do better. It wasn’t easy, and will never be easy, but it is what all people aspire to do in general. With regard to the dream, every declared dream statement has been fulfilled to the furtherest extent possible with the exception of this one: I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. That statement is beautiful poetry, but impossible and rightfully a dream.

Understand we are civilized predators in a fight for resources and status. A young woman was shot in the head for wanting to go to school, and advocating that girls receive an education in 2012 Pakistan. Women are being arrested for driving cars in 2013 Saudi Arabia. The Tutsi - Hutu civil war. The 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. The death of a monarch by guillotine. The assassinations of U.S. Presidents. The Japanese Korean War. The Sino-Japanese war. The Holocaust. The World Wars. The Arab Slave trade. The list of violence and conflict goes on an on. It is inevitable that conflict will continue, and the struggle to establish oneself, or, a race or ethnic group respectively, will continue.

Reset the expectation. If the thought is one day all people, but specifically all (100%) Black people will seek education and trades, avoid criminal behavior, and obtain vast amounts of wealth (monetary and otherwise), it’s just not going to happen. Again, we are in competition for limited resources. Some will reach a measure of success, some won’t. If the thought is one day racist will cease to exist, it's just not going to happen. One, I find that hard to measure because you can never know what is in someones heart. Further, my view is that will never be the case, pride in ones race will forever be omnipresent [I could further explain but it would drastically increase the length of this piece]. We all must consciously not act on inclinations of superiority. The same can be said for the respective classes: poor, middle, and rich; educated and less-educated.

Engage the system. Policy makers respond to money and votes. The members of the Taxed Enough Already Party and those who associate with it vote. Conservatives vote. They engage and are responded to because they do so. Those with money are responded to because they fund policy makers. Baltimore’s general election results for November 2011 show only 13.28% of registered voters showed up to vote, and there are no “voter suppression laws or tactics” in Baltimore. Baltimore has an estimate population of 621,342 according to the 2012 census with 63.6 percent being Black. Current Mayor Rawlings-Blake won office with 39,548 votes. If one doesn’t have the money to influence policy makers, one must exercise the vote.

Focus on the long haul, it’s a MnaS, there will be set backs (crack cocaine, etc) which is nOTO. The U.S. is young relative to other established countries. The Black race’s evolution within America is even younger. When acknowledging the starting point, the obstacles, and the current opportunities and challenges, the current state of Black Americans is relatively where one should expect it to be. Is there more work to be done, of course. Together, for there is strength in numbers, but most certainly as individuals, we must do our part to ensure progress continues to be made as we go from Rough Draft to Good Copy. I believe doing your part at the minimum is focusing on your success and providing opportunities or the environment for the next generation to surpass that success.

-----

I Have a Dream (full text)

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro till is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.

One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.

One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize the shameful condition.

In a sense, we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For white only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, even tough we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice and sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Two Kinds of Loyalty

Two Kinds of Loyalty

The first kind of loyalty is the loyalty of convenience.

I'm going to look around, sure, but probably won't switch. Switching is risky, it's time consuming. Switching means getting to know a new partner, learning their quirks and peeves. Switching means I might lose what I know, which is ok but I feel it could be better, for what looks like better, but after a few weeks I’ll find that it is not.

Then there's the other kind of loyalty. This is the loyalty of, "I'm not even looking."

This is the loyalty of, "I'm the kind of person that sticks with people who stick with me." This is the loyalty of someone who doesn't even want to know that there's a better deal somewhere else, because, after all, he or she is in it for the long haul.

The problem with the loyalty of convenience is that the person is always tempted to look and look some more, and the partner is always working to build barriers, barriers that don't necessarily increase satisfaction. Some might think it kids. Others, might think it’s financial stability. Some might think it’s force.

There is not a common term for this sort of feeling, but 'stuck' comes to mind for the person looking. If your partner feels stuck, you have a problem and are likely the problem [may or may not be your fault, but you are the problem].

The beauty of the second kind of loyalty, the loyalty of identity and satisfaction, is that the person who isn't even looking is committed, as committed to the relationship as you are. You earn this sort of loyalty, you don't engineer it by having children, or buying love, or domestic violence.

You can only focus on creating one sort of loyalty at a time, true?

Words don’t matter without action.

Moreover, I’ve learned action doesn’t matter without words, not everyone notices what you’re doing or see your actions as you see them. Market yourself and what your doing for the relationship to your partner.

Focus on creating the loyalty of “I’m not even looking.”



Inspired and derived from Seth Godin: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/10/two-kinds-of-loyalty.html

E-Cigs

----------------------------------------------------------
Update Aug 2014]

I have continued to use e-cigs (NJOY brand), and I have chosen to smoke cigs when drinking. Smokers, we know that nothing goes with alcohol like a regular cig. Well, the purpose of this update is to inform e-cig users that smoke cigs when drinking that you may no longer have to and you may be able to leave cigs alone for good. 

I've found Vuse. This product is the best e-cig I've come across thus far. Its the best design, best "drag" consistent inhale/exhale and it delivers a smooth, yet subtle taste. And most importantly, I've found it to replicate the feeling of a regular cig when consuming alcohol. 

I remain true to my previous statements. I don't endorse smoking. If you don't smoke, don't start smoking cigarettes or vaping e-cigarettes. This update is for smokers. If you smoke already, consider giving Vuse a try.

----------------------------------------------------------
Original:

Smoking will likely be the death of me, but who knows. Far as I am concerned, GOD has the final say, I go when I go, which could be tomorrow, next week, or 60 years from now. Nevertheless, I and those of the tribe understand the hazards of smoking yet we do it anyway, ultimately it's a choice and legal.

“Nicotine itself is not especially hazardous,” the British medical society concluded in 2007. “If nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved (Tierney).”

I’ve never tried the patch or gum, but I use electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), specifically two brands, Blu [best of the two but doesn’t ship to AP anymore due to the lithium battery] and NJOY [really good].





I DON’T ENDORSE SMOKING.

IF YOU DON’T SMOKE, DON’T START.

I DON’T THINK E-CIGS ARE HEALTHY.

However, smokers, I’ve found e-cigs to be an acceptable alternative to smoking. No smell, need I say more? Similar feeling and sensation. I smoke far less than I did when using cigarettes. If found to be an healthy option compared to cigarettes, great; if not, oh-well, you smoke anyway. At this point [I've been using the e-cigs for 2 years], the only time I light up a cigarette is when consuming alcohol. I’ve found the e-cig not to be a potent companion to liquor like the cigarette.

There are reasons to quit; my experience, quitting is difficult, doable – absolutely, but onerous [just my thought].

Experimenters in Italy led by Riccardo Polosa of the University of Catania recruited 40 hard-core smokers and gave them e-cigs. The users “vaped,” or puffed on the vapor, to get a hit of the addictive nicotine (and the familiar motion of bringing a cigarette to one’s mouth) without the noxious substances found in cigarette smoke (Tierney).

After six months, more than half the subjects in Dr. Polosa’s experiment had cut their regular cigarette consumption by at least 50 percent. Nearly a quarter had stopped altogether. Though this was just a small pilot study, the results are encouraging and bolster hopes that e-cigs could be the most effective tool yet for reducing the global death toll from smoking (Tierney).

IF YOU SMOKE, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GIVE E-CIGS A TRY.

IF YOU DON’T SMOKE. DON’T START.


+NJOY ; +cigarette electronique ; +CIGARETTES ELECTRONIQUES

Video Intrigue: Crooked Smile

TLC "20" – TLC still remains the top-selling all-girl group ever, and this collection reminds us why.

TLC still remains the top-selling all-girl group ever, and this collection reminds us why.

Long Time No Blog

Long time no blog.  

Amazing how time fly's when you're having fun. It has been quite some time since my last post. 

Much respect to those who find the time to blog on a regular basis.

Can the President Act without the Approval of Congress in Syria

Syria, the use of chemical weapons, the civil war, and ongoing crises in the Middle East (where there seems to have always been some form of crisis going on in my lifetime) makes for quite a predicament. I do not envy the foreign policy team, the president, or Congress as they engage and determine what actions to take.

Concerning the announcement to act and go to Congress about Syria, there are two things I took away:

There is no rush to act in Syria.

The administration feels acting in Syria could likely lead to a larger engagement than what will initially be undertaken.

[I am in no rush to see engagement in Syria, and the administration has my support. Consulting congress and seeking authorization is a good thing.]

I found it interesting to hear and read “experts” disagree about whether the president can act without the authority of Congress. The wordplay in the president’s announcement was skillful and political. To find out the answer [which I feel I and we (if you don’t know) all should know definitively, shame on me]—can the president engage the U.S. Armed Forces in war without approval from Congress—I did some research to educate myself.

Based on what I’ve found the answer is yes, in a national emergency and under the war powers resolution, which provides the president 60 days to engage and conclude the engagement or receive authorization from Congress for further action.

In 2007, while a candidate for office, President Obama stated, “History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” It's somewhat clear where President Obama stands and his actions are consistent with the approach to Syria.

When pursuing engagement in Libya the president sent a letter to Congress informing:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

…I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

In short he informed Congress and the method in which he chose was consistent with the War Powers Resolution which provided legal authorization.

Further, he had additional legal precedent under the U.N. Security Council Resolution. The U.N. has not authorized action in Syria.

The Library of Congress informs some U.S. Presidents have taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the presidency. Examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:

1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution, triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60 days had expired.

1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.

1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.

1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.

1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.

2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.

2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq (did not declare war), pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243.

I can see why a president would take issue with the War Powers Resolution and aim to strengthen the presidency, there is the possibility that we could cut our nose to spite our face. Regardless, war is no effortless undertaking and should be entered with the full engagement with the “American people’s representatives in Congress.” Because of politics I assess the majority of future presidents will act alone which will be within their legal authority [once started, Congress won’t stop it]; a few will engage Congress, and Congress will likely not declare war ever again.

“Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective,” President Obama.

-----

Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

·       The Congress shall have Power... To declare War.

-----

War Powers Resolution:

·       Presidential executive power as Commander in Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization [U.N. Resolution], or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

§ 1543. Reporting requirement

(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

[t]he President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

-----

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

# # #

-----

President Obama's remarks on possible U.S. military action in Syria, as released by the White House:

Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four Congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific Congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we've heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq. We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war.

Instead, we'll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren't perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it's about who we are as a country. I believe that the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn't elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people's representatives stand together.

I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.