Friday, February 27, 2015

LABOR UNIONS 59,499

LABOR UNIONS

Some of the largest and oldest Industrial American Unions

*Special thanks to "Wikipedia", "Google Images", "The New York Times",

and " http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/03/the-continuing-unpopularity-of-labor-unions"

BLOG POST

by Felicity Blaze Noodleman

Los Angeles, CA

2.27.15

Labor Unions have a history which dates back to the 1880’s in the United States and are somewhat similar to the trade Guilds of Europe which date back to the Middle Ages. A guild is an association of artisans or merchants who control the practice of their craft in a particular town. The earliest types of guild were formed as confraternities of workers. They were organized in a manner something between a professional association, trade union, a cartel, and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials.

Unions began forming in the mid-19th century in response to the social and economic impact of the industrial revolution. National labor unions began to form in the post-Civil War Era. The Knights of Labor emerged as a major force in the late 1880s, but it collapsed because of poor organization, lack of effective leadership, disagreement over goals, and strong opposition from employers and government forces.

AFL–CIO
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) is anational trade union center, the largest federation of unions in the United States, made up of fifty-seven national and international unions, together representing more than 11 million workers (as of June 2008, the most recent official statistic). It was formed in 1955 when the AFL and the CIO merged after a long estrangement. From 1955 until 2005, the AFL–CIO's member unions represented nearly all unionized workers in the United States. Several large unions split away from AFL–CIO and formed the rival Change to Win Federation in 2005 but several unions have since reaffiliated. The largest union currently in the AFL–CIO is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), with more than 1.6 million members.

Membership

The AFL–CIO is a federation of international labor unions. As a voluntary federation, the AFL–CIO has little authority over the affairs of its member unions except in extremely limited cases (such as the ability to expel a member union for corruption (Art. X, Sec. 17) and enforce resolution of disagreements over jurisdiction or organizing). As of October 2013, the AFL–CIO had 57 member unions.

Membership in the AFL–CIO is largely unrestricted. Since its inception as the American Federation of Labor, the AFL–CIO has supported an image of the federation as the "House of Labor"—an all-inclusive, national federation of "all" labor unions. Currently, the AFL–CIO's only explicit restriction on membership excludes those labor unions whose "policies and activities are consistently directed toward the achievement of the program or purposes of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, terrorism and other forces that suppress individual liberties and freedom of association..." (Art. II, Sec. 7). Under Art. II, Sec. 4 and Sec. 8, the AFL–CIO has the authority to place conditions on the issuance of charters, and formally has endorsed the policy of merging small unions into larger ones. In 2001, the AFL–CIO formally established rules regarding the size, financial stability, governance structure, jurisdiction, and leadership stability of unions seeking affiliation. And although the AFL–CIO constitution permits the federation to charter Directly Affiliated Local Unions, the AFL–CIO has largely refused to charter such unions since the 1970s.

A list of current member unions may be found at List of unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

In recent years the AFL–CIO has concentrated its political efforts on lobbying in Washington and the state capitals, and on "GOTV" (get-out-the-vote) campaigns and in major elections. For example, in the 2010 midterm elections, it sent 28.6 million pieces of mail. Members will receive a "slate card" with a list of union endorsements matched to the member's Congressional district, along with a "personalized" letter from President Trumka emphasizing the importance of voting. In addition, 100,000 volunteers will be going door to door to promote endorsed candidates to 13 million union voters in 32 states .

Guild

A guild /ɡɪld/ is an association of artisans or merchants who control the practice of their craft in a particular town. The earliest types of guild were formed as confraternities of workers. They were organized in a manner something between a professional association, trade union, a cartel, and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials. A lasting legacy of traditional guilds are the guildhalls constructed and used as meeting places.

One of the legacies of the guilds, the elevated Windsor Guildhall was originally a meeting place for guilds, as well as magistrates' seat andtown hall.

An important result of the guild framework was the emergence of universities at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford around the year 1200; they originated as guilds of students as at Bologna, or of masters as at Paris.

Early guildlike associations

In medieval cities, craftsmen tended to form associations based on their trades, confraternities of textile workers, masons, carpenters, carvers, glass workers, each of whom controlled secrets of traditionally imparted technology, the "arts" or "mysteries" of their crafts. Usually the founders were free independent master craftsmen who hired apprentices

"wikipedia.com"

The American Federation of Labor, founded in 1886 and led by Samuel Gompers until his death in 1924, proved much more durable. It arose as a loose coalition of various local unions. It helped coordinate and support strikes and eventually became a major player in national politics, usually on the side of the Democrats.

In a world where the normal work day was 10 to 12 hours long and unsafe working conditions, laboring workers found themselves up against new demands in the mechanized workplaces and factories. People were no match for the machines which could run endlessly. People now had to keep up and work at the pace dictated by the machine. Working conditions had to change and employers needed to understand the problems their newly created factories were causing at the beginning of the industrial age.

A scene from the epic 1936 film “Modern Times” by Charlie Chaplin; depicts the problems and challenges faced by people in the mechanized work place.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/02/131753139/must-see-movie-selections-for-the-giving-season

As the American Industrial Revolution continued to grow and dominate the US labor landscape the need for some kind of regulatory agency to guide the newly formed Industry’s and represent the working labors on many new issues from safety to labor guidelines of employment ages to eliminate child labor and fair wages only to name a few. The early years of industrialization in the US saw a social upheaval in response to new problems not seen by society before. Industrialization also spawned new opportunities for social advancement on a grand scale. Since no such organization existed to meet the many and varied perplexities of Industrialization the Labor Union evolved in response to the needs of labor in the late nineteenth century.

American labor unions benefited greatly from the New Deal policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s. The Wagner Act, in particular, legally protected the right of unions to organize. Unions from this point developed increasingly closer ties to the Democratic Party, and are considered a backbone element of the New Deal Coalition.

Mid 1930’s strike against General Motors.

http://tcsidewalks.blogspot.com/2010/09/strikes-and-sidewalks-and-jimmy-johns.html

In many ways labor unions are somewhat similar to the scaffolding needed for a building under construction. They exist to aid in the building in its completion and are eventually removed when the building is completed. The problem with Labor Unions is they never seem to declare their work as finished and over stay their welcome. In fact these Unions have eventually killed the rank and file they once represented because the Corporations the Union bargained with were forced into bankruptcy or to relocate outside of the United States where it was possible for them to continue doing business. This scenario has played out time and time again over the last half century.

One of the most notable examples of a Labor Union “self distructing” occurred in 1981 with the “Air Traffic Controllors” Union as this article from the "New York Times" recalls.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Strike That Busted Unions

By JOSEPH A. McCARTIN

Published: August 2, 2011

Ronald Reagan

Ron Edmonds, AP

THIRTY years ago today, when he threatened to fire nearly 13,000 air traffic controllers unless they called off an illegal strike, Ronald Reagan not only transformed his presidency, but also shaped the world of the modern workplace.

More than any other labor dispute of the past three decades, Reagan’s confrontation with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, undermined the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions. It also polarized our politics in ways that prevent us from addressing the root of our economic troubles: the continuing stagnation of incomes despite rising corporate profits and worker productivity.

By firing those who refused to heed his warning, and breaking their union, Reagan took a considerable risk. Even his closest advisers worried that a major air disaster might result from the wholesale replacement of striking controllers. Air travel was significantly curtailed, and it took several years and billions of dollars (much more than Patco had demanded) to return the system to its pre-strike levels.

But the risk paid off for Reagan in the short run. He showed federal workers and Soviet leaders alike how tough he could be. Although there were 39 illegal work stoppages against the federal government between 1962 and 1981, no significant federal job actions followed Reagan’s firing of the Patco strikers. His forceful handling of the walkout, meanwhile, impressed the Soviets, strengthening his hand in the talks he later pursued with Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

Yet three decades later, with the economy shrinking or stagnant for nearly four years now and Reagan’s party moving even further to the right than where he stood, the long-term costs of his destruction of the union loom ever larger. It is clear now that the fallout from the strike has hurt workers and distorted our politics in ways Reagan himself did not advocate.

Although a conservative, Reagan often argued that private sector workers’ rights to organize were fundamental in a democracy. He not only made this point when supporting Lech Walesa’s anti-Communist Solidarity movement in Poland; he also boasted of being the first president of the Screen Actors Guild to lead

that union in a strike. Over time, however, his crushing of the controllers’ walkout — which he believed was justified because federal workers were not allowed under the law to strike — has helped undermine the private-sector rights he once defended.

Workers in the private sector had used the strike as a tool of leverage in labor-management conflicts between World War II and 1981, repeatedly withholding their work to win fairer treatment from recalcitrant employers. But after Patco, that weapon was largely lost. Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. Phelps Dodge and International Paper were among the companies that imitated Reagan by replacing strikers rather than negotiating with them. Many other employers followed suit.

By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952. Lacking the leverage that strikes once provided, unions have been unable to pressure employers to increase wages as productivity rises. Inequality has ballooned to a level not seen since Reagan’s boyhood in the 1920s.

Although he opposed government strikes, Reagan supported government workers’ efforts to unionize and bargain collectively. As governor, he extended such rights in California. As president he was prepared to do the same. Not only did he court and win Patco’s endorsement during his 1980 campaign, he directed his negotiators to go beyond his legal authority to offer controllers a pay raise before their strike — the first time a president had ever offered so much to a federal employees’ union.

But the impact of the Patco strike on Reagan’s fellow Republicans has long since overshadowed his own professed beliefs regarding public sector unions. Over time the rightward-shifting Republican Party has come to view Reagan’s mass firings not as a focused effort to stop one union from breaking the law — as Reagan portrayed it — but rather as a blow against public sector unionism itself.

In the spring, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin invoked Reagan’s handling of Patco as he prepared to “change history” by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights in a party-line vote. “I’m not negotiating,” Mr. Walker said. By then the world had seemingly forgotten that unlike Mr. Walker, Reagan had not challenged public employees’ right to bargain — only their right to strike.

With Mr. Walker’s militant anti-union views now ascendant within the party of a onetime union leader, with workers less able to defend their interests in the workplace than at any time since the Depression, the long-term consequences continue to unfold in ways Reagan himself could not have predicted — producing outcomes for which he never advocated.

Joseph A. McCartin, an associate professor of history at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming “Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike That Changed America.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 3, 2011, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: The Strike That Busted Unions.

"The New York Times"

Today most Union Contracts specify how grievances are to be dealt with and call for a binding arbitrator when differences reach an impasse and are not able to be resolved. Strikes are rarely called by unions these days and have proven to be a costly action for the rank and file of a Union. Union membership has declined from their hay day of the 1930's Thur the 1980's. The charts from"wikipedia.com" below illustrate the declining popularity of Unions.

File:Union membership in us 1930-2010.png

Charts obtained from "wikipedia.com".

As the "Rust Belt" industries have closed or moved out of the country newer unions are now on the rise. The problem with these unions is they do not have the economic infrastructure to support them which once existed. Another weakness with these unions occurs because they are basically service oriented organizations which produce no product or income and are an expense to operate. In short: they are now a huge burden to the economy. AFSCME is a Union who's membership is made up of Federal, State and Municipal Bureaucrats and is now ranked as the largest Union in the United States. AFSCME seems to be a conflict of interests as they are a very large part of the organization which employs them.

As the following "wikipedia" details AFSCME as a Union is directly involved with political campaigns. Labor Unions have always supported the Democratic Party. With a Union now directly working for the Government at all levels there is now a cause for concern not only for the wage and benefits which they are practically giving to themselves with our tax dollars but also for the political influence they are forcing upon the country as a whole. It should be noted that Bureaucrats are usually around longer than the legislatures who were elected into office and are supposed to be employing the AFSCME membership.

http://council81.homestead.com/main.html

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from AFSCME)

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is a major trade union in the United States. It represents approximately 1.5 million workers, most of whom work in the public sector. The union has become known in recent years for its involvement in political campaigns.

AFSCME is part of the AFL-CIO, one of the two main labor federations in the United States. Employees at the federal government level are primarily represented by other unions, such as the American Federation of Government Employees, with which AFSCME was once affiliated, and the National Treasury Employees Union; but AFSCME does represent some federal employees at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Library of Congress, among others.

According to their website, AFSCME organizes for social and economic rights of their protectorates in the workplace and through political action and legislative advocacy. It is divided into more than 3,500 local unions in 46 U.S. states, plus the District of Columbiaand Puerto Rico. Each local union writes its own constitution, holds membership meetings, and elects its own officers. Councils are also a part of AFSCME's administrative structure, usually grouping together various locals in a geographic area.

AFSCME members with then-Senator Barack Obama, 2008

"Wikipedia.com"

With the recent Government shut down in Washington DC and Government deficits at every level of State and Municipal Governments one of the biggest expenditures for Government salaries is the benefits and pensions being given to AFSCME bureaucrats. Their Union slogan, "We Make It Happen", is a little ironic when we think about Government deficit spending and shut downs! Oh; and one other thing about this union - AFSCME has no redeeming social qualities such as safety or working conditions. They are motivated by greed!

It’s certainly not unusual for conflicts between business and labor to be played out in the Capitol.

It is, however, very unusual for conflicts between two labor unions to reach the Capitol. And one such duel now presents Gov. Jerry Brown with a dilemma.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/08/5805669/dan-walters-california-labor-union.html#storylink=cpy http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/08/5805669/dan-walters-california-labor-union.html

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/trending/ca-labor-union-feud-lands-on-browns-desk/

THE CONTINUING UNPOPULARITY OF LABOR UNIONS

BY MIKE FLYNN 3 SEP 2012

IN HONOR OF THE LABOR DAY HOLIDAY, GALLUP IS OUT WITH ITS REGULAR SURVEY ASSESSING THE PUBLIC'S ATTITUDE ABOUT LABOR UNIONS. GALLUP'S HEADLINE IS THAT APPROVAL OF LABOR UNIONS IS STEADY AT 52%. THIS IS TRUE, IF BY STEADY YOU MEAN THAT UNIONS CONTINUE TO HAVE THE LOWEST APPROVAL RATING SINCE THE QUESTION WAS FIRST ASKED IN THE 1930S.

Just four years ago, 60% of the public approved of labor unions, while 31% disapproved. Today, 42% disapprove of unions, a move of 11 points in a very short period of time. In the 70+ years Gallup has been asking the question, approval has generally been in the 60s and disapproval in the 20s. Support for unions peaked in the 1950s, when 75% of the public approved of unions.

And, this isn't some kind of skew from question wording. Here's the question Gallup asks:

Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?

Now, I do have certain existential problems with unions, but I'm not certain I would disapprove of them 100% of the time in all situations. I mean, that question is a pretty clear up-or-down choice. That only around half of adults approve of unions today is a stark reminder of how far labor unions have fallen.

Worse for unions, however, is that a plurality of Americans, 41%, think unions should have less influence. 25% think they should have about the same amount of influence and 29% think unions should have more influence. Four years ago, these numbers were basically reversed, with 35% wanting unions to have more influence and 32% less influence.

I think two things account for labor's approval drop; the recession and the growing fight over public sector wages and benefits. At their most basic level, unions are a job cartel making union membership a requirement for many jobs in large parts of the country. With so many Americans unable to find work for the past four years, there is bound to be growing resentment towards unions.

But, the second reason should worry union bosses. A majority of union members now are public sector employees. As state and local governments struggle with very tight budgets, the wages and benefits of public sector employees are becoming enormous issues in the debate over government spending. It will be next to impossible to get spending under control unless the expensive benefit packages are curtailed.

To many Americans, though, it isn't so much a math problem as a question of fairness. In most cases, public sector union members pay very little for health and pension benefits that a private sector worker could only dream about. These benefits are paid for with taxes from the private sector worker, who herself often has to struggle to afford health insurance and save for retirement.

The whole situation is unsustainable and, until it is addressed, expect public support for labor unions continue to decline.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/03/the-continuing-unpopularity-of-labor-unions

In private sector labor disputes, unions and management both have ample incentives to protect their respective interests.

With government labor negotiations, by contrast, that natural system of checks and balances doesn’t exist. There’s no strong incentive for politicians to be frugal stewards of taxpayer money – particularly when they negotiate very expensive fringe benefits that defer costs to future years.

Indeed, because government employee unions tend to be very politically active, often being huge contributors to political campaigns, politicians often have a strong incentive to be profligate with taxpayer money.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/this-cartoon-summarizes-the-corrupt-insider-dealing-that-governor-walker-and-others-are-trying-to-fix/

This has been Felicity looking at some of the not so well known facts about some Labor Unions for the "Noodleman Group". See you next week!

Tell your friends and associates about us!

It's easy! Just copy and paste me into your email!

* “The Noodleman Group” is pleased to announce that we are now carrying a link to the “USA Today” news site.We installed the “widget/gadget” August 20, and it will be carried as a regular feature on our site.Now you can read“Noodleman” and then check in to “USA Today” for all the up to date News, Weather, Sports and more!Just scroll all the way down to the bottom of our site and hit the “USA Today” hyperlinks.Enjoy!

Friday, February 20, 2015

OBAMA'S WAR ON ISIL 58,958

BLOG POST
by Felicity Blaze Noodleman
Los Angeles, CA
2.20.15

OBAMA’S WAR

ON ISIL

War on ISIS Or Assad? Obama's Open-Ended Missions Will Lead To A Bigger Mess And A Larger U.S. Footprint In The Near East. 1. An excerpt from, "U.S. commandos quietly train Yemeni military" Tactical-Life.com, September 16, 2010:

"Seldom visible in the Yemeni mountains, the elite U.S. commandos training the Yemen’s military represent the Obama administration’s quest to fight terrorism without inflaming anti-American sentiment.

That balancing act has become an administration trademark, funneling millions of dollars in aid and low-profile military trainers to countries such as Pakistan and Yemen in order to take on a more diverse, independent and scattered al Qaeda network.

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2014/09/war-on-isis-or-assad-obamas-open-ended.html

* Special thanks to: "msnbc", "CNN", "The Los Angeles Times",

We could not believe The Presidents announcement on Wednesday February the 11th. asking Congress for funding to fight ISIL. Now isn't this the Democratic President who criticized the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and aren't these the Democrats who with drew their support of the same war half way into the job?

After we worked so hard in Iraq to put the terrorists in check the Democrats and Obama the Dem's pulled the plug which led to the position the Middle East is in with ISIL today! If the President would have continued to fight the terrorists in Iraq there might not be an "ISIL today. Since taking office the Obama administration has fired a number of Military Officers and unwilling to take the advice offered from not only from the Bush administration but from the military as well. Again it seems Bush and Chaney were right and Obama was wrong.

"Investors Business Daily" Reports "Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102913-677116-197-military-officers-purged-by-obama.htm?p=2

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-terror/#ELw3e9cL0E3lz3pt.97

It's really difficult to take the President seriously when in so many ways he seems uncommitted to a war on terrorism. He could not pick up the ball from the Bush administration, he is unwilling to take advice from the Military and he didn't support our allies in France at the "Unity Rally"!

The President really should have had all his ducks lined up before going public with his plans for a war with ISIL and above all he should have closed the deal with Congress. Has the President really got any Ducks to begin with? Whats missing from the Obama proposal is:

Support from the American people
Support and funding from Congress
A United Nations resolution
A Coalition of world support
A nation to fight
A plan

This is nothing like the Bush Administrations war in Iraq when the United States took on Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group Al-Qaeda! Fighting ISIL is like fighting the wind. ISIL has no central location and is active throughout the Middle East. Yes; they are a hostile threat for the world at large but are unable to attack on a large scale.

What this request for war funding from Obama seems to be is purely political posturing and the President should know by now is Boehner will call his bluff every time. The President will not achieve success with Congress until he has a realistic approach on a real issue!

"msnbc"

Obama Asks For New War Powers: ISIS Is ‘Going To Lose’

Copyright Getty Images

U.S. President Barack Obama announces he has sent Congress an authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State with (L-R) Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in the Roosevelt Room at the White House February 11, 2015 in Washington, DC. Obama wants Congress to authorize a three-year military campaign against the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, that would continue the use of air power and could include limited ground operations by American forces to hunt down enemy leaders or rescue American personnel.

CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

http://www.10news.com/news/obama-asks-congress-to-authorize-war-against-isis

02/11/15 03:47 PM—UPDATED 02/11/15 11:02 PM

By David Taintor

President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday for new war powers to go after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the brutal terror group that has beheaded American journalists and aid workers and has menaced the Middle East. The president’s request would replace the 2002 legislation that authorized the Iraq War but leaves in place a very broadly worded resolution passed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“This is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time,” Obama said at the White House, flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry. But “ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose,” Obama added, using an alternative acronym for the terror group.

Earlier Wednesday, Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize early in his presidency, submitted a draft resolution seeking from Congress a three-year Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS. The resolution notably restricts the use of American ground troops and seeks to avoid a prolonged conflict in the fight against ISIS, which has taken control of large swathes of Syria and northern Iraq in its quest to establish a religious state in the Middle East.

Obama won the presidency in 2008 in part as a staunch opponent of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; under his leadership, American troops were withdrawn from that country in 2011. But the recent rise of ISIS – which began as an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and has thrived in the vacuum created by the relentless and deadly civil war in Syria – forced his administration to take military action. Still, the president went to great lengths to differentiate his strategy in the region from the actions of his predecessor.

“I’m convinced the U.S. should not get dragged back into another ground war in the Middle East. That’s not in our national security interest, and it’s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL,” Obama said, adding he would only send American troops into harm’s way when “absolutely necessary.”

The Senate is set to vote Thursday on the confirmation of Ashton Carter, Obama’s pick to succeed Hagel as U.S. defense secretary. Carter was not at the White House event Wednesday, but he would be the top Pentagon official to see the military offensive through.

Congress overwhelmingly approved an AUMF proposed by President George W. Bush days after the al Qaeda terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Critics later complained the authorization was too broad and formed the underpinning for questionable tactics to fight the war on terror, including indefinite detention and targeted killings.

“My Administration’s draft AUMF would not authorize long‑term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote in a letter to Congress. “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.”

The vague language in the draft resolution has raised fears among some Democrats that it opens the door to future ground troops across the Middle East. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee as wells as the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, told msnbc’s Alex Wagner that Obama’s resolution needs more restrictions against the use of ground troops.

“I am insistent that it needs to be narrowed or clarified or specified so that we are not in effect authorizing open ended operations,” Blumenthal said. He added that the president’s request provided a “starting point” for Congress.

Win Without War, an umbrella group that includes organizations such as Greenpeace and MoveOn.org, swiftly denounced Obama’s resolution.

“We strongly urge Congress to reject the pursuit of a military solution to a conflict that does not have one,” the group said in a statement. “American bombs have been falling on the Middle East for decades and they have only served to destabilize the region and prolong conflicts. We must recognize that no Congressional action will suddenly end the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Instead we should redouble our efforts to find a truly comprehensive solution to these challenges that has a chance of finally bring peace – not more war – to the long-suffering people of this region.”

Former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who is eyeing a White House bid in 2016, criticized Obama’s resolution as too limited.

“All options need to be on the table in combating this Radical Islamic threat,” Santorum said in a statement distributed by his Patriot Voices PAC. “We need to take the fight to our enemy without the constraints this Administration is proactively placing upon itself and this President’s successor. The next President needs to be able to have all the tools at their disposal to not just conduct military operations, but win this war.”

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who is also considering a White House bid, said Obama’s war proposal need only be one sentence. “I would say there is a pretty simple authorization he could ask for, and it would read one sentence. And that is: ‘We authorize the President to defeat and destroy ISIL, period.’ And that’s, I think, what we need to do,” Rubio said Wednesday in a speech on the Senate floor.

The House of Representatives held a moment of silence Wednesday to honor Kayla Mueller, an American aid worker who died while being held hostage by ISIS. Lawmakers from Arizona – Mueller’s home state – led the moment of silence, saying she “stood as a beacon of light and hope.” Mueller’s family confirmed her death Tuesday. ISIS claimed last week that Mueller had died in an airstrike that targeted the terror group.

Obama announced his plan to launch airstrikes against ISIS back in September, and the White House’s AUMF resolution seeks to formalize the U.S. military campaign to “degrade and defeat” ISIS.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-aumf-isis-war

"Los Angeles Times"

Boehner Says Obama's Military Authorization Request Falls Short

House Speaker John A. Boehner says President Obama's request to Congress to authorize military operations against Islamic State falls short of what's needed to defeat the militant group. (Mandel Ngan / AFP-Getty Images)

By KATHERINE SKIBA contact the reporter

February 15, 2015

House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said President Obama's request to Congress to authorize military operations against Islamic State isn't sufficient and that he will aim to strengthen it in the coming weeks.

“I don't believe that what the president sent here gives him the flexibility or the authority to take on this enemy and to win,” the Republican leader said on "Fox News Sunday."

Obama ready to ask Congress to authorize fight against Islamic State

Boehner said he viewed the president’s submission as the “beginning of the process” and that there would be “bipartisan discussions about how we strengthen this authorization.”

Boehner also promised “exhaustive hearings” by three House committees: Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services.

Obama's request to Congress last week to authorize military operations against Islamic State set relatively few hard limits for him or his successor but appears designed to force lawmakers to shoulder more of the responsibility for a lengthy conflict.

Obama's proposal for a three-year authorization is aimed at bridging the divide among lawmakers, who must now weigh in themselves, a top White House advisor said Sunday.

"It is very important in questions of war and peace for Congress to be heard," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who as head of the chamber's Foreign Relations committee is a key voice in the debate, countered that the White House proposal fails to go far enough in detailing the president's strategy and that skepticism abounds on Capitol Hill about Obama's plans for a fight that Corker emphasized is likely to last for years.

Obama asks Congress to back fight against Islamic State, but is vague on limits

Still, some Republicans have complained that the proposal was too restrictive. "It is important," Corker said, "for Congress to get behind something that's prudent."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned against Congress restraining the president in the authorization for military action, saying it would lead to “535 commanders in chief.”

McCain noted that Congress has the power of the purse and could cut off funding if it disapproved of the president’s actions.

McCain, who was taken prisoner of war while serving in Vietnam, was highly critical of Obama on Syria and Iraq. He said “there is no strategy whatsoever” on Syria and called pulling out of Iraq in 2011 a “huge mistake.”

There needs to be a stabilizing force in Iraq, McCain said. “You’re going to also have to have American boots on the ground,” he added. “That does not mean the massive numbers as the president sets up that straw man all the time, but it does mean forward air controllers, special forces and many others.”

The president’s proposed authorization would allow for limited ground forces, including special operations troops.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-congress-war-powers-20150215-story.html

"CNN"

Poll: Most Disapprove of
Obama Handling of ISIS

By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN

Washington (CNN)Americans are increasingly unhappy with President Barack Obama's handling of ISIS, and a growing share of the nation believes that fight is going badly, according to a new CNN/ORC survey released Monday.

The CNN/ORC poll found 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS, a significant decline in support for the President over the past few months. In late September, that number was 49%.

Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs more broadly, and 54% disapprove of how the President is handling terrorism. Another 60% rate Obama negatively on his handling of electronic national security.

The declining approval ratings for Obama on national security come as a weekend of international turmoil further underscores the growing threats abroad.

Denmark's capital was rocked by two shootings, one at a free speech event featuring a controversial cartoonist and another just hours later outside a synagogue. The attacks left two dead and five police officers wounded.

And Egypt launched a second round of airstrikes against Islamic State strongholds in Libya on Monday, in retaliation for a video released Sunday that appeared to show ISIS militants beheading a group of 21 Egyptian Christians.

Obama issued a statement condemning the killing of the Christians on Sunday night, though Obama's Republican opponents have consistently made the case that the growing Islamic State threat is exacerbated by what they see as his weak leadership.

In the poll, Americans increasingly believe the U.S. military action against ISIS is going badly, with 58% saying so in the latest survey, up from 49% who said the fight wasn't going well in October.

Even among Democrats, nearly half — 46% — say things aren't going well in the battle against ISIS.

And about half of respondents, 51%, say they trust the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

But with ISIS affiliates continuing to commit brutal, gruesome murders and multiple terrorist attacks abroad grabbing international headlines over the past few months, support for sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria to confront the threat appears to be growing.

The survey suggests Americans are warming up to the idea of sending ground troops to combat the terrorist organization.

In November, just 43% supported deploying ground troops, while 55% of Americans opposed it; now the number in support has ticked up to 47%, the highest level of support yet measured, with just half of Americans opposed.

Still, the parties have become more polarized on the prospect since November, with 61% of Democrats opposed and a similar majority of Republicans supportive of the prospect, an eight-point increase. Independents, meanwhile, are split, with 48% in favor and 50% opposed.

The prospect of sending in ground troops remains a sticking point for both congressional Democrats and Republicans in the debate over Obama's Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which would give him legal authority to combat ISIS.

But the AUMF, and Obama's decision to go to Congress for the official authority to continue battling ISIS, is widely popular, according to the new poll.

Seventy-eight percent of Americans say Congress should give Obama the authority to fight ISIS, a slight decline from 82% who supported it in December. A similarly large majority say Obama was right to ask Congress for the authority, rather than proceeding with the battle unilaterally.

The survey was conducted among 1,027 adult Americans from Feb. 12-15, and has a margin of sampling error of 3%.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/politics/cnn-poll-isis-obama-approval/

So what should the President and America do about ISIL? Wait! It's just that simple. The Nations of the Middle East must begin to take action against the terrorists. ISIL is their problem and it won't go away until the Middle East forces the terrorists into submission. Leaders in Syria and Jordan are now playing an active part against ISIL but other nations must follow. The Middle East is able to destroy the terrorists if they will only act together; something they all should have done long ago!

As always problems in the Middle East are too complex and never seem to end. This is just the latest episode. Felicity writing here again for the "Noodleman Group".

CARTOONIST GARY VARVEL: WILL OBAMA BEING DRAGGED INTO WAR IN IRAQ THE ATTROCITIES THAT ISIS IS COMMITTING IN IRAQ HAVE FORCED PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ACT. THE QUESTION IS WILL THE TARGETED RESPONSE BE ENOUGH OR WILL THE UNITED STATES BE DRAGGED INTO ANOTHER WAR?
http://patriotsbillboard.org/cartoon-obama-and-his-well-funded-and-trained-army/cartoonist-gary-varvel-will-obama-being-dragged-into-war-in-iraq/

http://fbnoodleman.blogspot.com/