Louis XIV, John Locke and Barack Obama

Louis XIV, the Sun King, was born on 5 September 1638. He died in 1715 after having ruled France for 72 years. Why should we care about a French king who died 300 years ago? He left behind him a country whose borders had been expanded to make France secure from invasion. He encouraged the arts - Moliere, Racine, Lully, Le Nôtre and many others - and founded the Academie Francaise and helped Moliere with the Comedie Francaise, the oldest national theatre. Both exist still. He quelled an early revolt of his aristocracy who opposed his ending their feudal rights - many of the revolt leaders were members of his own family, the house of Bourbon - by building the spectacular Versailles and forcing them to serve him by living there. It is the opinion of most historians that Louis XIV created the modern French state. Louis XIV has also received immense praise. The anti-Bourbon Napoleon described him not only as "a great king," but also as "the only King of France worthy of the name." Leibniz, the German Protestant philosopher, commended him as "one of the greatest kings that ever was." And Lord Acton admired him as "by far the ablest man who was born in modern times on the steps of a throne." Finally, Voltaire also dubbed his reign "an eternally memorable age," calling it " le Grand Siècle" (the "Great Century"). Louis XIV developed to its apex the theory of the divine right of kings. ~~~~~ John Locke, who was born in 1632 and died in 1704, was an almost identical contemporary of Louis XIV. Without the birthright of le Grand Louis, John Locke nevertheless made an impact on the world that was perhaps greater and more fundamental. Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. He believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance and that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions." Most scholars trace the phrase " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence, to Locke's theory of rights and individual liberty and responsibility. ~~~~~ It is said that Louis on his deathbed advised his heir with these words : "Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects." He was right. So was John Locke. Today, Think about this, dear readers, as we watch the debacle of an American President who mouths the Constitution and clings to it as a talisman without understanding either its words or its vision of the perfectibility of mankind - or the great efforts of human minds and hearts such as Loius XIV and John Locke who moved humanity along its path to full civilization.

Obama, Syria, Chemical Weapons and Simple Logic

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has passed by 10-7 the draft resolution giving President Obama limited authority to use military intervention, but not American ground troops, to limit and degrade the capability of the al-Assad regime to use chemical weapons against Syrians. The authority is limited in time unless renewed. And even this watered down authorization is criticized because many members of Congress and most Americans - as well as a great majority of Europeans and some world leaders - oppose any military intervention in the Syrian civil war. ~~~~~ Let's review which world leaders are opposing military intervention. (1). Russian President Vladimir Putin opposes any intervention as dangerous and meddling. According to the New York Times, from 2000 to 2010 Russia sold $1.5 billion worth of arms to Syria, making al-Assad Moscow’s seventh-largest client. During the current Syrian civil war, Russia threatened to veto any sanctions against the Syrian government, and continued to supply arms to the regime. Putin has consistently opposed any foreign intervention. On June 1, 2012, in Paris, while French President Hollande was calling for al-Assad to step down, Putin echoed the argument of the al-Assad regime that anti-regime "militants" were responsible for much of the bloodshed, rather than the shelling by Syrian forces and the civilian killings attributed to al-Assad. Why should we believe Vladimir Putin? (2). China is opposed to any military intervention in Syria. China has systematically suppressed political opposition leaders, jailing them, removing them from political positions, and even charging a renowned artist with tax evasion and placing him under house arrest as a way of silencing him. China controls access to tbe internet, preventing Chinese citizens from unfettered access to it. China has gulag-like prisons where politically incorrect Chinese are held in forced-work conditions. China is engaged in crimes against humanity in its decimation of the Tibetan people and their Dalai Lama-led Buddhist religion. Why should we believe China? ~~~~~ Dear readers, it is not comfortable to watch the spectacle of an American President who is generally indecisive in foreign affairs matters, who has ignored Congress, disdaining to include them in his policy decisions until now when he needs them to provide legitimacy for his desire to stop chemical attacks on Syrian civilians - he needs them because he has not bothered to form the international relationships that would have made achieving his goal much more likely. But, if we consider that the horrendous use of mustard gas during the First World War by Germany, and very late in the war by Britain using confiscated German stocks, led to the international Geneva Protocol of 1925 that prohibited the use of poison gases, including mustard gas, during warfare, known as chemical warfare, and if we consider that this kind of warfare was also prohibited by the later Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, which also prohibits the development production, stockpiling, and sale of such weapons. And, if we consider that chemical weapons have been employed in virtually every type of conflict, including interstate wars (Iran-Iraq), civil wars (Yemen), terrorist attacks (Japan), and by individuals (US). If we consider that rather than violating a rarely crossed "red line," Syrian gas reflects a fatal pattern. BUT, if we consider that the number of states possessing chemical weapons and the size of their stockpiles is diminishing because, unlike the toothless Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is a strong organization dedicated to the pursuit of universal chemical disarmament : the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW - located in The Hague). OPCW's 189 member-states agree not to use, stockpile, manufacture, or distribute chemical weapons and to open themselves to inspections. The results are astonishing: the OPCW has verified the destruction of 80% of the world's known stockpiles of chemical weapons, with programs underway to eliminate almost 100% of chemical weapons stockpiles. Only Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Angola and South Sudan are not signatories to the treaty. ~~~~~ Why do we need to know this now? Because President Obama has, as usual, picked the wrong argument. It is certainly necessary to eliminate al-Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles. But, a warning "shot across the bow," as Obama calls his proposal, will not accomplish that. Only the elimination of the al-Assad regime will make that possible. So, President Obama has led Congress, the American people and the world down a garden path. Shots across the bow would be a fireworks display meant to put a star in Obama's crown. Either we accept John McCain's correct evaluation and become involved in a "no-boots-on-the-ground" policy to oust the al-Assad regime --- or we stay home, watch al-Assad's next atrocity on CNN and elect a Congress that will step up to the position of world leadership that America finds itself in, whether its people like it or not. If not we?...don't even ask "who"...there is nobody out there. Nobody.

Kerry and Dempsey Take Obama's Chemical Weapons Case to Congress

We are now watching the unfolding in the US Congress of the tragi-comedy surrounding President Obama's indecisive posturing in the face of the al-Assad attack on Syrian civilians that left an estimated 1300 dead, including more than 400 children. The US military is reported to be hesitant to agree with President Barack Obama's plan to launch a missile strike on Syria as a warning that the world means to enforce the non-use of chemical weapons as set out in the international treaty. Current and former officers have said in interviews that they are uneasy about a potential Syrian missile strike because it could have unintended consequences, such as turning attention away from their exit from Afghanistan, the Washington Post has reported. Some military officials worry about retaliation from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while others fear ripple effects that could include Iran following through on its threat to attack Israel, retaliation from radical groups, or the US being charged with war crimes." The application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produces the outcome we seek," General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview with ABC News in August. Active-duty military leaders have said they feel strongly that a strike in Syria would serve no purpose for the US. "What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?" one retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning asked. "I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish." An Army lieutenant colonel told the Washington Post : "When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy,...It cannot appear to be scared or tepid. Remember, with respect to policy choices concerning Syria, we are discussing degrees of bad and worse." But General Dempsey has assured President Obama that the US military is ready to follow orders and has ships, missiles and an aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean on daily alert. ~~~~~ Dear readers, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is now holding hearings to question Secretary of State John Kerry and General Dempsey. The hearings will continue tomorrow in a closed session to discuss classified information. While it is not yet clear how the Senate or the House will vote, the concerns are clear and almost universally.held. First, no one wants to become embroiled in another Middle East ground war. Second, there is general agreement that al-Assad has used chemical weapons. Third, members of Congress have heard from their constituents that they do not trust the information being provided by the President and do not understand why America should have to carry this burden instead of regional nations. Fourth, the unintended consequences of a missile attack could be grave, including a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran and increased Russian support for al-Assad. Fifth, Russia and China should be exposed to the full weight of worldwide disgust for their positions in support of al-Assad which mean that they do not care about, or even agree with, the use of chemical weapons. ~~~~~ Thomas Jefferson said that the legislature (Congress) must have the power to declare war because the executive branch (the President) will always go to war more readily than the legislative branch. That idea was enshrined in the Constitution but the Congress later gave the President the power to engage in actions that do not constitute full-blown war. That division of the power to declare war or take lesser war-like action is at the constitutional heart of what we are now watching. Congress had ceded some of its power to the President and the current President, Barack Obama, seems to be in the process of trying to give that power back to Congress. Stay tuned.

President Obama Has Failed America and the World - He Should Do the Decent Thing

President Barack Obama, seeking congressional endorsement for US military action in Syria, invited John McCain and Lindsay Graham, two leading Senate foreign policy hawks, to the White House to try to sell the idea to a nation scarred by more than a decade of war and at a loss what to do about Syria, largely because they do not trust Obama or Congress. Obama said Saturday that he is seeking congressional approval for military strikes against al-Assad, causing Americans and Congress to be equally confused about what to do in Syria. Senators Graham and McCain, both Republicans, represent the most aggressive faction in Congress and have called on Obama to launch more comprehensive strikes with an aim of destroying President Bashar al-Assad's air power, his military command and control, Syria's ballistic missiles, and other military targets while at the same time increasing training and arming of opposition forces. Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers don't want to see military action at all. Members of the House Democratic caucus were to participate in an unclassified conference call Monday with Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Obama strategy with Congress seems to be to argue that failure to act against al-Assad would weaken any deterrence against the use of chemical weapons and could embolden not only al-Assad but also Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. On Sunday, senior Obama officials briefed lawmakers in private to explain why the US must act against al-Assad. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also made calls to individual lawmakers. Briefings and further sessions were planned for Tuesday and Wednesday. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans a meeting Tuesday. The Senate Armed Service Committee will meet Wednesday. Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, represents a more cautious approach to a military strike, asking to know more from the administration about why military action in Syria is necessary, what it will achieve and how it will be sufficiently limited to keep the US from being drawn further into the Syrian conflict. Representative Elijah Cummings said he was concerned the authorization might be "too broad." Representative Bennie G. Thompson, the senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the administration still has "work to do with respect to the resolution." Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine both said Sunday they are glad to have the chance to debate the issue in Congress. Kaine said on CBS that he is confident Congress will back up the principle that the use of chemical weapons violates international law and will agree to military strikes to punish Syria's government. Chambliss said it is important for Congress to discuss a military strike. "My constituents are war weary," said Chambliss. "They don't want to see us get involved in this." Kaine agreed that his state, Virginai, with all its connections to the military, has "a sense of fatigue and even a sense of skepticism about assertions with regard to the presence of weapons of mass destruction." If Americans and its elected congressional officials are confused about what to do in Syria, the international community is also ill-at-ease with Obama's explanations. So far, he is finding few international partners willing to engage in a conflict that has claimed more than 100,000 lives in the past 2½ years and dragged in terrorist groups on both sides of the battlefield. The British Parliament rejected the use of force in a vote last week. Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said Monday the information the US showed Moscow to prove the Syrian regime was behind the chemical attack was "absolutely unconvincing." Russian lawmakers have asked to go to Washington to talk with their counterparts. NATO has said it has seen sufficient evidence to confirm that the 21 August chemical attack was carried out by al-Assad forces but added that the envisaged pinpoint strikes do not require NATO command and control capabilities. ~~~~~ We are reaping the whirlwind that was created by Barack Obama's total failure to form or articulate a US foreign policy. It stretches far beyond the immediate Middle East crisis to Russia, China, North Korea and South America. He hangs on in Europe because of NATO and Great Britain and because of Europe's inability to defend itself without US back-up. Obama beat McCain to be elected US President in 2008 and McCain, a former military officer and Vietnamese prisoner of war, has retaken his Senate seat and, as senior Republican foreign policy and military affairs expert, his opinions carry great weight. From the beginning of the Syrian 'revolt,' John McCain has said that America needed to launch comprehensive strikes to destroy al-Assad's air power, military command and control, ballistic missiles, and other military targets, while at the same time increasing training and arming of opposition forces. President Obama said such actions would lead to more deaths, US arms falling into extremist hands as more jihadists entered Syria to radicalize the revolution, and to a wider regional war -- ALL this has happened because Obama thought his words would be enough. He either thought he did not need a policy...or he was incapable of creating one. The consequence? Today we have a Syrian war that has spread to Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. It has become a religious war between Sunnis and Shiites. Egypt, the critical US proxy in protecting Israel, no longer trusts America. The Arab League is even trying to pass resolutions meant to bolster Obama's fading resolve. AND, today, following Obama's latest major strategic error in refusing to use his war powers authority to strike al-Assad quickly, America and the world are at a loss what to do to help the defuddled American President. ~~~~~ McCain has often said the Syrian leader has used chemical weapons "a number of times before,...and the only thing that will stop that threat is to remove him from power." McCain hesitated, not saying Congress should override Obama's decision : "the consequences of the Congress of the United States overriding a decision of the president of the United States of this magnitude are really very, very serious. And already we're sending a bad signal to Iran, to North Korea, to Bashar al-Assad." McCain added the Syrian opposition's "morale has been devastated" by Obama's plan to wait for Congress, and "Bashar and his people are euphoric. The Iranians are happy....The president's indecision is "problematic." McCain said,"He [Obama] didn't say he [drew] a red line and by the way, 'I'm going to have to seek the approval of Congress.' He said it was a red line and the United States of America would act. And that is a big difference." McCain said Obama could have acted as other presidents, like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, to take military action, but this time there have been enough leaks that the Syrians know how many US ships and missiles are awaiting action : "I think this has serious consequences as far as steadfastness and purpose of this administration." But McCain does not expect al-Assad to negotiate, because he has too much power and is receiving arms from Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah. "We haven't given the Free Syria Army a single weapon," he said. "This is shameful. The only thing we've given these brave people dying by the droves are MREs that about to expire? That's the kind of assistance?" The answer from Obama came from Secretary of State Kerry : "Rather than have the debate after an attack, the president felt it was much more important for us to act with unity of purpose and in a concerted way." ~~~~~ Dear readers, it is time to act. Congress should follow the program laid out by Senator McCain. With or without President Obama's support. The program should be backed up by a Sense of Congress resolution that America will support, without US ground troops being involved, the Free Syrian Army and National Coalition in defeating al-Assad and rebuilding the decimated country. ~~~~~ AND WHEN THE IMMEDIATE STRIKES ARE OVER, President Obama should do the decent thing - for America and the world. Barack Obama is America's real security problem. He is not psychologically fit to be President of the United States. HE MUST RESIGN.