The Clever, Ignorant Madman Strikes

The clever, deceitful, ignorant, gaslighting, lying Trump ups the ante in Syria.  Here are the problems with that--

1.  There's no legal authority at all for the USA to attack Syria.

2.  There's no legal authority at all for us even to be in Syria.

3.  Trump & His Crew want a major war in the worst way.

4.  It's all about economics & finance...nothing else.

5.  A significant part of the world is waging an economic/financial war on the USA, the purpose of which is to end Dollar Hegemony.

6.  The Fed Reserve is out of ammo (so to speak), so war is now the response by our Gov't...unless Russia & Iran act responsibly by not being goaded into a major conflict.

7.  Once again, Trump has ignored/violated the Constitution.

8.  Once again, Congress has abrogated its Constitutional duty relative to war.

9.  The War Powers Act does not supercede the Constitution.  Neither do Presidential orders.

10.  Only Congress can initiate hostilities;  The Commander-in-Chief then manages the war after Congress declares war.

That's how it works IF the Constitution is followed.

11.  Republicans and Democrats have changed the Constitution without legally amending it.  They've done that by passing unconstitutional laws, laws that contradict the Constitution.  No one person or group has challenged those laws...either because they don't want to, or they don't have the time, effort, & money to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.  A Justice Harlan warned about all this in 1901.  He called it "Legislative Absolutism".

12.  Finally, Republicans and Democrats have changed the common sense definition of War via Edward Bernays style Propaganda.  The whole thing is Orwellian to the max.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Corporatism, Trump, Syria, and Raytheon Corp.

As reported on the Democracy Now news hour yesterday (you won't find this on the Corporate News Media, such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc.)---
1.  The missiles used in the unconstitutional attack on Syria that was ordered by Trump have a price tag of over $1 million each.
2.  After the attack, Raytheon (the maker of those missiles) had a big increase in their stock on Wall Street.  Their total stock value jumped up by about $1 billion.
3.  Trump has investments in Raytheon, so he benefitted directly.
............................................................
Perhaps it was all an innocent coincidence.  I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.  Be well.

Question for His Lordship: On What Authority???

In terms of foreign policy, we've gone from Donald Trump (which was bad enough) to Hillary Trump...the Perpetual War Hawk.  Yes, the gassing of civilians was horrific, & allegedly done by Assad; that doesn't mean the US Gov't has any right to attack Syria.  The attack violated both the U.S. Constitution and International Law.  But then, our Gov't has been doing that for decades.

Before he was elected, Donald Trump tweeted (back when) that Obama had to have the approval of Congress before airstrikes in Syria could be launched.  [If I recall correctly, Obama never obtained that approval, & very few of us objected.]  Apparently the puppet Hillary Trump has changed his/her mind.  So far, the only Repub politician I've seen protest His Lordship's violation of the Constitution is Rand Paul.

The "Unitary Executive" concept reigns supreme.  That's Executive Absolutism.  Bye-bye, Congress...you're screwed.  The public and private Oligarchs in this Land are trying to provoke another major war.  That's what Oligarchies do when a country's economy is tanking and the Propaganda no longer is effective.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

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 Obama...it'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 CBSNews.com 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.

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.