Libya 2 - Obama Violates Statutory Law & the Constitution... and Trump Continues to Disintegrate

With the expansion of the ISIS War into Libya, Obama again violates both the War Powers Act and the Constitution.  He's again using the "Authorization" for war from years & years ago...when Congress "authorized" the use of military force against those who committed the 9-11 atrocity.  ISIS didn't even exist at that time.  Just a cursory examination of the War Powers Act reveals that any "Authorization" for war must be specific to a particular entity and general time.  The way Obama has been advised to view it, he (or the next President) could use that long-expired permission from Congress against any group, anywhere, and at any time.  No checks and balances.  The President is then a dictator.  Being Commander-in-Chief does not mean that the President legally can ignore the rest of the Constitution... but that's what's being done.

If elected, Hillary most likely would do the same thing.  It would be more use of the oligarchical, Machiavellian tool of Perpetual War... for the benefit of war contractors, mega bankers, and other supranational, mega corporations.

As to the Constitution and War, ever since the Korean Conflict (the official name of that war) in the 1950's we have been living in an Orwellian dystopia.  The Powers-That-Be knew calling it a war would mean that it was unconstitutional...because Congress must declare war before the President can wage one.  But, of course, it was a war.  Two of my uncles served in it.  So, too, was the Vietnam Conflict (the official name).  More Orwellian dystopia.  Then the Powers-That-Be came up with a brilliant idea---they passed the War Powers Act in 1973...before the end of the Vietnam fiasco.  That allowed them (unconstitutionally, because no law trumps the Constitution) to bypass the requirement for Congress to declare war.  In other words, they essentially changed the Constitution without amending it... because it's much easier to pass a law than to amend the SUPREME Law of the Land.  So ever since 1973, Congress supposedly does not have to declare war; it only has to "authorize" the President to use military force...at the specific time of his choosing.  [After a Declaration of War according to the Constitution, we were immediately at war; now, the President can wait until he, and he alone, decides it's time to start the war.  Congress must decide when a war starts (if we obey the Constitution), not the Executive.  Putting that power in the Executive's hands violates the Supreme Law of the Land.  The President represents the State; the Congress represents the People.  WHEN we go to war is not up to one person; instead, that's determined by all citizens via their representatives in both Houses of Congress... that is, IF we adhere to the Constitution.]

As to Trump, he continues on--- almost every time he opens his mouth, he essentially conveys this message:  don't vote for me...basically, I continually change my mind, I'm somewhat unstable & volatile, and I'm ignorant of governmental, social, and cultural matters.  His supporters, and those of Clinton, rightfully are angry over a whole host of important issues... but the fact remains:  a majority of Americans don't want either one of them as President.  That's shown in a recent Gallup Poll... Gallup is the most respected polling organization in the world.

This is the year to not settle for the lesser of two evils.  Either vote for someone else, or better yet, boycott the election in November.  Embarrass those who have rigged the Game.

On the Rigged Game note, did you notice how the revelation by WikiLeaks of the DNC emails was handled by both the Clinton campaign and the Corporate Media?  There was no substantive discussion of the content of those emails; instead, the whole issue was deflected by bringing up "the Russians did it".  Very shortly after that, no discussion at all.  Evidence of the Rigged Game basically was suppressed.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Here's Something That Trumps Trump...and Hillary, et. al.

The Don's latest utterances, which were largely critical of (or demeaning to) the Muslim parents of a U.S. Army Captain who was killed serving in Iraq, were truly beyond the pale.  All Trump supporters should be thoroughly embarrassed.  The father, Mr. Kahn, rightly had suggested that Trump should read a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

In particular, Mr. Trump, it would serve you well to study the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Hillary, as well, would be served by reading especially Article I, Section 8.  I suggest, Ms. Clinton, you concentrate on the clauses regarding war, captures on land & sea, and assassinations (Letters of Marque and Reprisal).  Please have your buddy, the President, re-read those parts, too.  Our Leader, the Constitutional Scholar, apparently has no common sense when it comes to those clauses.

Finally, to all the above and all high-level politicians in D.C., it's way past time for you to review this simple fact, and apply it to your work:  no law---not the PATRIOT Act, not the War Powers Act, not the National Defense Authorization Act, not even any Act (or Executive Order) proposed by Trump---over-rides the Constitution.  The Supreme Law of the Land cannot be negated simply because certain propagandists ram a 342-page Bill through Congress that no one has had time to read...and only two copies were available to members of the House (who were in session all night)...and that was written long before 9-11.  [I refer to the infamous, unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act, which stands for:  "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001".]

Again--- no law (or Exec. Order) trumps the U.S. Constitution, not even laws that Trump says he'll get through Congress...such as a law requiring all Muslims to be "registered" (which clearly would be unconstitutional...and un-American).

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

At Last, Obama is Being Sued by an Army Officer

Captain Nathan Michael Smith, an Army Intelligence Officer stationed in Kuwait, is suing the President for violating the War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution in relation to the Iraq-Syria ISIS War.  It's about time someone did...kudos to Captain Smith.

Months ago, the New York Times Editorial Board came to the same conclusion:  that war is illegal; Obama does not have Congressional Authorization to prosecute the war.  No one seemed to care.  It took Captain Smith, who believes the war needs to be fought, to bring the issue once again to the forefront.  He, like all significant public servants, took an oath to "preserve, protect, & defend" the Constitution.  He stated that his conscience bothered him when he realized that the ISIS War is not legal.  He's correct...it's not.  Any 12th-grader of average intelligence who has read the Constitution from stem to stern knows that.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense and a cursory knowledge of the 1973 War Powers Act knows, despite what Obama claims, that the Authorization from the Dubya Bush 2003 Iraq War cannot be used to fight the current ISIS War.  ISIS had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9-11 attacks and it didn't even exist in 2003.

I don't expect Captain Smith's lawsuit to gain any traction at all for the following reasons---

1.  War is BIG Business...and a great distraction from our crashing economy.
2.  The Powers-That-Be don't appear to give a damn about the Constitution; they seem to view it as an anachronism.
3.  Our Judicial System seems to be corrupt a good deal of the time.
4.  Oligarchs usually get what they want...and they usually want war.
5.  Very few in Gov't dare to challenge the ongoing expansion of Executive Branch Power.  The Executive already has Power today approaching that of a Monarch or dictator.
6.  Edward Bernays style Propaganda seems to have convinced most of our citizens that ISIS is a grave threat to the USA.  It isn't.  Very few people in-the-know, such as retired Colonel and Boston University Professor Emeritus Andrew Bacevich, have stated--- as has Colonel Bacevich ---that ISIS is not any significant threat to our country.  People believe the Propaganda to the contrary, and thus the legality of that war seems to be unimportant.

The Rule of Law in this country is on a downhill slide at the speed of light...and not just regarding the Constitution.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Problems with Obama's War Actions, and War Propaganda from the State-Corporate Complex

1.  The White House (via their Press Secretary) declared war on ISIS; this despite the fact that the Executive Branch has no Constitutional authority to do so.

2.  As in the period leading up to the Second Iraq War (2003), the public essentially is presented with two choices:  do nothing, or go to war.  Diplomatic proposals---involving Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, even Russia and others---are almost nonexistent.  Cutting off funding to ISIS (coming mostly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait) is nowhere to be found.  Sanctions...nonexistent.  Kerry's efforts appear to be gauged toward military coalitions only.  Perpetual War grinds on.

3.  Obama now claims "authority" (to [illegally] bomb inside Syria) from two War "Resolutions":  the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War Resolutions of 10+ yrs ago.  Those are derived from the War Powers Resolution Act---aka, the War Powers Act---of 1973.  It's a Legislative Act that contradicts the Constitution.  As I've pointed out many times, laws do not supercede the United States Constitution.  Oligarchs, both in and out of our Gov't, use the War Powers Act to bypass the constraints of the Constitution; that's been going on for decades.  This all means that Obama's "authority", just like Bush's "authority" was, is illegal and unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, apparently We the People (aided by Propaganda from the Oligarchy) have come to believe that a "good end" justifies any means.

4.  James Foley's mother has decried Obama's use of her son's death as an excuse for launching yet another war in the region.  Furthermore, though the murders of both Foley and Sotloff were brutal, barbaric, and tragic, they posed no threat to the United States.  The FBI has gone overseas in the past to investigate the murders of American citizens, and should do so now.  It's a Law Enforcement issue.

5.  The Free Syrian Army, a "moderate" group opposing Assad, recently beheaded six people they had captured.  This is the rebel group that Obama and Kerry claim we need to support.  The point:  there are atrocities on both sides.  In addition, I recently pointed out that the Gov't of Saudi Arabia executed 113 criminals in the last couple months by beheading them.  In that area of the world, apparently beheading is considered an acceptable means of execution.

6.  The average, nonmilitary Sunni in Iraq has seen Sunnis arrested, tortured, displaced, fired from jobs for no good reason, etc., etc. by the U.S.-backed, former Gov't of al-Maliki.  Though the Iraqi Sunnis may abhor the tactics of ISIS, they tend to be drawn to them because of the post-war history of Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq.  Now they see the U.S. Gov't bombing more Sunnis (ISIS).  The point:  it's a civil and sectarian war...and none of our business.  [That's not Isolationism, it's Non-Interventionism...the difference between the two is important.]

7.  The pro-war pundits on cable networks such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are presented as former Generals, military experts, etc. (which is true).  What's left out is the fact that they currently work for various Defense contractors who stand to benefit greatly from the Third Iraq War.  Examples:  General Jack Keene and General Anthony Zinni.

8.  Common sense should tell anyone that fighting ISIS inside Syria helps the brutal Assad regime.  [This is not rocket science, people...it's simple logic.]

9.  It's important to recognize that Obama and the State-Corporate Complex know precisely what they are doing.  They know they are violating the Constitution.  They know they have no business in a civil war.  They know innocent people are being and will be killed.  They know that the American public mind must be molded to accept yet another stupid war.  They know who will benefit---mega transnational corporations.

10.  None of this is a "conspiracy".  For crying out loud, it's in plain sight.  War is BIG Business--- just ask General Dynamics, General Electric, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile, CACI, the former Blackwater (now under a new name), McDonnell-Douglas, etc., ad infinitum.  Follow the money.

Partly just my opinion.  Be Well

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 corporations...as 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

The Third Iraq War for America, & the Constitution

Here we go again.  The first Iraq War was in the early '90s.  Just prior to that one, the Fed Gov't supplied weapons to Saddam for his war against Iran.  The second Iraq War started in 2003, I believe, and went on seemingly forever; however, it did eventually end (for the U.S.).  Now we're beginning the third Iraq War for America.  [For those who may not know, when one country drops bombs or shoots missiles from aircraft into another country, that's war.  Even if you're not bombing, say, the forces of Iraq, it's still war.]

My point here is this:  apparently I missed the preludes to those three wars---  the part where the U.S. Congress, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, issues a Declaration of War.  Some time ago, John McCain in response to a question from Congressman  Jesse Jackson Jr. on this very subject, essentially stated that such a Declaration of War was not necessary because the War Powers Act gave the President (with the approval of Congress) the authority to go to war at his discretion.  In his defense, McCain is not the only DC Crony who uses that reasoning.  What they all appear to be ignoring is that no law supercedes the Constitution.  That means, despite what McCain and others tell us, Congress must declare war before troops (or war planes, or war ships) are sent into battle against some enemy.  I challenge any politician (or anyone) to disprove that.

For decades now, the Fed Gov't has been ignoring the restraints of the Constitution whenever it suits politicians or their Mega Business Cronies.  They use Laws to justify their war actions; there is nary a peep about the requirements and restraints imposed on the Fed Gov't by the Supreme Law of the Land regarding war and the proper use of the military.  I find it exceptionally strange that the U.S. public appears to accept this scenario.  Perhaps that is due to propaganda, or disinterest, or poverty, or being super-rich, or being too busy, or feeling helpless, or something else.  Maybe people don't believe that the Constitution does require a Declaration of War; or perhaps they believe that Laws actually can alter the requirements stated in the Constitution.  It especially puzzles me that "Conservatives" (nowadays that means Neoconservatives) accept this travesty against Constitutional Gov't.

Perhaps we as a People have forgotten the primary purpose of the Constitution:  it is to restrain the Fed Gov't.  For that to work, the requirements of the document cannot be ignored.  Simple logic.

Be Well

This, That, and the Other--- The Arrogance of the Oligarchs

1.  Hopefully you've heard of the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  It's another so-called "Free Trade" agreement...that has almost nothing to do with trade, but almost everything to do with the Corporate Oligarchy re-writing the laws of individual countries, creating extra-judicial, binding tribunals, and allowing foreign corporations to sue countries for perceived economic losses due to the laws & policies of those same countries.  [I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.]  That means a European corporation, for example, could sue the US (to get some of your tax money) claiming that some health & safety law of ours caused them economic loss.  The "case" would be heard in a "tribunal" outside of this country...and would be binding.

As we speak, Obama is attempting to get Congress to vote him "fast-track authority" to approve this obscene treaty.  For more detailed info on the whole shabby affair, go to the "Democracy Now" news website, search for the 11/21/13 webcast, & look for a sidebar piece entitled "TPP Exposed..." (under "Most Popular"); there's also a sidebar entitled "A Corporate Trojan Horse".  I'll put the link immediately below, but I don't believe that Google allows embedded links on Blogspot anymore...I may be wrong about that---
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/14/tpp_exposed_wikileaks_publishes_secret_trade

2.  TAFTA, the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement...ditto number 1 above.  Details are at citizen.org slash documents slash TAFTA-top-ten-factsheet.pdf ...the factsheet describes the top ten threats of this agreement to Americans' daily lives.  Again, I'll attempt to place the link immediately below---
http://www.citizen.org/documents/TAFTA-top-ten-factsheet.pdf

3.  Henry Kissinger once stated, " 'Illegal' we [the Fed Gov't] can do immediately; 'unconstitutional' takes a bit longer.".  Various laws (or portions thereof) are being used by the Fed Gov't to accomplish things that are violations of the U.S. Constitution, especially the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments; never mind the Ninth & Tenth Amendments... for all practical purposes, they no longer even exist.  Those laws include, but are not limited to, the PATRIOT Act (what a misnomer), The War Powers Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act.  Especially those three need to be [if we are to protect our Freedom] either fixed or repealed.

I cannot emphasize this more strongly:  no law supercedes the U.S. Constitution; only Treaties can do that.  If a law contradicts/violates the Constitution, it is automatically null and void under our system of government.  The Oligarchs don't want us to remember that...just my opinion.

The Endless War of All Wars, and Kill Lists

I just finished watching a 2013 documentary, "Dirty Wars", which is about U.S. covert operations in the so-called "War on Terrorism".  The film is by Jeremy Scahill, the guy who broke the story of abuses in Iraq by the private security company formerly known as Blackwater.  This is an excellent film.

In previous blogs, I've lamented the fact that our Outlaw Fed Gov't (those at the highest levels) orders the murder of terrorist SUSPECTS.  One of those was an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki (or perhaps more accurately, -Aulaqi).  Scahill points out that two weeks after Awlaki's murder, our Gov't killed another American citizen in another targeted assassination---Awlaki's 16-year-old son.  Gov't spokesmen claimed that the son's death was not intentional, but rather "collateral damage".  Perhaps...perhaps not.  Perhaps it was a weird type of "pre-emptive strike" because the Powers-That-Be were worried about what the kid might do in the future.  [The entire concept of pre-emptive strikes is atrocious; it's naked aggression while claiming to know the Future.]

The U.S. Constitution DOES permit targeted assassinations through the mechanism of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal".  Here's the catch, however---and this is crucial--- Letters of Marque and Reprisal can be issued only by the U.S. Congress, not by the Executive Branch.  So once again, our Fed Gov't (in this case, the President) is violating the Supreme Law of the Land.  My guess is that the justification for the President marking those suspects to be killed is some "law" or another.  So again, I'll point out that no law supercedes the Constitution...not the War Powers Act, or any other law.

Our Gov't now is engaged in a whole series of undeclared "wars" and is doing so in blatant violation of the Constitution.  We've attained the Machiavellian concept of Perpetual War, a tool used by rulers throughout History to maintain power and control the citizenry.  Very little of this is about "safety"; most of it is about Empire and money.  Neocolonialism, Oligarchy, nonparticipatory democracy, power, mega transnational business, Edward Bernays-style propaganda, and money for the super-rich are all the order of the day.  All adult Americans should be thoroughly ashamed.

Just my opinion.  Be Well

Throw Out the Constitution...

because ignoring it has the same effect.
One thing is glaringly obvious regarding the discussion about Syria & the authority to attack: no politician in DC and no one in the Corporate Media has said much of anything (perhaps nothing) about the Constitution. Instead, we hear about "precedents", the War Powers Act, Humanitarian imperatives, etc. There's a very good reason for that. Nowhere in the SUPREME Law of the Land is power delegated to the Fed Gov't to attack a country that is no threat to the USA and has not attacked us. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to see anyone in the Gov't or anyone in the Corporate Media point out exactly where that power is enumerated in the Constitution.

I'm not asking commenters on various public forums to show me the constitutional authority... because my experience with comments there the last few days has shown me that (if those forums are representative samples of Americans' constitutional knowledge) most Americans nowadays know almost nothing about how this Republic is supposed to operate legally.

Someone needs to tell "Bomb-Bomb-Iran" McCain that the War Powers Act, along with every other LAW, does NOT supercede the Constitution. If Laws trumped the SUPREME Law of the Land, there would be no point at all in having a Constitution. For decades, the puppets in DC have ignored the Constitution at will. Not long ago, I saw a clip on YouTube in which a Congressman (can't remember his name) said to an interviewer, "Half of what we do is unconstitutional. What's the big deal?". That pretty much says it for politicians.

The Supreme Law of the Land is crystal clear on the permitted uses of the military, there are only three...1. To execute the laws of the land (as in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion in the mid-1790s). 2. To repel invasions. 3. To quell insurrections. [Numbers 1 & 3 appear to be so similar that in the last 50 years I've usually said there are only two permitted uses.] People sometimes retort that this is modern-day America; all that old stuff is completely out-of-date. Perhaps so; that's why there are two mechanisms for updating the Constitution---the Amendment process and the Constitutional Convention. Both were purposely designed to be cumbersome...changing the Supreme Law of the Land should not be easy.  For a time, the DC puppets did use the Amendment process to update the Supreme Law, but then they quit. It was easier to pass laws. They gambled that the American public would not know the difference; apparently, they won.  I guess it never occurred to the Founders that We the People would allow our servant government to ignore the Constitution.

The Commander-in-Chief is constrained by the permitted uses of the military enumerated in the Constitution. I've been appalled to read or sometimes hear people say something like: The Constitution doesn't prohibit the President (or anyone in Gov't) from doing thus-&-such; therefore he/she/they can do it. We are a Gov't of Enumerated Powers [Google it]; the enumeration of things that the Gov't can do IS the prohibition. Creating a comprehensive list of prohibitions would be impossible---the list would be endless. [Isn't American Government taught in schools anymore?]

President Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar; I see no evidence of that at all. Or, if he is one, then he's deceiving the public. Again, I challenge ANYONE in Gov't or the Media to show me legitimate, constitutional authority for attacking Syria...constitutional authority. Anyone in Gov't or the Corporate Media.  [I'm not naive enough to expect a response.]   I like Woody Allen's old joke:  I feel much better now that I've given up hope.  :)

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.