WHY I WON’T VOTE, by Dr. W.E.B. Dubois, The Nation, 20 October 1956

Dubois 2

On October 20, 1956, W. E. B. Du Bois delivers this eloquent indictment of US politics while explaining to Nation readers why he won’t vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Du Bois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health care.

Since I was twenty-one in 1889, I have in theory followed the voting plan strongly advocated by Sidney Lens in The Nation of August 4, i.e., voting for a third party even when its chances were hopeless, if the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, voting for the lesser of two evils. My action, however, had to be limited by the candidates’ attitude toward Negroes. Of my adult life, I have spent twenty-three years living and teaching in the South, where my voting choice was not asked. I was disfranchised by law or administration. In the North I lived in all thirty-two years, covering eight Presidential elections. In 1912 I wanted to support Theodore Roosevelt, but his Bull Moose convention dodged the Negro problem and I tried to help elect Wilson as a liberal Southerner. Under Wilson came the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that we had experienced since the Civil War. In 1916 I took Hughes as the lesser of two evils. He promised Negroes nothing and kept his word. In 1920, I supported Harding because of his promise to liberate Haiti. In 1924, I voted for La Follette, although I knew he could not be elected. In 1928, Negroes faced absolute dilemma. Neither Hoover nor Smith wanted the Negro vote and both publicly insulted us. I voted for Norman Thomas and the Socialists, although the Socialists had attempted to Jim Crow Negro members in the South. In 1932 I voted for Franklin Roosevelt, since Hoover was unthinkable and Roosevelt’s attitude toward workers most realistic. I was again in the South from 1934 until 1944. Technically I could vote, but the election in which I could vote was a farce. The real election was the White Primary.

Retired “for age” in 1944, I returned to the North and found a party to my liking. In 1948, I voted the Progressive ticket for Henry Wallace and in 1952 for Vincent Hallinan.

In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.’s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.

The present Administration is carrying on the greatest preparation for war in the history of mankind. Stevenson promises to maintain or increase this effort. The weight of our taxation is unbearable and rests mainly and deliberately on the poor. This Administration is dominated and directed by wealth and for the accumulation of wealth. It runs smoothly like a well-organized industry and should do so because industry runs it for the benefit of industry. Corporate wealth profits as never before in history. We turn over the national resources to private profit and have few funds left for education, health or housing. Our crime, especially juvenile crime, is increasing. Its increase is perfectly logical; for a generation we have been teaching our youth to kill, destroy, steal and rape in war; what can we expect in peace? We let men take wealth which is not theirs; if the seizure is “legal” we call it high profits and the profiteers help decide what is legal. If the theft is “illegal” the thief can fight it out in court, with excellent chances to win if he receives the accolade of the right newspapers. Gambling in home, church and on the stock market is increasing and all prices are rising. It costs three times his salary to elect a Senator and many millions to elect a President. This money comes from the very corporations which today are the government. This in a real democracy would be enough to turn the party responsible out of power. Yet this we cannot do.

The “other” party has surrendered all party differences in foreign affairs, and foreign affairs are our most important affairs today and take most of our taxes. Even in domestic affairs how does Stevenson differ from Eisenhower? He uses better English than Dulles, thank God! He has a sly humor, where Eisenhower has none. Beyond this Stevenson stands on the race question in the South not far from where his godfather Adlai stood sixty-three years ago, which reconciles him to the South. He has no clear policy on war or preparation for war; on water and flood control; on reduction of taxation; on the welfare state. He wavers on civil rights and his party blocked civil rights in the Senate until Douglas of Illinois admitted that the Democratic Senate would and could stop even the right of Senators to vote. Douglas had a right to complain. Three million voters sent him to the Senate to speak for them. His voice was drowned and his vote nullified by Eastland, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was elected by 151,000 voters. This is the democracy in the United States which we peddle abroad.

Negroes hope to muster 400,000 votes in 1956. Where will they cast them? What have the Republicans done to enforce the education decision of the Supreme Court? What they advertised as fair employment was exactly nothing, and Nixon was just the man to explain it. What has the Administration done to rescue Negro workers, the most impoverished group in the nation, half of whom receive less than half the median wage of the nation, while the nation sends billions abroad to protect oil investments and help employ slave labor in the Union of South Africa and the Rhodesias? Very well, and will the party of Talmadge, Eastland and Ellender do better than the Republicans if the Negroes return them to office?

I have no advice for others in this election. Are you voting Democratic? Well and good; all I ask is why? Are you voting for Eisenhower and his smooth team of bright ghost writers? Again, why? Will your helpless vote either way support or restore democracy to America?

Is the refusal to vote in this phony election a counsel of despair? No, it is dogged hope. It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest. Yet if we protest, off the nation goes to Russia and China. Fifty-five American ministers and philanthropists are asking the Soviet Union “to face manfully the doubts and promptings of their conscience.” Can not these do-gooders face their own consciences? Can they not see that American culture is rotting away: our honesty, our human sympathy; our literature, save what we import from abroad? Our only “review” of literature has wisely dropped “literature” from its name. Our manners are gone and the one thing we want is to be rich–to show off. Success is measured by income. University education is for income, not culture, and is partially supported by private industry. We are not training poets or musicians, but atomic engineers. Business is built on successful lying called advertising. We want money in vast amount, no matter how we get it. So we have it, and what then?

Is the answer the election of 1956? We can make a sick man President and set him to a job which would strain a man in robust health. So he dies, and what do we get to lead us? With Stevenson and Nixon, with Eisenhower and Eastland, we remain in the same mess. I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln, and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let’s vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible.

 

BOTTOM FEEDERS

bottom_feeder

There have been 5 generations of African Americans since the end of the civil war. A single generation is a span of 30 years from birth. 

A generation of people begins as a discharge of energy which is triggered by the coming together of opposites which when done opens a portal which releases energy and allows the conduction of energy in a clearly defined cultural pattern.

That in turn translates into motion and power which moves a generation of people freely in all directions.  That free movement in all directions is what it means to grow.

A successful generation of people is one which moves in a circle and for that reason comes back upon itself to regenerate itself or to give birth to a new generation people.

To do that a generation must have in itself enough power to overcome resistance otherwise it will cease to flow and thus that generation will fail to regenerate.  Evidence of a failure to regenerate is low power or no power.

So our problem today is the problem of ethnic generation and regeneration versus ethnic corruption and death.

When we adjust for technological and scientific advancements in the United States and the world African Americans are generally just as educationally and economically backward today as they were 5 generations ago.

Highly motivated business and professionally trained African Americans remain just as isolated from the masses of African Americans as they were 5 generations ago.

African American intellectuals are isolated because their conceitedness, narcissistic, and in some cases duplicitous behavior prevent them from pooling their mental energies so that they can accomplish a greater good for all.

And this is so because about 80% of African Americans remain an emotionally reactionary people. They are only motivated to a higher level of consciousness when they experience, witness, or hear violence or of a police killing. 

They, too, have fallen down into the rabbit hole of endless frivolous and self-destructive self-indulgences driven by every superficial fad spun off by the commercial and media industries. They have the most intricate tattoos on their bodies but will not learn a mechanical or medical skill.  They are the walking dead.

Most African Americans do not see the hand writing on the wall warning all people of historically unprecedented economic changes now occurring in the world.

Generally, the nations of the world are in debt to a few global banks one of the debtor nations is the United States of America.  Their citizens’ roles have shifted from national support to debt repayment to the global banking elite.

Generally, the aggregate wealth of African Americans is what it was 100 hundred years ago.  It is less than 1% of the aggregate national wealth in the United States and since the 1960s African Americans have constantly suffered twice the unemployment rate as Caucasians.

 And in every category of social advancement African Americans are disproportionately lowest in number. While in every category of social, economic, and medical dysfunction African Americans are disproportionately highest in number.

The November election results show that Republicans won enough seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to control both houses of congress.

The Democrats have lost power in congress and the Supreme Court is more conservative than ever before.  So what should we expect?

 Ironically we should expect things to remain exactly as they have been for the last 65 years because both Democrats and Republicans apply the same political policies. Like a football team run the plays from an approved play book every President has an approved play book.

That is why whether or not you have democrats or republicans controlling congress there will never be significant changes to domestic or international policies.

Democrats and Republicans cater to the interests of Finance Institutions, Wall Street, and the Major Global Corporations. They cater to them because money controls government at every level in the United States.

What is their procedure, the algorithm of U.S. political policy?

It stares at us in the congressional auditorium. It is the twin Faseces or Fascist symbols on the wall of Congress; it is the ‘Bundle of Sticks with an axe blade protruding’, the sticks symbolize the power to punishment by whipping and the axe symbolizes the power to behead.

It was the ancient imperial Roman symbol for power. It was the power of the secret society over life and death of its people.

It stared at us in the face of Andrew Johnson who empowered the southern Democrats when he repealed reparations for freed slaves and Ulysses S. Grant who ended reconstruction under the Freedman’s Bureau. 

It stared at us in the face of Woodrow Wilson, a democrat, when he sanctioned Jim Crow and the segregation of Federal Agencies by race.

It stared at us in the face when Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act of 1933. He signed it into law knowing that it contained a clause which excluded African American agricultural and domestic workers from receiving social security benefits but compelled them to pay into the system which would support Caucasian people upon their retirement. Roosevelt also knew that there was widespread housing discrimination under the Federal Housing Authority and Servicemen’s Readjustment Act.

It stared at us in the face when Richard Nixon applied the policy of ‘Benign Neglect’. That policy was proposed to him by a democrat named Patrick Moynihan. Its purpose was to stunt the social and economic movement of African Americans in the 1970s.

It stared at us in the face when Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 pushed a war on drugs policy which harvested African American men and women for the prison industrial complex slave system. It is a system in which the incarcerated ‘body’ would generate wealth for private businesses.

So now here we are at the end of the year 2014.  Since the end of World War 2, we have watched the United States rise from a 17th ranked world power to the number one world power.  We have witnessed the United States peak in its economic power during the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.  And now the party is over and African Americans never got into the party.

I have a question. Why is it that we do not see the obvious fact that our democracy is governed by the idea of corporatism? Corporatism is the idea that government should be privatized according to the business paradigm. 

Now, if it is true that corporate and Wall Street interests have dominate control over the outcome of elections at the local, state, and federal levels; and if  it is true that corporations fund political candidates who run for office; and if it is true that some of those candidates win election in local and state elections as well as in both the senate and house of representatives, then the only reasonable conclusion that a person can reach is that corporations are dominate over the U.S. government. In fact, corporations and financial institutions are the shadow government.

You have to conclude the above conclusion because politicians in office sign the bills written by A.L.E.C. (The American Legislative Exchange Council) which when signed by the president become law.  So, most of our laws are formed by corporate and wall street interests to serve their purposes.

All of those facts point to the globalization of powerful corporations and international banking companies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of International Settlements. But what does it mean for us?

Globalization means that the people of the United States are occupying a new rung in the global hierarchy. You can call it a global class structure but for many it will be a global caste system. They will be born, live, and die on the same street or in the same village they were born into.

The global hierarchy is not structured so that nations are listed from top to bottom. Rather, the new world order is structured so that banks and corporations are on top of the global hierarchy followed by nation states and their populations of consumers and laborers. And even more, the global economic infrastructure will be subservient to the profit making goods and services of financial institutions and corporations not the needs of the local people.

That means that the place of African Americans in the global hierarchy is no longer defined by the constitution because new global trade treaties like NAFTA and soon the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partners have and will open up borders so that people everywhere are shuffled into a mass global population most of whom are poor and dependent upon corporate policies.  

African Americans should know that we are seeing the end of Sovereign Nation States; in the new world order we will occupy the same bottom caste in a global plantation hierarchy as Africans do, the untouchables in India do, Mexicans do, Central Americans do, South Americans do, Indonesians do, Philippinos do, Palestinians do, Asians do, and every other economically destitute population in the world.

Their place in the global hierarchy is to play the role of bottom feeders. For example, in the country of Liberia its economy is controlled by Indians and Lebanese not indigenous Africans and in the United States Indians and Arabs control the ghetto inner-city stores not African Americans.

The indigenous Africans’ role is to borrow money from the banks; it is to receive a beggar’s handout from fascist governments; it is to consume goods and services endlessly and then to get sick and pay for treatment or die, and it is to labor day and night so that they grow wealth, power, and prestige for the global finance and corporate elite on this emerging global slave plantation.

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony.net: THE HIJACKING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, by Doug Hammerstrom, Attorney at Law

picture of 14th amendment

Constitutional Law courses in law schools teach that the Fourteenth Amendment defines the limit beyond which state legislation may not impinge on property rights. They also teach that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and imposes its limitations upon the states. But what do these legal doctrines have to do with the plain purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment – to assure political rights for the newly-freed slaves? And how did these doctrines arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment?

 

 

While society was grappling with bringing former slaves into U.S society, the power and influence of corporations was also on the rise. While very few people were turning their attention and energy to bringing former slaves into society – indeed, far more energy was being put into NOT bringing them into society – corporations were using a great deal of their wealth to hire lawyers to advance their interests in the courts. The Fourteenth Amendment offered an opportunity to advance corporate interests, and the corporate attorneys set out to exploit it.

 

 

Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of “separate but equal,” 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case. The expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment that comes down to Constitutional Law classes today is the result of corporations using the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against regulation. Ultimately the Plessy decision left Jim Crow laws, state laws discriminating against blacks, in place because of doctrines developed in those corporate shield cases.

 

 

How ineffective the Fourteenth Amendment was for blacks in the 19th century is told well by Richard Stiller in his book, Broken Promises: The Strange History of the Fourteenth Amendment (1972). Things did not look good for the freed slaves immediately after the Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In his veto message he said it was not proper “to make our entire colored population . . . citizens of the United States.” Johnson’s veto message was a signal for violence and murder all over the South.

 

 

Thaddeus Stevens led the successful fight for the Fourteenth Amendment. The first section of the amendment declared blacks to be citizens of the U.S. [the language parallels language in the Dred Scott decision and overrules Dred Scott ] In July of 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, it looked as if racism sustained by law was dead in the United States.

 Picture of freedman

 For a short period of time things went well for blacks. Negroes held office widely in the South. Free public schools, set up for the first time in the south after the Civil War, served black and white children equally. Louisiana’s state constitution required integration in the new public schools. In order to preserve this status, a civil rights bill was promoted in Congress. The law, not passed until 1875, made segregation in public facilities – such as hotels, restaurants, and railroads – a federal offense. In 1873 when the Supreme Court heard the Slaughterhouse Cases, its first Fourteenth Amendment case, the Court rebuked the attempts of business interests to use the amendment, saying that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro.” Justice Miller added, “We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the Negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision.”

 

 

By the mid-1870s, however, the mood had turned. Reconstruction was ended in a deal cut to resolve the 1876 presidential election. Some of the Court’s justices were racists. One of these was Stephen J. Field. After the 1873 decision he wrote to a friend: “I belong to the class who repudiate the doctrine that this country was made for the people of all races. On the contrary, I think it is for our race – the Caucasian race.”

 

 

 In United States v. Cruikshank (1876) the Court said that the Fourteenth Amendment “adds nothing to the rights of one citizen against another.” Yet Congress had written the amendment to do just that. The hearings on the Fourteenth Amendment indicated that most of the abuses being suffered by Negroes were at the hands of individual white persons rather than state governments or those acting under color of law. Congress had just made its intent evident in the Civil Rights Act of 1875. However, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of that act in 1883, the Court cited Cruikshank, amazingly negating Congress’s intent in that act on the basis of the Court’s divination of Congress’s intent in passing the Fourteenth Amendment. Logic would say that Congress might have known its own intent in enacting the Fourteenth Amendment when it drafted the Civil Rights Act just two years later and passed the Act just seven years later.

 

 

 Meanwhile, the corporate lawyers picked up on a point made in Justice Field’s Slaughterhouse dissent: that the amendment was broad enough to protect all of U.S society from the deprivation of fundamental, natural law rights, and that the Supreme Court had a duty to fashion decisions to protect those rights. Ironically, this was the argument the abolitionists made for ending slavery that was rejected in the Dred Scott case. The argument became the basis for what is known as substantive due process.

 

 

 In what was to become a familiar assertion, railroads in Illinois complained in the State Railroad Tax Cases that the Illinois tax laws violated due process because corporations were taxed differently. In Munn v. Illinois, Justice Field continued his crusade for the corporations and the assertion of substantive due process. The majority decision allowed the state to set rates for grain elevators because, though private property, they were “affected with a public interest” and “affect the community at large.” In his dissent, Field threw a laissez-faire-fit at this ‘socialist’ ruling. One piece of the substantive due process doctrine became a Supreme Court procedural mandate when the Court majority accepted Field’s view that determination of the reasonable limits of due process was a judicial function.

 

 

In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases the assertion again was made that taxes violated a railroad’s due process rights. The assertion was also made – for at least the third time before the Supreme Court – that corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. The corporate legal campaign to gain ‘personhood’ status finally succeeded when the report of the opinion in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific. R.R. contained a statement purportedly made by Chief Justice Waite before oral argument that “(t)he court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” The statement is suspect because the issue was argued. The case was decided on other grounds and the Court directly declined to decide the Constitutional question. Justice Field cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons in a later case, and that notion of Santa Clara’s holding has stuck.

 

In the same year – 1886 – the Court again stated that the court might intervene and make its own assessment of the propriety of rate regulations in The Railroad Commission Cases. The substantive due process doctrine reached its full flower in Lochner v. New York. The U.S. Supreme Court invoked ‘substantive due process’ to substitute its judgment for that of the New York legislature in holding that a law regulating the working hours of bakers violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

 

In Davidson v. New Orleans, Justice Miller remarked that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment rarely had been invoked in the near-100 year history of the Constitution. Yet the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment lately was being invoked regularly. The author would suggest the difference was the litigation spending of the railroads in the latter period. Yet by 1877 only nine Fourteenth Amendment opinions had been rendered. From 1877 to 1885, twenty-six additional opinions were issued. In the 13 years before 1912, 409 due process opinions were handed down. From 1886-1912 two cases restrained or annulled State action involving Negroes, and 39 cases restrained or annulled State action against corporations.

 

 

While the corporations were triumphant in wielding the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against democratic control, blacks were abandoned by the Supreme Court. Not only was the law not used to protect their Constitutional rights, the law was used affirmatively to degrade them. Ten years after Plessy, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could force white people to discriminate against black people even if they did not want to. A private college that had voluntarily educated black and white students together since the Civil War was forced to expel the black students when, in Berea College v. Kentucky , the Court upheld a Kentucky statute that said black and white students could not be taught in the same school. The white students sent a farewell letter to their former classmates. “Our sense of justice shows us that others have the same rights as ourselves. We hope never to be afraid or ashamed to show our approval of any colored person.”

 

 

In response to the Berea decision, states and cities of the South rushed to follow the Court’s lead. They passed laws criminalizing white people’s voluntary association with black people. In countless cases in the South the sight of a black or white family entertaining visitors of the other race resulted in a call for the police and a threatened arrest. 

 

 

The results of Jim Crow laws were not just degrading, they were deadly. Dr. Charles R. Drew, whose research on blood plasma led to the development of blood banks and who was the head of the American Red Cross blood banks in WWII, bled to death on his way to the colored hospital, which was further away, because the white hospital refused to treat him. An uncounted number of black accident victims died because they were denied help by “white” ambulances, hospitals and doctors.

 

 

Corporations, on the other hand, hijacked the Fourteenth Amendment and have used it to consolidate their power in the U.S. and the world. Corporations have gained many of the inalienable rights of humans guaranteed by the Bill of Rights with their status as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Through their right of free speech they have captured our legislatures and regulatory agencies. They have used the key to the courts that the Fourteenth Amendment provides them to invalidate legislation that might have slipped through their control of the legislative process.

 

 

One hundred and fifty years of investing wealth in lawyers and using those lawyers to flood the courts with the corporate perspective on the law has led to corporate culture defining the world through law. The provisions of law corporate lawyers argued for in U.S. courts in the 19th century they now write into international trade agreements. The U.S. economy’s colonization by corporations serves as the model for the colonization of the world by multinational corporations

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: THE BIG LIE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

dead_hadji_91_829small

The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war[1] and only Congress can approve funding for war. The Constitution and Federal statutes are also clear on the definition of inherent executive power to use military force against foreign nations without congressional approval if the security of the United States is threatened or it is under imminent attack.[2]

Most United States Congressional legislators are trained to be lawyers.  If they are not trained to be lawyers then at least they are knowledgeable of the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes, particularly the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Since the discovery that some form of sarin gas was used in Syria which resulted in the deaths of several hundred persons, a debate has evolved between Congress and President Barak Obama.  It is a debate on War Power.

The issue presented to the public is whether or not Congress (the People of the United States) should be involved in the decision making process to determine whether or not The People of the United States should commit to bomb the sovereign nation of Syria as ‘punishment’ for the use of sarin gas on its own people.

There are two over arching issues, however. One is whether or not Syria is legally subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government? No reasonable person would make the argument that it is because Syria is not subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government and has not posed a threat to U.S. national security.  For that reason alone President Barak Obama does not have the legal nor moral authority to bomb Syria.

The second issue is whether or not the Government of Syria knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently used sarin gas to kill its citizens?  Now we must ask: what evidence has been proffered by the President to U.S. citizens?

The Obama administration has used straw man arguments and has proffered at most circumstantial evidence that the Syrian Government used sarin gas on its people.  It has proffered satellite data of phone calls near the scene of sarin gas use and satellite data of the use of artillery near the scene of sarin gas use.  And notice, the use of that presumed evidence is peppered by Secretary of State John Kerry with emotive terminology to manipulate the American People emotionally.

However, satellite data on phone calls and artillery use in the area where the gas was used can be simulated by computer programs as it is done in war games for training purposes. Therefore, such evidence cannot be rationally authenticated and thus cannot be used to justify the bombing of a sovereign nation.

If one accepts as credible United Nations scientists that sarin gas was used and that people actually died then the question now is: who used the sarin gas?  The fact is that there is no direct evidence which conclusively proves who used the sarin gas.

If we further assume that Bashar Assad and the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi rebel leaders are rational persons then what a rational Congress ought to ask is: who would benefit by the use of sarin gas on Syrian people?  Certainly, Bashar Assad would not benefit.  He would lose both Russian and Chinese support as well as his government.  Therefore, he didn’t use the sarin gas. That leaves the rebels.

The rebels would gain from the use of sarin gas because it would enlist the overt might of the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government. The rebels would then get Syria to ghettoize.  The Israelis would gain because Israel would then be able to undermine Hezbullah in Lebanon and that would allow Israel to take Lebanon’s southern territories to ghettoize, again.  The Saudis would gain because they would feel that greater military pressure would be put on Iran, a nation they want to ghettoize.  And of course, U.S. corporations would gain because they could get contracts to exploit resources and rebuild Syria, again.  Therefore, the rebels and their supporters used the sarin gas.

President Obama drew a Red Line.  Now he should be hoping that Congress gives him a way to back down and to save face by saying no to him because if he bombs Syria there will be terrible repercussions as far away as the Korean peninsula.  Korea is China’s trump card.  Expect South Korea to be under extreme military pressure from North Korea if Syria is bombed.  Russia will up support for Syria,too. President Obama is in a mess.  He should step out of it and clean his shoes.

 

 

 

 



[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

[2] Article 2, section 2; and Article 2, section 2, clause 1; Stat. 838 (1941); 56 Stat 176 (1942), et al