Friday, September 12, 2014

Obama Says He's Using "Existing Authority" for...

sending war planes into Syria.  Really, Mr. Obama?  What exactly is that existing authority?  The military cannot be used legally to avenge the murders of journalists; that's a matter for Law Enforcement.  In a previous post, I've explained the Constitutionally permitted uses of our armed forces, and the current scenario definitely is NOT included.  The War Powers Act does not supercede the Constitution, so that law is not applicable; no other law trumps the Supreme Law of the Land either.  Being "Commander-in-Chief" does not permit you to ignore other parts of the Constitution, so that's no good as your "authority" to, as you put it, "ignore borders".  [You really have some HUBRIS, eh?]

That leaves only Treaties as a source of authorization.  Do we have such a Treaty with Syria?  I doubt it very seriously.  If we do, perhaps you could show it to We the People.  Perhaps our Treaty with Iraq comes into play; but then, Syria is not attacking Iraq.  Perhaps you could show us that Treaty anyway.  On second thought, forget it.  I've never seen you use a Treaty for any similar "authorization" or scenario.  By the way, in case you've forgotten, a Treaty must be approved by a minimum of 67 Senators; any "Agreement" signed by the highest levels of our Gov't that doesn't have that approval is NOT a Treaty.  So, for example, NAFTA is not a Treaty; only 64 Senators approved it.  It's mere policy.  It does not have the approval of the People.

You stated (paraphrased) that anyone who harms Americans will be hunted down...there will be no safe haven anywhere for them.  Good for you.  If, however, you were talking about the murdered journalists, you have a big problem regarding your propagandizing rhetoric.  See the first paragraph above.  If you were talking about the 5,000 Americans working at our Embassy in Iraq, I don't believe any of them have been harmed at this point.

You announced that we won't bother the Syrian Gov't when we [illegally] bomb their land...that we're simply going to support the "moderate" rebels who supposedly are fighting ISIS.  These are the same rebels our Gov't has been covertly arming for some time now.  Also, as reported on Democracy Now, these are the same rebels who sold one of the murdered journalists to ISIS for about $50,000.  The poor man's parents announced that at a recent Press conference.  I imagine you were hoping that not too many Americans saw that one.  Ooops.

Mr. President, a studied look into your eyes while you made your latest announcement seemed to me to reveal nothing but oligarchical double-talk, Gov't-Speak, and Edward Bernays style Propaganda.  I only can conclude that you apparently believe We the People are either dumb as a post, completely ignorant, or propagandized to the point where we no longer can exercise critical thinking.

What you are doing in Iraq, and proposing to do in Syria, is illegal, definitely unconstitutional, unethical, and bordering on immoral.  Among other things, it violates International Law.  Oh, I forgot, the Fed Gov't has exempted itself from International Law many, many times.  After all, you guys are "exceptional".  Yes, you should protect Americans.  That doesn't mean, however, you are allowed to go beyond the bounds of the U. S. Constitution.  It doesn't mean you legally can invade another country just because it's convenient.  I'm aware that many other Presidents have done so in the past.  You may believe so, but that's no justifiable excuse.

Like other "Peace candidates"---LBJ, Nixon, Clinton---you've turned out to be a fraud, a puppet of the mega transnational John Pilger characterized you, "Brand Obama".  As Noam Chomsky stated, "He's much worse than Bush."...he was referring to your peace v. war stance.  Basically, you're a sellout.  Shame on you.

Partly just my opinion... after over 50 years of keenly observing and studying American politics... and the U.S. Constitution.
Be Well

Monday, September 8, 2014

Saudi Arabia, Extremism, and Jihadis

It would do we Americans well to be aware of a few facts regarding Saudi Arabia, especially given that they supposedly are our ally.

1.  In the last couple months, there were 113 beheadings in "The Kingdom".  They were executions of criminals.  Some of the crimes involved were:  blasphemy (!), sorcery (!), and sedition.  Saudi Arabia still subscribes to a form of Persian Gulf style execution that was common in the 1600s.  By the way, these beheadings usually are public.  That's our ally in action.  Disgusting.

2.  Many private sources in Saudi Arabia fund ISIS.  Are they being rooted out by the Gov't there?

3.  "The Kingdom" sponsors Wahhabism, an extreme, almost cultist Sect of Islam, as a State religion.

4.  The Jihadis of today were created by repressive regimes (and their jails and torture practices) such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and back to at least the 1970s.

5.  "The Kingdom" is a dictatorship.

Also of interest is the fact that we import twice as much crude oil from Canada as we do from Saudi Arabia.  Canada sits on huge reserves, so that amount likely will increase.  We also import large amounts of crude from Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria.  All that begs for an answer to the question:  just how necessary to us is a country (or more accurately, their gov't) that beheads people in public?  This is, after all, the year 2014...not 1614.  What they do today is somewhat akin to if the Spanish executed people today by burning them at the stake.  To the Gov't of "The Kingdom":  a mild suggestion--- at least jump forward to the 19th century.  To the Gov't of the USA:  perhaps it would be helpful if you re-evaluated just who it is that you choose as an ally.  Birds of a feather... and all that.

Be Well