Saturday, August 31, 2013

Obama & "Socialism"...and Other Outrageous Stuff Regarding Syria

Here are quotes regarding President Obama from two well known socialists, men whom I admire---
First, Noam Chomsky, a brilliant analyst of the world political & cultural scene.  He calls himself a Libertarian Socialist, which is another, less controversial label for Anarcho-Syndicalist---
"He's worse than Bush.  Bush kidnapped suspects and had them tortured, but Obama just has them killed...suspects...even an American citizen [in Yemen] whose sole, known crime was that he ran an Al Qaida website."
"The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is gone with Obama."
"After running as a peace candidate, he initially expanded the war in Afghanistan."
"Obama is Head of the largest terrorist organization in the world, our central government."
"He's, at will, having suspects killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen."
"Obama purposely was marketed in a vague manner by the public relations firms that run campaigns.  They read polls, so they came up with 'Hope' and 'Change'.  Well, Hope for what?  What kind of Change?"
Next, John Pilger, a peace and social justice advocate, a journalist, a documentary film producer & director, and a self-declared Socialist---
"Brand's all fake."
"He's a product of the Public Relations propaganda system first instituted by Edward Bernays long ago."
"In his book, he said that his first job after graduating from Columbia was with a business consulting firm.  For some reason, he didn't reveal the name of the firm or what he did there.  The company is Business Systems International, a known front for the CIA.  I know this because it's highly active in my home country, Australia.  Perhaps there is nothing sinister in what he did for that company, but it seems it would be worth knowing in order to get a full measure of the man."
"During his brief stay as a Senator, he voted for the PATRIOT Act [what a misnomer], the Iraq War, and the death penalty.  He voted against a single-payer health care system."
'The worst thing about having Obama as President is: that has silenced large portions of the Left and the Peace Movement."
Given those statements by two prominent socialists, I'd say that there's a high degree of probability that Obama is promoting fascism, not socialism.
On another topic, very recently I've been participating in the online Comment forum at regarding the article, "Can Obama Attack Syria Without the Approval of Congress?".  The focus of my comments has been the Constitution...Enumerated Powers, etc....and the War Powers Act.  The entire proposed action, with or without the approval of Congress, is (in my opinion) unconstitutional...& plainly so.
I bring this up because of my experience with other commenters...literally hundreds of them.  IF the comments on that forum are in any way representative of the knowledge that Americans have regarding how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to function, then we have no hope (no pun intended) whatsoever of surviving as a relatively free people.

The misconceptions were absolutely astounding...and were presented with sincere and great passion.  Here are some examples...all paraphrased---
1. The Commander-in-Chief can do anything he wants with the military.  If he couldn't, he wouldn't be Commander-in-Chief.
2. The President doesn't need the approval of anyone to attack another country... unless war has been declared.  Without a declaration of war, he can do what he wants to.
3. What are enumerated powers?  Whoever heard of that!?
4. The War Powers Act gives the President the authority to attack Syria, or anyone else.
5.  The President is a kind & wise man; therefore, he should be able to attack Syria.  He knows more than we do.
6.  The Commander-in-Chief doesn't need anyone's approval to do anything with the military.  The only exception to that is if he were to use soldiers to take over the USA.
7.  We haven't declared war since WWII [that's true], so attacking Syria is permitted.

It goes on & on like that.  I find it appalling.  I only can guess that incessant propaganda and an extremely poor education system in the USA are to blame.  What a shame.  Just my opinion.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Syria and Our Constitution

Here we go again. Read the Constitution---there are only two uses of the military permitted: 1. to repel invasions; 2. to quell insurrections. To get around that, Presidents have been relying on the War Powers Act to use our military pretty much whenever they see fit. The trouble is...laws do NOT supercede the Constitution. Using our military as the world's police force, no matter how justified, is unconstitutional. There is no legitimate authority for that use.  Yes, what's happening in Syria is an obscenity, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional use of the military.

An Amendment is required to change the situation, but politicians just pass laws instead. [It's easier to do that than to get 3/4ths of the States to ratify a new Amendment.] That's called "Legislative Absolutism", a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901; it means passing laws with no regard for the limitations placed upon the Feds by the Constitution.

Let's not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, & others all had "laws" in place to justify their actions, too. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Change it if you must, but do not simply ignore it. Changing it must be done by amendment or a constitutional convention; no other ways are permitted in our system of government. None.

As always...just my opinion...after ~ 50 years of serious study of the U.S. Constitution, probably the most plainly written document ever put forth by a government.