Two Things: Women; and The Second Amendment

 1.  The anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive, toxic males who hold a majority on the Supreme Court have prevailed.  They essentially have told women:  you do not have the freedom of control over your bodies.  We do.  I easily can imagine them thinking:  that's how it should be...because you still are second class citizens.  After all, "God" made us first; then "He" took one of our ribs and made you.  That should tell you your place in human society.  We males are the Masters of the Universe.  We are the Kings of Humanity.  You are in second place. [Aii-yii-yii!]

On a certain day yet to come this year, I'll be eighty years old.  I won't be eighty years & nine months old.  It is obvious that abortion should not be allowed (with some exceptions) after an embryo of undifferentiated cells grows and develops into a fetus, which occurs approximately eleven weeks after the last menstrual period.  While an embryo, the group of cells appears no differently than does a group of cells from any number of other animals at the same stage of development.  It's a blob of undifferentiated cells.  Yes, it has the potential of becoming a human life; but it's not yet such.

Here's a thought:  human sperm also have the potential (in certain circumstances) of developing into a fully formed human; perhaps the toxic males on the Court should work toward making it more difficult for men to obtain a vasectomy.  Or, how about making masturbation difficult, or maybe a crime.  Oh, those poor dead sperm.  Oh, you masturbating murderers of spermatozoa. 😊  After all, the Bible says not to "spill your seed upon the ground".  [Oh lawdy momma!]

Ridiculous, right?  It's also ridiculous for the High Court basically to say to women:  you have no Constitutional right to have control over your body; that's up to each individual State.  No it isn't.  It's a natural right, and thus a federal matter.

.......................

2.  The Second Amendment consists of one sentence.  The first half of that sentence clearly states the purpose of the amendment.  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".   Our Founders did not trust standing armies, so they promulgated a civilian militia... a well regulated militia.  The amendment had a military purpose.  The right to a weapon was protected so that a person could serve in the military.  It wasn't meant for mentally ill people, or children, or those prone to unwarranted violence.  It wasn't meant to make it easy for people during peacetime to acquire a stockpile of a gazillion rifles and fifty gazillion rounds of ammo.  This is not rocket science; it's simply common sense.

.....................

Not only my opinion.  Take Care  

What the Next USA President Should Do

Use the Office and/or its Bully Pulpit for---

1.  promoting laws to break up the Mega Banks & Mega Tech Companies (clearly they are monopolies);

2.  the cessation of all Trade Wars;

3.  the withdrawal of combat troops from the Middle East & Central Asia, as well as cutting the number of our military bases on foreign soil by half---that number is now about 800-900 or so---and the military budget by half (currently that budget is more than the next seven largest military budgets in the world combined);

4.  the reinstatement of Nuke Treaties;

5.  ending of our Central Bank, as JFK started to do (we don't need a Middle Man to produce Gov't currency... especially one who charges interest);

6.  a return to some version of the Gold Standard (the amount of gold in the world doesn't prohibit that...only the artificially depressed price of gold does);

7.  the end of blanket surveillance by the NSA, CIA, FBI, and any other Agency;

8.  a return to the Constitutional requirement of Congress having to declare war before troops are sent to war;

9.  a repeal of the "Real ID Act";

10.  a reinstatement of EPA Rules trashed by Trump & Crew;

11.  policies/laws addressing the threat of Climate Change;

12.  promoting the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act;

13.  the reinstatement of "Net Neutrality";

14.  promoting the establishment of Banking as a Public Utility;

15.  the establishment of the Internet as a Public Utility;

16.  the complete revision of the IRS, or maybe, the elimination of it;

17.  promoting laws that require Congress to read legislative bills before voting on them, and to vote only on one subject/bill at a time (instead of attaching unpopular bills as riders to bills that are guaranteed to pass);

18.  making pot completely legal, and codeine an OTC drug (as it was earlier in my life);

19.  reducing our nuclear arsenal;

20.  promoting laws that prohibit Usury (laws we once had);

21.  prohibiting Gov't interference in foreign elections, prohibiting coups, & prohibiting assassinations by the Executive Branch (according to the Constitution, only Congress legally can order assassinations);

22.  promoting laws that establish Term Limits for all elected officials in the Fed Gov't;

23.  promoting laws that prohibit electronic, black box voting... use paper ballots only;

24.  limiting Executive Orders by Presidents to only the two described in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:  the Pres can require written reports by his Dept Heads, and can grant pardons to those convicted of Fed crimes (those are the only two described in the Constitution);

25.  policies which abide by International Law, and in particular, recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court (we didn't mind doing that when we set up the Nuremberg Trials).

Those are only some of the things the next President should do, but they would be a great start toward returning this country to sanity.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"War is a Racket" Redux

I posted this essay about a year & a half ago.  It's still brutally relevant today, especially with the NeoCons in the current Administration--- Bolton, Pompeo, Pence and the like ---up to their usual Warmongering.
..............................

"As I look back on my 33 years of service in the Marines---from Second Lieutenant to Major-General---I realize that I've been nothing but a thug for Bankers and Big Corporations."  ~ General Smedley Butler

See brainyquote.com for more quotes by General Butler.

Only people who don't know what's going on still believe that our brave & well-meaning military folks are fighting for freedom, democracy, etc.  In actual fact, they are the unwitting enforcement arm of our Fed Reserve Bank and other Western World Mega Banks, as well as other major Corporations whose leaders believe they are the real rulers of the world.  Butler clearly pointed that out in his book, War is a Racket.

Now (& for some time) that both Repubs & Dems in DC pretty much ignore and/or violate key parts of the U.S. Constitution, the Corporatists are free to complete their establishment of Global Private Rule.  Public Governments still will exist, but only as window dressing.  By the way, none of this is a "grand conspiracy"; to the Powers-That-Be, it's simply "good business practice" and "the best thing for the world".  It's also important to grasp the fact that Corporatists are NOT Free Market Capitalists; instead, they are Fascists.  The very last thing they want is a Free Market.  They prefer a series of Monopolies supported by their puppet governments.

To those who believe Trump is fighting all this, and is the champion of the Common Man, you are sadly mistaken.  Trump is the quintessential elitist, Corporatist, Establishment, Crony Capitalist...the worst kind of capitalist.  He's a serial liar, a Super-Rich snob, a gaslighter, and doesn't care at all about the bottom 90-99% of the USA's citizens.  He's just telling you what he thinks you want to hear.  His whole history proves all the above.  Study it, and then you'll see.  A good start is the documentary, "Meet the Trumps:  from Immigrant to President"; it can be found online.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

p.s.  I'm an Army Vet and a gun owner.  Not only Vets, but ALL of us need to wake up to the fact that War (especially the current & recent ones) is not about "spreading democracy".  Instead, it's about economics and finance.  The main beneficiaries of it are Mega Corporations, especially Mega Banks.

War is a Racket

"As I look back on my 33 years of service in the Marines---from Second Lieutenant to Major-General---I realize that I've been nothing but a thug for Bankers and Big Corporations."  ~ General Smedley Butler

See brainyquote.com for more quotes by General Butler.

Only people who don't know what's going on still believe that our brave & well-meaning military folks are fighting for freedom, democracy, etc.  In actual fact, they are the unwitting enforcement arm of our Fed Reserve Bank and other Western World Mega Banks, as well as other major Corporations whose leaders believe they are the real rulers of the world.  Butler clearly pointed that out in his book, "War is a Racket".

Now (& for some time) that both Repubs & Dems in DC pretty much ignore and/or violate key parts of the U.S. Constitution, the Corporatists are free to complete their establishment of Global Private Rule.  Public Governments still will exist, but only as window dressing.  By the way, none of this is a "grand conspiracy"; to the Powers-That-Be, it's simply "good business practice" and "the best thing for the world".  It's also important to grasp the fact that Corporatists are NOT Free Market Capitalists; instead, they are Fascists.  The very last thing they want is a Free Market.  They prefer a series of Monopolies supported by their puppet governments.

To those who believe Trump is fighting all this, and is the champion of the Common Man, you are sadly mistaken.  Trump is the quintessential elitist, Corporatist, Establishment, Crony Capitalist...the worst kind of capitalist.  He's a serial liar, a Super-Rich snob, a gaslighter, and doesn't care at all about the bottom 90-99% of the USA citizens.  He's just telling you what he thinks you want to hear.  His whole history proves all the above.  Study it, and then you'll see.  A good start is the documentary, "Meet the Trumps:  from Immigrant to President"; it's found on Netflix and elsewhere.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Politicizing and Militarization of the CIA

Melvin A. Goodman, a former CIA analyst and current Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, points out how the CIA has declined and fallen due to both being beholden to political interests and becoming militarized.  Goodman was a senior analyst and division chief at the CIA (total CIA service: 1966-1986), a Professor of International Security at the National War College (1986-2004), and currently is an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University.  He is regarded as an expert in the fields of Intelligence and National Security.  His latest book is National Insecurity:  the Cost of American Militarism.  Google the man; his views are informed, somewhat prickly, and I think, right on the mark.  Here are a few of those views, as follows.

1.  Failure to anticipate the fall of Soviet Russia, failure regarding the terrorist attacks of 9-11, and failure to anticipate the disastrous consequences of the 2003 Iraq invasion all demonstrate the CIA's decline.

2.  The Pentagon and the CIA essentially are merging into one entity.  Military Intelligence and the Intelligence of our civilian Agency should remain separate; they should counterbalance each other.

3.  Having former military Generals as Heads of the CIA is a really bad idea.  The CIA has become too much of a para-military force.  [In my opinion, that aspect of the CIA (especially regarding the Drone Wars) even could be considered Death Squads.]

4.  The CIA has become a political tool.

5.  Military domination of the Intelligence field now interferes with the CIA's function of providing a check on the Military's influence on foreign policy and the use of force.

6.  Militarism in the USA truly has contributed greatly to national insecurity.
...............................................................................

Militarism is a part of Fascism, which makes use of Crony Capitalism, which dominates the Fed Gov't today...no matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Surratt, Bush-Cheney, Obama, & the Military v. Civilians

The 2010 movie, The Conspirator, directed by Robert Redford, triggered my researching the case of Mary E. Surratt, the first woman to be executed by the U.S. Fed Gov't...after being tried and found guilty by a military tribunal.  Mary was convicted of being one of the conspirators in the assassination of Lincoln.  The prosecution case against her was flawed; as a result, a judge signed a writ of habeas corpus, ordering a new trial in civilian court.  The writ was vacated by President Andrew Johnson, and Mary was hanged.  Her attorney, Frederick Aiken, was so disheartened by the turn of events that he left the Law and later became the first City Editor of the Washington Post.  A year after Surratt's execution, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision stating that military tribunals for cases against civilians were unconstitutional, and that civilians must be tried in civilian court...even during times of war.

Before going further, let's clear up what I believe is a misconception regarding Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  It appears to me that too many Americans believe that our Supreme Law of the Land grants us Rights, and that only citizens of our country are entitled to those Rights in the USA.  Not true.  What the Constitution does is protect Rights that all people possess at birth.  The Declaration of Independence states, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.".  So, Freedom for example, is our birthright...and is not dependent upon any government grant.  The former Attorney General under Dubya Bush, Alberto Gonzales, was dead wrong when he testified before Congress that people don't necessarily have the Right of habeas corpus..."because the Constitution does not grant us that Right". Everyone is entitled to the Right of habeas corpus; the Constitution doesn't grant us any Rights.  They are ours at birth.  It's crucial to the survival of Freedom that people understand that point.

Humans have understood the difference between troops in war and civilians for centuries.  Modern day Oligarchs and their puppets have changed the rules... and muddied the waters.  According to them, we now have "enemy combatants"; they aren't troops, but should be treated the same as troops...sometimes.  When captured, they can be treated as neither troops nor civilians, but rather as something akin to rabid animals.  According to the Plutocrats, Rights do not apply to them...even criminals are treated better than "enemy combatants".  This all comes from the rulers of supposedly civilized, ethical, moral nations.  Incredible.  Suspects have been held in Guantanamo for years with no charges, and then released for lack of evidence.  Suspects have been subjected to so-called "enhanced interrogation", and then released for lack of evidence.  A German citizen, after being flown to various Black Sites around the Globe by the CIA finally was released afoot in the middle of nowhere in Germany...in the middle of the night.  For months, his family had no idea where he was.  Put yourself in his or their shoes.  It's no wonder to me that the government of the USA (and for that matter, the UK as well) is becoming more & more hated around the world.  They don't hate you for your Freedom Bush-Cheney; they hate you for your terrorism.  [We'll get to Obama shortly.]

Presumption of innocence and anything resembling due process apparently are gone...or very well hidden. The use of weaponized drones against civilians (suspects) has become the new norm under our Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning President.  As reported on Democracy Now!, apparently for every ONE terrorist SUSPECT killed by drones, TWENTY-EIGHT unidentified people are killed by the same means.  The Administration can claim "precision" in these murders because anyone killed by a weaponized drone automatically is designated by the military as an EKIA...Enemy Killed in Action.  If anyone can prove otherwise, then the person is de-listed as an enemy... of course, he/she is dead by then.  A drone operator on the job for six years finally quit because he had grave doubts about how "suspects" are identified.  It seems to me that it should be paramount to be certain we are not killing innocent civilians.  One poor soul in Pakistan has been trying for years to get justice for the slaughter of members of his family...one a child and another a grandmother.  We should all be ashamed and enraged at the same time, but very few seem to care.

The Oligarchs, our President chief among them, have made sure that the psychological/emotional cost to most of us for this so-called "war" is very little to none.  Even the financial cost is well hidden...it's all borrowed money, to be paid by our posterity.  [They'll pay the interest on the debt; the U.S. Gov't has no intention whatsoever of repaying the principal...because that's not possible.  We never could do it; the National Debt simply is too large.  That's why, sometime in the future, countries of the world will reject the dollar as the world's reserve currency.  Shortly after that happens, barring unforeseen circumstances, the Great Depression of the '30s will look like a picnic compared to the economy that will be experienced.]  Obama claims that none of this really is war; instead, it's "counter-terrorism".  That's code, or Gov't-Speak, for Perpetual War.  The Oligarchs and their puppets have dropped the phrase, "WAR on Terror" or "WAR on Terrorism" (which, by the way, first was coined by the Reagan Administration) because people eventually saw through it.  Now it's "counter-terrorism" or "defending the homeland".  In any case, SUSPECTS are being grossly mistreated... or murdered outright.  In the process, U.S. troops and other military personnel are expected to have Law Enforcement skills.  It's no wonder that more vets have committed suicide than have been killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Military actions encourage more terrorism; Law Enforcement actions prevent more terrorist acts.

In addition to Obama's egregious drone operations, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) assassination squads continue to operate.  Where is the civilian oversight?  Where is the proof of guilt relative to the victims?  [I still haven't seen a shred of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama was responsible for 9-11.  The video in which a supposed Osama was sitting around with cohorts admitting guilt was a sham.  I could instantly see that was not Osama bin Laden.]  Where is the accountability regarding the murder of innocent civilians by drone attacks?  Are We the People so propagandized that we've abandoned all concepts of fairness and justice?  Has the Fed Gov't (at the highest levels) itself become a terrorist organization?  Why is it that when "they" murder innocent people, it's terrorism; but when "we" do it, it's "collateral damage", or "the price of war"?

Terrorists are CRIMINALS, not soldiers.  Suspects are just that.  In an ethical society, they must be accorded due process...no matter how emotionally painful that may be.  Apparently we do not live in an ethical society.  Obama can't seem to make up his mind.  Some terrorist suspects he has taken to trial in civilian court.  Others are locked down in Gitmo for a decade or so...with no formal charges.  Others simply are killed.  Suspects.  This whole scenario is a genuine travesty... as was the case of Mary Elizabeth Surratt.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

The Neoimperialism & Neoliberalism of the Fed Government Oligarchs

Gooooood Morning, Iraaaaaaaaaaq!

How bizarre.  Is there no end to the gullibility of We the People?  Really?

Hermann Goering stated the following during the Nuremberg Trials:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." (emphasis added)

"...drag the people along...", indeed.  Apparently it's especially easy in the USA.

Some observations and questions for the Oligarchs in DC---
1.  Syria is in a civil war.  Iraq is in a civil war.  Vietnam was in a civil war.  Do you really expect us to believe that you haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam?  Of course there are differences amongst these wars, but the similarities ---especially with Iraq and Vietnam--- are very significant.
2.  After more than a decade of "training Iraqi troops" & police, we're back there ONLY to do that again.  Are we supposed to believe that?  What happens if & when Iraqi troops on the ground can't ever complete the job of defending their country?
3.  Several U.S. transnational oil companies currently are operating in Northern Iraq (Kurdistan), but that has little or nothing to do with the current escalation of U.S. involvement.  Do you really expect us to believe that?
4.  "There are no combat troops in Iraq...only trainers and advisors."  Really?  ALL troops are potential combat troops.  
5.  What happens when one or more of these "trainers" gets killed by a mortar round, or a suicide bomber, or a roadside bomb, or a rifle bullet?  Will that be an excuse for even more U.S. involvement?  And then more?
6.  After you "degrade" or "suppress" or defeat ISIS, do you think they might simply fade back into the woodwork only to reappear later...again and again?  If you recognize that, is that a dandy excuse for Perpetual War?
7.  I missed it.  When/where was it that the Constitution allowed Congress to abrogate its war-making authority...and that became the purview of the President?  Exactly in which clause in the Supreme Law of the Land is that found?  I've studied the Constitution for over half a century, and I can't find that clause.
8.  Are the War Contractors (facetiously named "Defense" contractors) happy with the almost 800 U.S. air strikes and the recent doubling down of U.S. troops in Iraq?  Perhaps they need more.
9.  How many innocent civilians have been killed or maimed by our strikes lately?
10.  What happens if a U.S. plane gets shot down?  Will that be an excuse for even more U.S. involvement?  And then more?
11.  Are you aware that in the last few years 8,000 (probably more) combat vets per year have committed suicide either during or after their service?  [That means more have died by suicide than by combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.]
12.  Do you really believe that we don't know that all this actually is about Transnational BIG Business?  You're not fooling many of us.  How could you?  It's right out in the open.  For the most part, you don't even try to hide it.
...............................................................
There is a better way.  Oligarchs can be peacefully dethroned.  Step One:  stop drinking the Propaganda Kool Aid.  Keep in mind that with Neoimperialism and Neoliberalism, Oligarchs don't have to permanently occupy a land in order to control the government of that land.  If you haven't yet, please read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins and Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill...both New York Times bestsellers...or search for those fellows on YouTube.  You'll get an education on the phony politics of today.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

Federal Organized Crime and War - A Partial History

1.  Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution directs Congress to regulate the value of our money.  A cabal of mega bankers managed to ram through the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.  Under that Act, the Fed Board of Governors assumes the task of regulation of our money's value; essentially, the Constitution was changed without the use of an Amendment or a Constitutional Convention.  This is an example of Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in, I think, 1901)--- passing laws without regard for the constraints placed upon the Feds by the Constitution.  The primary result of the Fed Reserve Act has been the debasement of the dollar.  Compared to 1913, the dollar is now worth three or four cents.  Meanwhile, mega bankers have become super-rich... "how" is too long a story for this post.

2.  President Clinton bailed out Mexico with about $20 billion without the authorization of Congress.  He did so to rescue a bunch of mega bankers here in the USA, bankers who were about to lose billions because of investments south of the border.  Essentially, U.S. taxpayers bailed out mega bankers.  In our system of gov't, spending bills must originate in the Congress, not in the Executive Branch.  Clinton didn't bother with having Congress involved at all.  This is an example of Executive Absolutism.

3.  Clinton also committed our Armed Forces to both Haiti and Bosnia...without the approval of Congress.  That also was a violation of Article I, Section 8... the portion tasking Congress with the duty of declaring war.  Ever since the end of WW II, presidents have ignored the fact that Congress must declare war before the Commander-in-Chief is allowed to send our Armed Forces into battle.  Congress was not in favor of either of those military commitments in 1993 and 1994.  So, one might ask, why would Clinton do such a thing?  Possibly it was for humanitarian reasons.  Possibly it was due to a combination of reasons.  Possibly it was because War is BIG Business.  After all, "Aw, shucks" Bill is a Corporatist, not a Populist... despite public opinion and propaganda to the contrary.  Ditto Hillary.

4.  President Dubya Bush, the failed oil entrepreneur, greatly expanded upon Clinton's usurpation of power for the Executive Branch by having his underlings come up with an unconstitutional, crazy theory supporting the idea of pre-emptive war.  Forget the Constitution--- we'll just attack and invade a country because its leader is a really bad man and might attack Israel or even the USA.  Iraq's oil, of course, had nothing to do with this decision.  Also having nothing to do with the decision was the fact that Saddam was on the verge of accepting Euros for oil instead of dollars.  That would not bode well for the continuation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.  But it had nothing to do with the decision to invade.  Right.  Also, once again, War is BIG Biz...especially that war.

5.  I won't even get into the greatest heist in American history--- the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson-Obama "Too Big to Fail" fiasco.  The total benefit to mega bankers was a bit over $13 trillion...yes, trillion with a T.  Now those banks are bigger and richer than they were before the fiasco.  Plus, the regulatory "reforms" put in place after the fiasco were not much more than window dressing.  Amazing.

6.  Finally, we come to King Barack... the greatest violator of the Constitution in our history.  He's also the best friend that mega bankers ever had.  Yes, it's true that he has fined mega banks billions of dollars.  They didn't even blink because that surely beats being prosecuted (which should have happened) and sent to prison.  Everyone, including our King, knows that super-rich people rarely ever go to prison in this land of equality.  As to the BIG Business of war under Obama, every one of his military actions has been unconstitutional... and a few violate International Law.  [Example:  attacking inside the borders of a country not at war with us, firing Hellfire missiles from drones at SUSPECTS, with the disapproval of the invaded country (Pakistan) is not only unconstitutional, but a violation of International Law as well.]  These thoughts are not original with me, but most Americans may be unaware of opinion in other parts of the world because of the molding of the public mind by the Corporate Media in the USA.

I'm an old dog, and I never thought I'd live to see the day in this land when the Executive Branch could bamboozle We the People into believing that the "Commander-in-Chief" can do pretty much whatever and whenever with American Armed Forces... or the day when Congress convinced the People that laws supercede the Constitution... or the day when the Fed Courts supported soft Fascism here.  I was wrong.

Partly just my opinion.  Be Well

Lack of Knowledge in America about the Constitution

Over the years, I've been astounded at how little (apparently) many Americans know about the Supreme Law in this land.  Example--- In one online discussion/comment venue, a person wrote back to me and said (paraphrased), "But, the Constitution doesn't say the President can't do that; therefore, he's allowed to."... Needless to say, I was flabbergasted.  Another example--- "The President is Commander-in-Chief of the military; that means he can go to war whenever he sees fit.".  Another example--- "Congress passed a resolution giving the President permission to go to war at some point in the future (the time to be determined by the President)."... Good grief.  [That last scenario has taken place for the last few wars we've been in, and it's completely unconstitutional.]

Because of the above, I offer a few truths about our system of government and the U.S. Constitution.  As a preface, let me begin by pointing out that the primary purpose of the Supreme Law of the Land is to limit/constrain/restrain the Fed Gov't.  That's the reason it was created in the first place.

1.  Ours is a government of Enumerated Powers (Google it.)  We the People delegated certain powers to the Fed Gov't...and only those powers.  If the power isn't listed, then the Feds don't have it.  That's how they are restrained, not by listing everything they can't do...that list would be endless.  The Gov't can gain new powers only by Constitutional Amendment or by a Constitutional Convention.  There are no other legal ways unless martial law is declared.

2.  The Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) does contain a few prohibitions that apply to the Gov't..."Shall not infringe upon...".  Perhaps that's why some people got the idea that everything the Feds can't do is listed in the Constitution.  Nope.  Also, some people have the idea that the Constitution GRANTS us certain Rights.  That's absolutely false.  Instead, the document is enumerating (listing) a few of the Natural Rights that all people possess.  It's saying that in this country, those rights will be protected ---not granted.  The difference is important.

3.  Yes, the President is Commander-in-Chief; however, that doesn't mean he gets to decide when to put us at war.  There are enumerated Constitutional restraints regarding uses of the military.  Only three such uses are permitted by the Constitution.  I listed them in this blog more than once; they are very straightforward...no other "interpretation" is reasonably possible.  One doesn't have to be a judge or attorney to figure out what the Founders meant.  It's crystal clear.  None of the permitted uses includes being the world's police force.  Such a use is blatantly unconstitutional.  Those who believe our military should be the world's police force need to lobby for an Amendment to that effect.  Either that, or propose it at a Constitutional Convention.  The way it is now, it's illegal.

4.  I've stated this next item over and over in past posts:  no Law supercedes the U.S. Constitution.  That's what "Supreme Law of the Land" means.  The Oligarchs in the Fed Gov't know that full well.  That's why they ignore the Constitution and instead point to the War Powers Act (or some other law) to justify having the President decide when and with whom we're going to war.  They know that if they try to get that authority from the Constitution, they'll be out of luck.  That's also why they rely upon the PATRIOT Act to allow FBI Agents to write their own search warrants, or allow the NSA to spy on people with no probable cause or proper warrant.  Those are not activities delegated by We the People to our Fed Gov't.  That means our Gov't, at the highest levels, consists of outlaws...they are violating the Supreme Law of the Land.  They also are violating this portion of their oath of office: ...to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

5.  For this country to be (constitutionally) at war, Congress must declare war, not pass a resolution saying, hey, Mr. President, we approve of you putting us at war at some point in the future.  That's why, in the beginning, both the Korean and Vietnam "wars" were called "conflicts".  The Oligarchs in Gov't knew that the Constitution required a Declaration of War by the Congress, so they figured they'd make things more palatable to the public by calling both of those wars "conflicts".  As the years passed, Gov't became bolder and simply dropped all pretenses regarding the Constitution.  They ignored the document.  And, lo and behold, very few people seemed to give a damn.  That's why, more than once, I've suggested that we throw out the Constitution...because ignoring it has the same effect.

People have said to me, this just can't be...you must be misinterpreting the Constitution somewhere, some parts of it.  My answer usually goes like this:  I spent a fairly significant portion of my full-time working life interpreting the most complex, convoluted U.S. laws and regulations in existence, the Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials laws and regs...and the Occupational Safety and Health laws and regs.  [To prove my claim regarding their complexity, Google:  40 CFR 261.3 - Definition of Hazardous Waste.]  Compared to those laws and regs, the U.S. Constitution is a second-grader's textbook...it's longwinded in parts, but it's very plainly written.  If you can read and have any common sense at all, you can "interpret" it.

As I said in my previous post, I think most people know that the Game is rigged, and so, they figure the whole situation is probably hopeless.  That's true only if we continue to rely on "voting" to save us, and that's because about 99% of all national political candidates (Republicans and Democrats) are chosen, groomed, and financed by the Oligarchy. There are other peaceful ways to bring about significant change.  First, though, we have to stop drinking the Propaganda Kool Aid...part of that Kool Aid is the lie that Republican and Democrat policy-makers are significantly different.

Partly just my opinion.
Happy Trails

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.