We notice how hard he’s worked to protect the people in Darfur.

Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted.

True for all policy areas.

His entire past history, and his real ideological basis must be kept hidden. It would spoil everything if people knew the truth.

Kurtz just described every president since Reagan.

The past three presidents have sought to make humanitarian interventions more of a group effort.

But they haven't had as their primary goal the undermining of the US's founding charter.

Until this one. It informs his every move.

This article assumes the fool is capable of thought. That is a debateable presumption.

Obama doesn’t tell you what he’s thinking

He waits for Valerie Bowman Jarrett to tell him what he's thinking.

Obama doesn’t tell you what he’s thinking.

But I already know. He's always thinking, "How can I forward the international communist movement? All hail Marx, Lenin and Trotsky."

What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law. That requires a “pure” case of intervention on humanitarian grounds.

When does the "international community" go into Mexico? Thousands more are being killed there than in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Obama has been smart enough to mask his true agenda and gain the presidency. Smart enough to get health care passed - which neither FDR nor Clinton could do. Smart enough to seize control of major US corporations and Wall Street and major banks. Smart enough to vastly expand the power of Leviathan. Smart enough to bypass Congress, hoodwink the media, pacify the American public, and flout both statutory and constitutional law without consequence. He’s smart enough.

With O’bummer, his actions speak louder than his teleprompter.

Russia and China have no problem stating where they stand on this matter.

"Yet for years, Samantha Power, a prominent advocate of humanitarian intervention and a key backer of our action in Libya, has been a powerful member of Obama’s foreign policy team."

Just read her wiki entry. Of course she never served a day in the military. A big advocate of sending in America's military for every humanitarian mission that comes down the pipe. But never willing to put her own rear end on the line. Typical ivory tower liberal.

The first question asked about Libya and sending in our military should be if it's in our national interests. Not whether it's a humanitarian mission...

"hoodwink the media"

I have to disagree with you here. He hasn't hoodwinked the media. Most of them are his willing accomplices...

Is there such a thing as a Marxlum?

The second question should be what authority did he have to override the Constitution and the War Powers Act?

I think he’s just removing a potential blackmailer before 2012. After all, couldn’t the whole Odinga thing come back in a big way during his reelection campaign?

It is not “The Divine One” but the coterie around him coupled with generous media support that is in control. He is an idiot who through some spasm of the American electorate was cast up into a position of authority; an historical accident created by the disintegrating forces at work in our country. Health care was a result of Democratic control of the congress not the result of any intelligence possessed by “The One.” It is the abdication of governance by those who once ran our country that is leading to collapse. The Aerican people are out of shape, spiritually speaking.

The past three presidents have sought to make humanitarian interventions more of a group effort.

Bush's primary motive wasn't humanitarian.

"The second question should be what authority did he have to override the Constitution and the War Powers Act?"

Unfortunately, I don't think he has overridden the warpowers act. It provides that the President only has to inform Congress within 48 hours of committing our armed forces to a military action. I think he's done that. However, you're right, he has overridden the Constitution. He needs to go to Congress to get authorization for this operation, per Article 1 Section 8.

Oh, he has?

0bangbang brought a handful of partisan hacks to the WH for 90 minutes and then announced his "plan," such as it is, before any of them said a word about it. That is not Congressional participation.

From the War Powers Act of 1973

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

Those are conditions that must be met before taking action. The War Powers Act stipulates that as well.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,...

From the Washington Post. An article with the text of the letter Obama sent yesterday to the Congress. I think it satisfies the requirement of the War Powers Act. It doesn’t satisfy me and certainly doesn’t satisfy the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama_explains_libya_mission_to_congress/2011/03/03/ABU9377_blog.html?wprss=plum-line