I further explore the means and consequences of the lies about the Syrian CW attack, suggesting we use our founding Document as a guide to action.

::::::::

From our Founding Fathers to Donald Trump, we have been warned about unjust and unwise wars. Here is our First Chief Justice on the subject, in Federalist #4:

"... it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."

Among those other motives are: a means for an unpopular President to gain public support, a way to shame critics during a time of crisis, and a way of expanding Presidential power. The black film Wag the Dog explored the first of these motives, in which a fake war is invented to distract the public from a looming sex scandal just before a Presidential election. (Here is a report from the Sun.co.uk: "REPORTS have emerged that US intelligence agencies were investigating the existence of more than one sordid tape allegedly involving President-elect Donald Trump.

BBC foreign correspondent Paul Wood claimed CIA sources had indicated to him last year that they had been informed of tapes in both Moscow AND St Petersburg." Here is a report from the NYDailynews 6 months ago: "The latest tale in the flood of sordid allegations against Donald Trump involves sex-and-cocaine parties supposedly hosted by the billionaire at his posh Plaza Hotel.

The Daily News could not independently confirm the report, based on information from two eyewitnesses, that guests at the decadent soirees included female models as young as age 15.The story by the Daily Beast charged Trump, then wed to second wife Marla Maples, regularly threw the wild parties in lavish suites at the renowned hotel he owned from 1988-95."

Here is Trump himself: "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab 'em by the p*ssy. You can do anything."

Here is the Chicago Tribune, commenting on Trump's falling approval ratings:

"The only thing that could get Trump out of this slump is a war. I'm not saying that's what the president wants, but I fear it could be where we're headed.

Wars have a way of pulling the country together, with everyone scrambling to line up behind our leader. Take former President George W. Bush, for example. His overall job approval rating skyrocketed 13 points to 71 percent after launching the Iraq War in 2003, according to Gallup polls.

The same thing happened with his dad. President George H.W. Bush saw his job approval rating jump to 18 points to 82 percent after the start of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, Gallup found.

"Professor Miller reports (from Quora): " In the second book, "The Third Reich in Power", Evans describes and cites considerable documentary evidence that this popularity was considerably less than we might think now. (Hitler had lost the Presidential election with 37% of the vote)........, with the success of each bold move without war (including the unopposed invasion of Austria) ....Hitler's popularity soared..."

Der Spiegel reported: "There were still many Germans who were skeptical of Hitler when he became chancellor in 1933. But Fuhrer propaganda and military success soon turned him into an idol......Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Fuhrer."

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!" Trump tweeted Aug. 30, 2013.

"Trump blasted then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's position on Syria -- that the U.S. military should take out al-Assad's airfields, the exact type of strikeTrump ordered Thursday -- by saying attacking a Russian-backed government could start World War III."

And now we must deal not only with Trump's hypocrisy but the fact that progressive like Sanders have joined the "Assad is a war criminal" chorus.

What is the proper response to betrayal?

Given that Syria's CWs were all removed by mid 2014, according to the OPCW, and that al-Nustra/al-Quada is known to have and to have used CW (according to the UN, British intelligence, and the Pentagon: see Hersh's The Red Line and the Rat Line), it appears the most likely true explanation is the one given by the Russians: that Syrian bombers unloaded on a "rebel" ammunition dump which had sarin and it was thus leaked.

This is the protection needed when in presence of CW.

The photos of White Helmets treating nerve gas victims shows them without gloves or masks........those who can believe absurdities can commit atrocities (Voltaire). The images that so sickened US politicians that they had no response but to bomb Syria showed "rescuers" without any form of proper protection.

Masdarnews reported: ""....White Helmets are handling the corpses of people without sufficient safety gear, most particularly with the masks mostly used, as well as no gloves. Although this may seem insignificant, understanding the nature of sarin gas that the opposition claim was used, only opens questions.

The White Helmets, whose propaganda is accepted unchallenged by the corporate media, have been charged by Swedish doctors of killing children (injecting opioids into the heart) to stimulate nerve gas symptoms for distribution to Western media, and they apologized when one of their photos of rescuing a victim was found to be a mannequin. This is the source of information that the media and our politicians, from Trump to Sanders, have accepted as valid. This is what I call The Death of Truth. It has two parts: 1) to accept a lie as true 2) to do nothing about it.

It is the loss of memory which enables new atrocities, and therefore it is worth remembering that North Vietnamese torpedo boats were accused of attacking US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. This was used to justify the escalation of war (after JFK had directed a total withdrawal, before being murdered), tho the Navy later admitted there was no such attack. 3 million were slaughtered by this fake news. The fake news of Saddam's WMD program led to a million slaughtered in a war that has never ended. Each lie is a betrayal, a dagger into the heart of truth, and so each lie must be expose and those who promote these lies exposed as well.

The US response, to bomb the airfield where the sarin was supposedly loaded onto the planes, has shown no evidence of nerve gas injuries, which would be the case if they had sarin there. The only "evidence" presented that Syria dropped CW is 1) al Nustra "activists" and 2) "survivors of nerve gas" who claim they saw "chemical bombs" falling. Can we trust the terrorists? It appears that not only Trump, NATO, but also our own Bernie Sanders have signed on.

Do people suffering from nerve gas attacks have the ability to describe their experiences when the symptoms include"contraction of pupils, profuse salivation, convulsions, involuntary urination and defecation, and, when fatal, death by asphyxiation due to a loss of control of the respiratory muscles?

Do "chemical bombs" look any different from ordinary bombs? I looked up images and they look alike. Can people running from dropping bombs identify that they are "chemical bombs," falling at 600 mph as they flee in horror? Can we believe such absurdities or those who endorse them?

And where is the physical evidence?

Lacking evidence, given that Syria was declared to have removed all CW, given the history of al Qaeda having and using CW (and using false flag narratives), given the source of the reports as the terrorists themselves, given the total lack of logic in Assad sabotaging the Trump decision to allow him to rule, given the motive of al Qaeda to both use CW and blame Assad for any atrocities using them................how can our most progressive leaders, like Sanders, accept the same lies that Trump is now acting out? Where does this leave us?

In response to the lies promoted by the "activists (ie the terrorists)," here is the response of our most respected progressive leaders:

"Congressman Peter Welch, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Patrick Leahy all called Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad a "war criminal" in written statements...." They urge caution in response, but all are guilty of accepting the lies of terrorists and the kind of absurdities that justify atrocities. Where are the leaders challenging the lies? Where is the media exposing the absurdities?

It breaks my heart and I cannot come to terms with it. It reminds me of the many times that the Communists, in Spain and elsewhere, have fought with the fascists to defeat their socialist rivals. It reminds me that when JFK directed a total withdrawal from Vietnam, he was killed and his successor quickly reversed his decision, leading to the death of 3 million.

When progressives lie down with fascists and terrorists, it's time to rip up the old game plan and complete the unfinished American Revolution, revolting against rule without consent, which always, always leads to war.

Here is the man who, tho a large slave owner and who never fought as a soldier, laid down our foundational values of equality and consent:

" "The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

Where is the outrage against military despostism, except, as Goebbels taught, displaced onto targets of hatred?

There is the answer to my question: Jefferson thought the unjust rule of those who lack majority consent sufficient grounds to invoke the right of revolution. The ONLY response to "the disregard of law" is revolution.

Today, the gun is a weapon that would be used against us and justified if we take up arms. But the principle of revolution, in our time, has been successful only in cases of massive public revolt, as in Eastern Europe, the Philippines, and our own Civil Rights Movement. The Civil War, with 600,000 dead, did not end legal persecution of African-Americans, but the the non-violent protests of the 60's did. Let us revolt using the revolutionary strategy of non-violence resistance. Only when the means match the goal can we succeed.

But if the bombs are falling, it's too late. Then, as Gandhi said, violence is preferable to surrender. I would not call it violence to use force to defeat violence: I would call it self-preservation, the very opposite of violence. But we have the opportunity, before the virus of violence engulfs us, to fight back with the tools of non-violence, with the alternative media of the internet, and with the sure knowledge that if we do not, only disaster can ensue...and we will be complicit.

""The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (founder of modern conservative philosophy).

(Article changed on April 9, 2017 at 16:43)

(Article changed on April 9, 2017 at 16:58)

Authors Bio:

retired, working radical egalitarian/libertarian socialist old school independent, vegan, survivor