Amnesty, Obama, and the Constitution

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Mitt Romney has recently stated his suspicion that President Obama will soon take executive action and order amnesty for illegal immigrants. Governor Romney is not the only one with this suspicion. Republican Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham have recently warned President Obama not to take executive action by granting amnesty, citing border safety and terrorist concerns.

The Constitution grants authority to Congress when it comes to naturalization and immigration. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “[t]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution which grants the President any power when it comes to creating immigration policy. It is merely the duty of the executive to enforce laws that are constitutionally enacted by Congress. The President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The most recent immigration act which included any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law was passed by the Senate on September 19, 1985, passed by the House of Representatives on October 9, 1986, and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. This law legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, could prove they were not guilty of any crimes, and were willing to pay a fine and any back taxes.

The text of the Constitution and this legislative precedent demonstrate beyond any doubt that it would be blatantly unconstitutional for President Obama to use an Executive Order or any other executive action to unilaterally grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

(For a much more detailed discussion of Constitution and the enumerated powers of the federal government on issues such as immigration, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

The Worm Has Turned: GMO Corn, Pesticide Resistance, and the EPA

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

The corn rootworm is a voracious monster. Corn rootworm larvae can be devastating to corn crops, causing billions of dollars of damage before the development of genetically modified Bt corn by Monsanto, Bayer, and others. Bt corn is a genetically modified organism (GMO) which contains the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene. Bt corn currently accounts for three-quarters of the United States corn crop. Praised as a godsend when it was introduced in 1996, Bt corn quickly led to larger yields for farmers and allowed them to use less conventional pesticides, which are typically more ecologically damaging. Unfortunately, rootworms have been developing a natural resistance to the toxins in the Bt corn. This will lead to the increased use of conventional pesticides by farmers, reducing much of the economic and ecological benefits that Bt produces.

Scientists who foresaw this turn of events as early as 2002 suggested that the EPA mandate a 50% refuge—a 50% area of non-Bt corn. Rootworms that feed on the non-Bt corn do not develop a resistance to it, and then breed with the surviving rootworms that fed on the Bt corn and developed immunity. The resulting offspring will not have resistance to the Bt corn toxins. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the requirement at a 20% refuge area for single gene Bt corn in corn growing areas, and reduced it to only 5% with Bt seeds with multiple genes. These refuge requirements were voluntary, and many farmers did not follow them. Should the EPA have been more forceful? Should it have mandated larger refuge areas and enforced it? Did GMO seed companies oppose larger refuge areas in the name of maximizing short-term profits?

The first issue involves the EPA. Should it set enforceable requirements for farmers who are using Bt corn? Should it continue to simply publish voluntary levels of refuge area? Or is something even more extreme required? Article I of the Constitution gives only the Congress the power to legislate: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” However, the Supreme Court ruled in J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States (1928) that Congress may delegate is legislative power to the executive branch of the federal government provided that Congress gives an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive branch. While this holding has been followed for nearly a century and has given rise to the leviathan executive branch regulatory state, it is clearly mistaken. The Constitution clearly states that all legislative powers in the federal government belong to Congress. It is a long standing principle that legislative powers are not delegatable, stretching all the way back to the philosophy of John Locke, who contended famously in 1689: “The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to any body else, or place it any where, but where the people have.”

Even if Congress were not delegating power to the EPA but were instead legislating enforceable requirements for mandatory refuge areas in fields planted with Bt corn, this would still be unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not give Congress the enumerated power to regulate what farmers plant in their fields. An apologist for federal power will doubtless point to the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to justify such regulation. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” However, despite the broad and draconian powers that the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to grab by appealing to the Commerce Clause, the truth is that it does not give the legislative branch the power to dictate what farmers plant. It is ridiculous to claim that regulating commerce includes regulating production. Congress cannot regulate the production of food or any other goods in foreign nations and could not do so in Indian territories when the Constitution was penned. Therefore, claiming that the Commerce Clause has anything to do with production is wrongheaded. Commerce is simply the activity of buying and selling. Growing corn is not part of that.

It appears that American corn growers have the right to plant as much or as little refuge as they desire. It is no job of the federal government to protect individuals from themselves. However, objections must be considered. First, one may argue that GMO-producing corporations such as Monsanto and Bayer may be committing fraud by not telling the farmers who buy their Bt corn seeds that larger refuge areas would be prudent because it would help prevent widespread toxin resistance in rootworms. In a way, the existence of the EPA exacerbates this possibility. When government agencies such as the EPA or FDA provide guidelines, many people view these as definitive. Therefore, under the current corporatist system, powerful private entities such as Monsanto and Bayer can lobby the government for relaxed recommendations. When the government states that a 5–20% refuge area is adequate, many farmers are likely to ignore claims of scientists that 50% refuge areas are necessary. The existence of the EPA in cases like this only endangers farmers and consumers.

Assume there the EPA did not exist. What then? The farmers would be responsible for researching the matter on their own and determining for themselves how much of a refuge area to grow. This is where it becomes a bit tricky. Corporations which sell Bt corn seeds and other GMOs will no doubt produce and provide research of their own. Can they be trusted or are they likely to release bogus studies as the tobacco companies often did years ago? The federal government may have some role here in protecting the public from potential fraud. But perhaps it is preferable that the government wait until a civil court determines the matter. One can imagine farmers or other litigants suing GMO corporations that they believe have defrauded them by using misleading or blatantly false research. Perhaps it would be better for federal prosecutors to wait until the science is more settled instead of allowing the federal government to have an expensive and unconstitutional agency involved with researching agricultural science. Or perhaps it would be better to leave these matters to the states, which have far more power in this realm under the Tenth Amendment.

A second objection is that the government must regulate GMO refuge area because such a matter does not simply affect the farmers in question but affects others. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian libertarian Harm Principle states: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Government simply has no right to interfere with people who are exercising their natural rights to life, liberty, and property unless others are being harmed and, thus, are having their natural rights to life, liberty, and property violated. Assume that farmers X and Y decide not to plant any refuge area, and that this eventually leads to rootworms which are very resistant to Bt corn’s toxins. Farmer Z’s Bt corn may be endangered by this through no action on Z’s part. This may be parallel to the case of antibiotics and antivirals. Under John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, the government has no right to regulate the use of most drugs. If the use of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. will only affect the user directly, then the government may not ban such drug use among autonomous adults. If X and Y shoot up heroin, this does not affect Z. Perhaps X or Y may get behind the wheel and run Z down, but this involves reckless driving and not drug use. It is the reckless driving that the government may prohibit, regardless of the cause. However, if X and Y misuse antibiotics and antivirals enough—taking them when they do not have bacterial or viral infections—then this promotes the evolution of bacteria and viruses that are resistant to the drugs. Therefore, it is not a violation of the natural rights of the people for the government to regulate these drugs anymore than it would not be a violation of X and Y’s natural rights for the government to prevent X and Y from placing in their bodies large doses of plutonium that may make bystanders sick. The existence of external pesticides which can still kill rootworms further complicates the matter. Are the conventional pesticides here more analogous to the antibiotics and antivirals? Is Bt corn more akin to a transhuman who has been genetically engineered to produce his or her own natural antibiotics or antivirals?

What is clear is that the EPA has no right to deal with this in any way, shape, or form regardless of what the Court erroneously held in J.W. Hampton. Does Congress have the power to regulate the Bt corn under the premise that not planting a refuge area can harm other farmers? Even if one employs the Necessary and Proper Clause, the only possible power involved would be the Congressional power to declare war. But does a war against rootworms make sense? What about the President? Does the President have the power to regulate Bt corn in such a case? As Commander-in-Chief the President has the power to act to repel an attack against the United States. However, while this rationale may give the President the authority to quarantine individuals who are infected with a deadly and infectious disease, corn that is more susceptible to pests hardly seems comparable.

In the end, the federal government has no authority to regulate Bt corn or any other GMOs. If GMO corporations lie about their seeds, then this may constitute fraud, and civil and perhaps criminal courts should be invoked. States may also have greater authority to regulate in this area under the police powers that they are granted by way of the Tenth Amendment.

Memo Authorizing Targeted Drone Killing of Al-Awlaki Released

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

The memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which authorized the targeted drone killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without a trial was released earlier this week. The memo reasons that the targeted killing of American citizens such as al-Awlaki is not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1119 which makes it a federal offense for an American citizen to murder or attempt to murder another American citizen in a foreign nation. The memo appeals to the public authority justification as providing an exemption to the statute in such cases of targeted killings. Public authority justification comes into play where “the defendant knowingly committed a criminal act but did so in reasonable reliance upon a grant of authority from a government official to engage in illegal activity.” The memo concludes that the Department of Defense and CIA operations involved with the targeted killing of al-Awlaki were justified under a particular variant of public authority under “the lawful conduct of war.”

This defense of the al-Awlaki assassination is dependent upon the War on Terror being an actual war, and this is dependent upon the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) being a legal Congressional declaration of war. As argued at length in a previous post, the AUMF is not a declaration of war because war must be declared against a specific entity, there is no precedent for declaring war against groups or individuals rather than against nation states, and terrorists cannot be viewed as both criminals and enemy combatants.

Assuming for the moment that AUMF is a legitimate declaration of war, the next step of the memo’s justification for the targeted killing of al-Awlaki is based upon the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004). In that landmark case, the Court ruled that American citizens designated as enemy combatants have a right to challenge their detainment under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court supported its plurality opinion that it was appropriate to limit the amount of due process that an American citizen enemy combatant received by appealing to a three part test formulated in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976):

1. The interests of the individual in retaining their [life, liberty, or] property, and the injury threatened by the official action
2. The risk of error through the procedures used and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;
3. The costs and administrative burden of the additional process, and the interests of the government in efficient adjudication.

In Hamdi, the Court ruled that an American who was being detained as an enemy combatant after being captured on a battlefield overseas required notice of the charges, access to counsel, and an opportunity to be heard. Although the Court held that the due process requirements of placing the burden of proof on the government and of making hearsay inadmissible would place too much of a burden on the executive branch during hostilities, the due process requirements for such individuals were nevertheless still stringent.

The government claims that capturing al-Awlaki was infeasible. It concludes that it was reasonable to believe that a decision-maker could conclude the threat posed by al-Awlaki’s activities to United States persons was “continued” and “imminent” and that this outweighed the risk of possible erroneous deprivation.

However, the hole in the memo’s reasoning is that depriving an American citizen of his or her life is far more serious than depriving him or her of liberty as in the cases of the detention of American citizen enemy combatants as in Hamdi. This makes it reasonable to conclude that the amount of due process to be afforded to the target of assassination should be equivalent to that afforded to detained enemy combatants if not even greater.

The biggest issue is the Orwellian nature of the War on Terror created by the AUMF. The very vague nature of organizations like Al Qaeda makes it all too easy for the federal government to find even the most arbitrary of connections between an American citizen and Al Qaeda. Even where such connections do not exist—like the alleged connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that the Bush administration “found”—this will not necessarily discourage the government. Using its tortured logic, more and more Americans will become potential targets of targeted killing. Public authority and “the lawful conduct” of war can also just as easily be used as justifications for committing domestic homicides. The government sees the entire world as a “battlefield” in the War on Terror, so no American citizen is necessarily safe from losing due process in the name of doing “whatever it takes” to defeat the terrorists. Who decides whether an American citizen constitutes a “continued” and “imminent” threat to the United States? The President? What in Article II of the Constitution grants the Caesar-like power to decide life or death with a thumbs up or down like an Emperor to the President?

Is It Always Unconstitutional for the President to Refuse to Enforce the Law?

by Gerard Emershaw

As discussed in a previous column, Senator Ted Cruz has recently published a list of 76 alleged abuses of power by President Barack Obama. Among these alleged abuses of power is President Obama’s refusal to prosecute violations of drug laws involving certain mandatory minimum sentences. This raises the question of whether it is always wrong for the President to refuse to enforce a lawfully enacted act of Congress. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While the federal government seems to have forgotten that it is the Congress and not the President, the executive regulatory agencies, or the federal courts which may legislate, it is clear that the major role of the President domestically is to enforce duly enacted federal laws.

However, the President takes an oath which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” What happens if the President views a duly enacted act of Congress as being unconstitutional? What if his mandate to execute laws and his oath to defend the Constitution are at odds?

Imagine that Congress passes a law that bans Christianity. Or passes a law that requires the military to confiscate all guns held by American civilians. Or passes a law that mandates the confiscation of all land owned by civilians in the United States. Does the President have a duty to enforce such laws? Is it only the Supreme Court which has the power to declare a law unconstitutional? Is it only the states which have the right to nullify laws passed by Congress?

In the case of the refusal to prosecute certain federal drug crimes involving mandatory minimum sentences, what if President Obama is doing that because he views it as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers to allow the legislative branch to usurp the authority of the judicial branch regarding specific criminal sentencing? Is this any different than if he would rightly refuse to uphold the hypothetical despotic and unconstitutional laws mentioned previously?

Is there anything in the Constitution which mandates that the President or any other elected federal official must do something which is unconstitutional? Are the Constitution and the Republic which it serves both not safer if all elected federal officials defend the Constitution even if it means not carrying out a law which they believe—rightly or wrongly—to be unconstitutional? Is it even possible for the President to faithfully execute every law even if none are unconstitutional? Does the federal government have the money or manpower to do so? Are all duly enacted laws necessarily consistent? Can they all even be faithfully enforced?

A much bigger problem with the Commander-in-Chief in recent decades has been the President doing things which he knows are unconstitutional rather than refusing to do things which he believes are unconstitutional. If President Obama and all future presidents would concentrate on defending the Constitution, even if their Constitutional interpretations turned out to be erroneous, if these interpretations are sincere and in good faith, then the country and its citizens would be much better off.

In Defense of the Electoral College

by Gerard Emershaw

Every four years during a presidential election year, blowhard pundits—typically of the neo-progressive persuasion—decry American’s electoral college which awards presidential candidates all of a given state’s electoral votes in a winner take all fashion instead of proportionally. This leads to the very real possibility that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected president. This has happened four times in American history—John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000 all became president without winning the popular vote over their competitors. Some see this as unfair and anti-democratic. The organization National Popular Vote is attempted to rectify this alleged evil in the American federal electoral system. Ten states have already pledged to award their votes not to the winner of the popular vote within the state but to the winner of the national popular vote in the presidential election. It does seem plausible that the winner of a presidential election should be the winner of the popular vote. But is this preferable to the Electoral College system currently employed?

States are free to decide how its presidential electoral votes are awarded. A state is free to award them winner take all, winner and loser take proportionately, winner of national majority take all, or taller candidate take all. However, a state that wishes to deviate from the traditional winner take all based upon popular vote within the state is doing itself qua state and its citizens qua state citizens a disservice. The United States was formed as a union of individual and sovereign states joining together. The state guarantees that its sovereignty is more likely to be respected by the federal government by employing the traditional electoral college method and by ensuring that the Tenth Amendment is always respected by the federal government. If presidents were to be elected merely by national popular vote, then states lose their sovereignty and individual characters. This would lead presidential candidates and political parties to ignore smaller states. It would also be yet one more dangerous step toward eliminating the federalist system. Tyrants have traditionally eliminated federalism within totalitarian nations. The Nazis, Soviets, and Maoists all did this. Eliminating the electoral college system will be yet one more step toward eliminating states as a vital check and balance against federal power. The Seventeenth Amendment, removing the right to elect Senators from state legislators and giving it to the voters was one step towards the neutralization of states as a check and balance against federal tyranny. The gradual weakening of the Tenth Amendment has been another. With the three branches of the federal government increasingly unwilling to act as checks and balances against one another, eventually a loss of federalism will mean that a triumvirate of federal dictatorial branches is cooperating to divide up the power to tyrannize Americans.

Those states that are so willing to trade their own sovereignty and that of their citizens—Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Hawaii—are by and large “blue” states. It is apparent that the powers that be in these Democratic strongholds care more about the future of their political party than the future of their citizens. It is more important to them that another election similar to Bush defeating Gore does not happen than that the sovereignty of their state and citizenry be defended. This is partisan cynicism and is dangerous to the health of the Republic.

New Constitution?

by Gerard Emershaw

“You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head”

Lennon/McCartney

“I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around”

Townshend

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wants to amend the Constitution. Among the tweaks to “the law of the land” that the elderly jurist wishes to make are major changes to the First and Second amendments. In his latest book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Justice Stevens argues for the following amendments to the Constitution. He wants the First Amendment to remove protection against “reasonable” campaign spending limits at both the federal and state levels. He wants the Second Amendment to be rewritten to state that only members of the state militia have the right to bear arms. He wants an amendment to prohibit political gerrymandering to create “safe” Congressional seats. He wants to eliminate the anti-commandeering rule by which the federal government may not force the states to carry out federal government activities. He wants to eliminate sovereign immunity for violations of constitutional rights. He wants to amend the Eighth Amendment to state that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In general, Justice Stevens’ suggestions would lead to fewer rather than greater rights. Americans would have their natural rights greatly diminished by his suggested changes to the First and Second Amendments. Campaign finance contribution limits are unnecessary and violate the natural right to free speech. The natural right to bear arms is a necessary safeguard against tyranny which cannot be infringed without inviting inevitable totalitarianism. States would come dangerously close to becoming slaves of the federal government if the anti-commandeering rule were eliminated. Eliminating sovereign immunity is a good idea, but it ought to be unnecessary since that concept is not enumerated within the Constitution. Limiting the use of political gerrymandering would be a good idea, but certainly not at the cost of the other rights that Justice Stevens wishes to eliminate. Furthermore, a Constitution-sized government is one in which political parties would have less reason to gerrymander, and the gerrymandering they did do would have less of a practical effect. Stevens is also likely correct about wishing for Eighth Amendment clarification. The government should not have more rights than the people. If a citizen can only kill in the defense of self or others from imminent harm, then the same is true of the government. Therefore, capital punishment should be eliminated.

Many individuals all over the political spectrum have suggested that the United States ought to have a new Constitutional Convention. The question is whether this would be an improvement. Would this be likely to lead to more rights being protected or fewer? Activists of all stripes would bitterly contest one another in the crafting of a new constitution. Would civil libertarians be able to win the day or would statists? Any compromise concerning natural rights is unacceptable. If civil libertarians wish Americans to be completely free while statists wish Americans to be complete slaves of the state, how would a compromise in which Americans wind up being merely half enslaved by the state be a positive outcome? The major political machines of both party have become hopelessly statist. On the Democratic Party side, the Blue Dogs and fiscal conservatives—of which the unfairly economically maligned Presidents Carter and Clinton were good exemplars—are gone. Neo-progressives rule the party roost. These Wilsonians are the architects of the Nanny state, fascistic wars of aggression, the Social Security Ponzi scheme, and Obamacare. These are the individuals who champion FDR’s collectivist “Second Bill of Rights.” On the Republican side, true conservatives have long been dominated by progressive RINOs and Trotskyite warmongering neoconservatives who care not about deficits or sane fiscal policy as long as the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and U.S.-friendly Middle East governments benefit. Is there any doubt that if these two nasty political machines began compromising, the only true losers would be the American people?

Even if the Constitution were changed to fit the will of the people, it is not clear that natural rights would not be lost. A poll taken in 2000 found that only about half of the American public would vote for the United States Constitution. A 2013 poll found that 34% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing freedom. According to Gallup, nearly half of all Americans believe that gun control laws should be more strict than they are now.

A new Constitution would inevitably wind up being a legal version of New Coke. What is the point of that when the United States Constitution is Classic Coke? The problem with the Constitution is that it is being obeyed less and less by the government. Time and again, when there is a problem, it is not due to a deficiency in the document but a deficiency in the government’s willingness to be bound by the document. What is the point of either a New Constitution or the current Constitution if the government refuses to obey it?

The true answer is for the American people to hold their elected leaders accountable. The voters must hold their elected representatives’ feet to the fire. Primary them and vote them out if they do not obey the Constitution. Deny support to candidates and political parties which are not true to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The problem is with our elected officials and with us for putting up with them. There is no significant problem with the Constitution.

Even Putin Is Less of a Dictator Than Obama When It Comes to War

by Gerard Emershaw

One interesting detail that is sure to get lost in the dramatic unfolding story in Ukraine is that the Russian Parliament passed a bill authorizing President Vladimir Putin to use military force in Ukraine. While many will become preoccupied and view this as a reason to begin a new Cold War, let us set that aside for the moment. Putin is undeniably a dictator, yet even he is bound by a check and balance of the Russian legislative branch. He was required to seek permission to use military force. Compare that with what President Obama did in Libya in 2011. Did President Obama seek permission for his ill advised “kinetic military action”—which produced the blowback that led to the Benghazi tragedy—in Libya? Yes. The problem is that President Obama sought the permission of the UN, NATO, and the Arab League and not the permission of Congress as the Constitution requires.

During World War I, Woodrow Wilson was virtually as powerful as the German Kaiser. During World War II, FDR was practically as powerful as the despotic fascist leaders Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo that he was fighting. Today there is no doubt that President Obama—and the Imperial American President in general—is even more powerful than the Russian dictator. If this does not become a Constitutional wake up call against the imbalance that has arisen between the branches of federal government, then perhaps nothing ever will. President Obama once infamously denied being a dictator. Can he still plausibly deny it when even Vlad Putin is less willing to take political liberties than he is?

Obama on Syria: Nobel Peace Prize Winner Tries to Gin Up War

by Gerard Emershaw

On the evening of September 10, 2013, Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama spoke to the American people and tried to sell them on an interventionist war with Syria that they do not want:

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Humanitarian support? Like the weapons that the CIA has been shipping to Syrian rebels? Moderate opposition? Like the al Qaeda affiliated group the al-Nusra Front, which an analyst has recently called the best armed al Qaeda affiliate? Moderates like Farouq Brigade cannibal leader Abu Sakkar, who consumed his enemy’s heart in a video? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering helpless bound Syrian soldiers in cold blood? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering children in Christian villages? With moderates like these, who needs radical Jihadists?  

President Obama claims to have “resisted calls for military action.” What this really amounts to saying is that he followed the Constitution, which states that only Congress may declare war. Given that he egregiously violated both the Constitution and the likely unconstitutional War Powers Resolution with his “kinetic military action” in Libya—which produced as blowback the massacre in Benghazi—perhaps in the bizarre world that we all live in, he should be lauded. Then again, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama believes that he can attack Syria without the approval of Congress. If he does believe that, then all of this is nothing but a charade. He would claim minutes later:

So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

It turns out the speech would be a charade that would basically just waste time and needlessly pre-empt the regularly scheduled television programming. No news here. President Obama never believed in the Constitution, and he still does not.

According to President Obama:

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits—a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. … Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. 

President Obama does not know that Assad was responsible for the attack. Perhaps he believes that Assad did. Perhaps Assad did. Assad is certainly a ruthless and murderous dictator. However, Syrian rebel group and al Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front has claimed that it is responsible for the attack blamed on Assad. Furthermore, the UN investigators have yet to release their report on the sarin gas attacks in Syria.

Assuming that Assad is responsible for the gas attacks, does that make him any worse than the United States that has employed such weapons as atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and depleted uranium tipped missiles? How is what Assad did any worse than what the United States helped Saddam Hussein do to Iranians? How is dying in a gas attack any worse than dying in a drone attack?

According to President Obama, Syrian use of chemical weapons is a danger to national security:

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran—which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

Talk about a flimsy slippery slope argument! It is unlikely that Syria—or any other nation—would launch any kind of unprovoked gas attack against American soldiers. If the United States launches an illegal unprovoked war against some nation and that nation uses chemical weapons, who could blame them? Are there any weapons that Americans would refuse to use if the existence of the nation were in danger? After all, the United States was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the existential threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Any nation that used chemical weapons against the United States or its allies would be crushed. Even the most maniacal dictator knows that. If anyone would ever use chemical weapons against Americans, it would be al Qaeda—the very group that is fighting among the Syrian rebels. If the rebels win, then al Qaeda gains possession of a cache of chemical weapons. How is that good?

The issue of Iran and nuclear weapons has absolutely nothing to do with Syria and chemical weapons. Unless and until the United States stops bringing about regime change in non-nuclear nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya while refraining from bringing military action against belligerent nuclear nations like North Korea, then the only sane thing for a nation with ample natural resources and no love for the United States is to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.

Sounding like Orwell’s Big Brother, the Nobel Peace Prize winner contends that we must make war in Syria:

And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

If Syria is a threat to the national security of the United States, then virtually every nation on the face of the globe is. Does that mean the United States should launch Tomahawk missiles against every nation? Actually, President Obama would later reverse course and claim that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” However, it is unclear how targeted strikes would make Assad less likely to use chemical weapons. If the strikes begin to turn the tide against his regime, it would be more likely that he would become desperate and use more chemical weapons. What is the alternative? Toppled dictators do not meet good ends. Just ask Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi. Actually, you cannot ask them anything anymore. Without putting boots on the ground, how does President Obama expect to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons supply? There is strong evidence that Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is protected from air strikes.

Obama continued his speech by answering questions that he allegedly received from members of Congress and in letters from the American people. When did he start listening to Congress or the American people? Do people really still send letters? It is more likely that these were questions that one of his aides saw on Twitter. Three of these questions were particularly interesting. The first involved the possibility of getting the nation entangled in another needless war:

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.” My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

First, as previously stated, a limited air campaign of targeted strikes will not accomplish any of the President’s objectives. Secondly, how is launching Tomahawk missiles against an enemy not a war? Thirdly, does he not realize that this action could ignite a broader regional war that would pull the United States in? Fourthly, does he not realize that such military belligerency is irrational when it could pull nuclear nations like Russia and China in on the other side? Fifthly, does he not realize that the nation is $17 trillion in debt and even “kinetic military actions” are expensive when you are launching Tomahawk missiles at $1.5 million a pop?

President Obama later considered an even more important question:

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where—as one person wrote to me—“those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?” It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people—and the Syrian opposition we work with—just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Those “moderates” again! A “moderate” Jihadist is like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and a benevolent dictator—it does not exist. Even Orwell’s Big Brother would be confused by President Obama’s doublespeak. How would attacking al Qaeda’s enemy hurt them? Did attacking Nazi Germany during World War II hurt the Soviet Union? Did attacking Japan hurt China? If Assad were to get toppled by air strikes the way that Qaddafi was in Libya, how would gaining control of yet another country hurt al Qaeda? Has he forgotten about the blowback from the Libyan debacle? Of course, he would love to forget about Benghazi, but he surely has not. A political solution? If President Obama wants a political solution, why is he not working on one? Then again, maybe he should just sit this civil war out the way that Britain, France, Spain, and Russia sat out the American Civil War and allowed President Lincoln to crush a violent rebel force even when that meant Lincoln was killing civilians.

Finally, President Obama addressed whether the United States should follow Woodrow Wilson’s dictate to “make the world safe for democracy” by being the policeman of the world:

Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations—but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime. However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

It is nice that the Nobel Peace Prize winner claims to prefer peaceful solutions. But does he? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan, drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and “kinetic military action” in Libya. When has he ever managed to bring about a peaceful solution? In what sense has he done anything but try to act like policeman of the world? Of course, in many instances, President Obama acts like a policeman defending one group of criminals against another group of criminals. In some places like Bahrain, he even acts like a policeman defending criminals against innocent victims. The former KGB goon Vladimir Putin is a despot. There is no doubt about that. He is certainly not working for altruistic purposes here. He only seeks peace because he wants the Assad regime to survive due to the fact that Syria is a Russian client state and provides Russia with a base on the Mediterranean. But what kind of world do we live in when a KGB goon might bring peace while a Nobel Peace Prize winning American President promises only war? During the Cold War, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and ran a police state that spied on its own people. Today, the United States is occupying Afghanistan and running a police state that spies on its own people. Up is down and day is night, apparently.   

As he neared the conclusion of his charade of a speech, President Obama continued to base his hawkish argument for war on an appeal to emotion rather than on logic:

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

If President Obama enjoys watching videos, perhaps he should watch this video of children killed or injured in drone strikes. Or perhaps he should not base his decisions on emotion at all. His job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is a matter of reason and not emotion. Russia killed children in Chechnya. China killed children in Tibet. Should the United States attack these nations? Or is it all really just about the fact that the children in Syria were killed by gas attack? What does that really matter? Assad simply does not have Predator drones or depleted uranium tipped Tomahawk missiles. Tyrants kill the innocent with the weapons that are ready to hand.

As he closed his speech, President Obama quoted FDR:

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”

Quoting FDR at this juncture might have been a bad idea. After all, it was President Roosevelt who maneuvered the United States into World War II by imposing an oil embargo on Japan and inviting the blowback that occurred at Pearl Harbor. If President Obama is to learn any lesson from FDR, perhaps it should be a lesson of avoiding a world war by being careful what actions one takes in foreign policy.

Like any morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, President Obama closes by invoking the children:

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Children. Always the children. American children will only face danger if President Obama continues with his reckless foreign policy and creates blowback that produces the next major terrorist attack on American soil. Children will die in Syria one way or the other. Sad but true. Perhaps they will die at the hands of Assad. Perhaps they will die at the hands of the Jihadist rebels. But Syrian children should not die from American missiles. Syria has not attacked the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Attacking Syria would just be naked aggression with no purpose.

Each day Syria feels more and more like déjà vu all over again. Ba’athist dictator? Check. Vague intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction? Check. A lack of an actual threat to the United States? Check. The potential to create a power vacuum that will help Jihadist terrorists? Check. Albert Einstein defined ‘insanity’ as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Why would any sane person believe that military action in Syria will not end up a disaster like Iraq or Libya?