It does not clearly state in the constitution that "only" congress can declare war. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." It does not formally state the format or legislative moves to do so. It also does not limit the president to engage in international conflicts without congressional approval. In most conflicts, including world war II, congress chose to issue an authorization of force, not to formally declare war. The only declarations of war have been at the request of the president, and after the presidential decision to engage and enemy in war and or after the war has already started. The war powers resolution (1973), not the constitution, limits the powers of presidents to wage wars without the approval of congress. There is now, a legal debate going on as to the president's ability to engage in war, without approval or a formal declaration of war.

Although it may be part of some article writing style guide, I find it odd to refer to a person as "his second wife" multiple times without ever calling her by her name, and also to refer to her as a "divorcee." I haven't heard people be reduced like that since...the 70s.

On the subject of Charles Schulz, he was an average artist, who without the syndication of his work, the national ability to glom onto someone and elevate them above their actual abilities, and relentless marketing...would not be in anyone's lexicon. Sometimes the only person who knows that the emperor wears no clothes, is the emperor himself.

In the entire first half of his speech, Sanchez directly criticized the media. This has gone unreported in most publications.

Addressing the media in his speech:

"ALL ARE VICTIMS OF THE MASSIVE AGENDA DRIVEN COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SUPREMACY. THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR."

The media has widely reported his criticism of the administration and the civilian handlers of the war, but have neglected to include his scathing criticism of themselves. Interesting what we don't get to read or hear.

Soliciting secret sex liaisons in a men's room...questionable.

Bragging that you don't use the internet or have a computer... unforgivable.

These so called representatives are making serious decisions about technology, copyright, intellectual property rights, patents on everything from computer code to genetic code, rights to use public airwaves, net neutrality, technology spying, domestic wiretaps....I can go on and on. I am against outing political people for their sexual preferences, but I am not against outing them for their technological ignorance. The cops should set up a sting operation for that. The results are much more detrimental to our democracy.

There is something missing from the analogy. They tell everyone that they want to buy a Prius. Deep down they don't. Their actions seem to contradict their statements because their statements are false, not their actions.

Most of these democrats have a large military industrial complex in their back yard. These contractors are large contributors, strong lobbyists, and dangerous (politically) to confront. Listen closely to democrat statements. They are not saying they want to end the war. They want the troops shifted to another war like Afghanistan (which they think is less complicated), or the want a troop draw down, or they want to strategically redeploy troops. Nobody is saying they want to end the war, reduce the military footprint, curtail the military industrial complex, reduce spying, disarm, reduce our nuclear stockpile etc...Nobody really want the Prius.

As is the bum with the urine soaked pants with his hand out outside a store I'm leaving. As is the aggressive guy who wants to wipe my windshield at the gas station. As is the woman on the street who uses her kids as a prop and begs me for change. I go to a store to shop, not to donate to a denominational charity. See how fun it will be for people when a Muslim group sets up it's bell ringing begging center right outside the stores and how quickly people will have a problem with it. The more money you put in faith based initiative coffers, the less responsibility our government takes for these people. Notice all the insane people walking around your streets? They have no where to go. State institutions that once helped them have been taken down. Put a dime in a Salvation Army kettle and you are saying that we as individuals need to chip in individually to help the poor. Refuse to do so, and you are saying the poor are not just the responsibility of the church, the salvation army, the local non-profit... They are the responsibility of all of us, and by proxy the responsibility of our government.

I don't find anything wrong with a faith based effort to help the poor. I've participated myself. I do find something wrong with a government that wishes to "privatize" its responsibilities to the poor by laying it off on faith based organizations.