By Ed Hightower and Barry Grey, wsws.org

On September 12, US Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. filed a motion to appear at oral arguments and present an amicus curiae brief before the US Supreme Court in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway. The case concerns the legality of opening town meetings with a prayer and is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court next year.
The Obama administration is intervening on the side of Greece, New York authorities, who are seeking to overturn a ruling last year by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding a suit by citizens of the town, located near the city of Rochester. The suit, filed by Susan Golloway and Linda Stephens, a Jew and an atheist respectively, seeks to end the prayers on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion.

The intervention by the White House in support of official sanction for religion represents one of the most direct and open federal attacks on the separation of church and state—a core democratic principal of the US republic enshrined in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights—in American history. That the revolutionary founders who drafted the Bill of Rights, inspired by the Enlightenment, considered the ban on any official state sanction of religion fundamental to all other democratic rights is indicated by the fact that it precedes the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, press and assembly.

The Obama administration’s decision to intervene in opposition to the separation of church and state is entirely in line with its general assault on democratic rights and its ceaseless efforts to placate and encourage the most right-wing political forces in the country. It follows Obama’s capitulation last year to the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion forces that oppose a provision of his health care overhaul requiring employers to provide contraceptives to their employees free of charge.

[pullquote] Shameless opportunism and disregard for the law has long characterized the Obama regime. Catering to votes on the cheap and taking the easy way out of any issue, even if it means accommodating the most backward sectors of society, is a trademark of this cowardly administration and a good reflection of the rottenness of the Democratic party. [/pullquote]

It also conforms to the administration’s support for indefinite detention without judicial process for alleged terrorists, its practice of extra-judicial assassinations, including of US citizens, and its defense of state surveillance of the telephone calls, emails, text messages and Internet searches of all Americans and countless millions of people around the world.

Greece, New York is a town of 94,000 people in Monroe County. Residents Galloway and Stephens sued the town in federal court in 2008 due to its practice of opening its monthly meetings with a prayer, typically offered by a chaplain of one or another Christian denomination. The town conducts its public business at such meetings, including voting on proposed ordinances, swearing in new employees, holding public hearings and bestowing awards.

The trial court granted the town’s motion for summary judgment in 2010. In May 2012, the US Court of Appeals overturned the trial court ruling.

The Second Circuit found that the town meetings had been previously opened with a moment of silence, until 1999, when Town Supervisor John Auberger began inviting local clergy to start the meetings with a prayer. A typical prayer requested that those present bow their heads and concluded by saying “we pray,” and “Amen.”

Between 1999 and 2007, a Christian clergyman offered every such prayer. These most often included references to specifically Christian dogma, for example, “in Jesus’ name we pray,” “we ask this in Christ’s name,” or “in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who lives with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever.”

The prayers were part of the meeting minutes. The monthly prayer-giver received a plaque from the Town Board thanking him or her for performing the service of “monthly chaplain.”
After complaints by Galloway and Stephens, the town allowed for a token participation by non-Christian clergy, including a Jew, a Bhuddist, a member of the Bahai faith and a Wiccan priestess, all of whom made theistic invocations of a more general character.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Fourteenth Amendment extends this ban (“Congress shall make no law, etc.”) to state governments. Municipal governments, such as the town of Greece, derive their authority from state law.

The American revolutionaries understood that there was an inextricable connection between the union of clerical and state power and the suppression of individual liberty. Their view was that separation of church and state was a precondition for democracy.

To cite Thomas Jefferson’s famous quotation: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

The Second Circuit did not explicitly find that the town’s official prayers were unconstitutional. It handed down a more limited ruling focusing on the tendency of the town officials to favor clergy of the Christian faith.

Even this narrow ruling against the town of Greece was too much for the Obama administration.
The Obama administration solicitor general’s brief argues that Supreme Court precedent not only allows prayer at legislative meetings, but forbids the courts from scrutinizing whether most or even all of such prayers derive from a single religion, in this case, Christianity. The brief claims that constitutional precedent “calls for neither that type of inquiry into the content of the prayers nor that type of court-ordered sectarian diversity.” In other words, a legislative body is within its rights to feature exclusively Christian invocations at the commencement of every meeting. This represents exactly the type of establishment of religion that the American revolutionaries feared.

Obama, a one-time professor of constitutional law, invokes religious obscurantism quite frequently, especially when he gives official pronouncements on the mass shootings and other “senseless” events whose social roots he seeks to conceal. Now the president lines up with the fundamentalist, anti-democratic position of Christian-right groups like the one funding the town of Greece’s defense, the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom.

This outfit bears the motto “For Faith. For Justice.” It boasts over 150 interventions in cases like Town of Greece. Its web site features an appeal for people to donate to a fund fighting against “anti-Christian extremists” in “powerful groups… promoting approval of homosexual behavior, encouraging students to explore their sexual identity [and] inviting young children to learn about sex at younger and younger ages.”

It is worthwhile comparing Obama’s contempt for the establishment clause to the attitude articulated by John F. Kennedy when he was running for president in 1960, seeking to become the first Catholic to hold the highest US office. In remarks that were, at the time, considered to be a clear summation of the consensus of the US political establishment on the issue of church and state, he told a meeting of Protestant ministers in Houston, Texas on September 12, 1960:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Kennedy’s remarks serve as a measure of the decay of American democracy in the intervening period and the collapse of democratic consciousness within the US ruling elite and its political establishment.

The authors are high-ranking members of the Social Equality Party.

by GUI ROCHAT

Leading reasons why a majority in the US opposed even a “limited” US strike on Syria.

by Image Credit : Rebel Youth, Peoples Voice, in Solidarity with Syria.

by Janet Weil and Lisa Savage, CODEPINK

These are the reasons that we heard or read about why a majority in the US opposed even a “limited” US strike on Syria:  1 –  It won’t do any good.  The insanity of killing people with cruise missiles and other conventional weapons to “send a message” that killing people with poison gas is WRONG was repeated over and over, to good effect. Also people were, sensibly, wary of intervening in a civil war that is also a regional conflict .

2 – We’re supporting Al-Qaeda now, really?! I heard this at the August 4 Restore the 4th rally in SF as this crisis started to build. Mostly a libertarian and right-wing message though Dennis Kucinich came down hard on this as well. Overall wariness not only about Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda in Syria but unease about violent Syrian opposition. Closely related to this was the suspicion that some elements of the opposition were responsible, wittingly or unwittingly, for the chemical weapons attack, not the Assad regime.

 3 – US going to war in Iraq didn’t help that country. Yeah, no kidding. No news to us, but for millions in this country who believed the propaganda in 2002-2003, the lesson from Iraq is finally sinking in. Some (a lot?) of people saw this as Iraq II, and they weren’t having it.

 4 – We’re not going to war for Obama. Republicans and Libertarians were the first and some of the strongest opposition; see Bruce Gagnon’s analysis here. Some of this opposition was based in a racist desire to thwart our first “black” (really, biracial) president on anything, but some was just basic partisan politics and/or principled opposition based on a lack of trust and respect for Obama’s policies overall.

 5 – It costs too much, and we need the money at home. The Bring Our War $$ Home messaging has been circulating since 2009, and many people across the political spectrum picked up on it. Also sequester cuts happening simultaneously with this latest propaganda push, and the weak economy, added to this.

  6 – Our military has been stretched thin and overdeployed for years. The US war in Afghanistan is still going on. Active duty troops photographed themselves opposing another war – an unusual and brave move. People didn’t believe Kerry’s/Obama’s reassurances about how limited and little a US (air) war on Syria would be.

7 –  Libya.  Even though this country’s conditions are not in the conversation/media much, people are (dimly) aware that there have been many unintended, negative consequences from the US/NATO air war there.

 8 – The UK Parliament voted NO. It’s one thing to say, write, chant “Say no to war” — it’s quite another, and deeper, thing for our country’s closest ally to do so in a public vote of their legislature, pushed by their citizens. The vote being close didn’t even matter – it was an historic NO, and a pivotal moment in this crisis – the push to “take it to Congress” really took off after this vote.

Final thoughts: This crisis isn’t over, and the US warships, jets and other machinery of destruction are still hanging fire in the eastern Mediterranean, at vast taxpayer expense. Going forward, we in peace/antiwar organizations, from whatever political perspectives, need to amplify these “talking points of the people” and stay ready to take action again.

There isn’t a single “movement” against war, but an informal, multifocal opposition from across the political spectrum. “Yelling at empty buildings” aka the huge marches of the past especially in DC, may be a tactic that’s outlived its usefulness. Americans live on our phones these days, and we found ourselves ready to use them to call Congress. The timing of this crisis was helpful — we were able to show up at representatives’ town halls during the August recess and speak our minds in person. For now, that was enough to avert a war. More may well be needed later in the year, as the military-industrial-media complex hasn’t gone away. But for now, let’s reflect on a rare, and much-needed victory, staying humble and nimble for the challenges ahead.

You can take action by signing CODEPINK’s petition to US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power:  take a strong role in pushing for a ceasefire and a negotiated solution for Syria during the Geneva II Convention, push for an increase in US aid to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, and recognize the egregious abuse of drone technology by the US, and support a United Nations ban on the use of killer drones.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lisa Savage is a Local Coordinator for CODEPINK in Maine, and an active organizer for the Bring Our War $$ Home campaign.  

Paint It Black

by DOUGLAS VALENTINE

Joseph Alsop: an upper class twit who fashioned himself an intellectual, and a merry conduit for imperial lies. Today his species proliferates like fungus.

As soon as Kevin Drum at Mother Jones absolved the CIA of spewing poison gas as a provocation, many on the Liberal Left cautiously threw their weight behind Obama and the thrill of waging a punitive war on Syria.

“Perhaps regime change is a good idea,” Tom Hayden speculated in The Nation.

Left paterfamilias Noam Chomsky, who generally shows an appreciation for the subtleties of covert action, claimed that America is not supplying its Al Qaeda mercenary army with arms – even though Eric Schmidt at The New York Times reported over a year ago that CIA officers in Turkey were “helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arm.”

As if Hayden fomenting war and Chomsky covering for the CIA isn’t irony enough, Drum cleared the CIA in response to allegations of a provocation made by Rush Limbaugh.   Which raises the question, what are the facts about the CIA’s penchant for “provoked responses” like the one in the Tonkin Gulf that started the Vietnam War?

Simply stated, black propaganda is one of many criminal but legally deniable things the CIA does.  It often involves committing a heinous crime and blaming it on an enemy by planting false evidence, and then getting a foreign newspaper to print the CIA’s scripted version of events, which sympathetic journalists in America broadcast to the gullible public.

In the case of Syria, the CIA is using cooked Israeli “intelligence” as a catalyst – which is why, as Johnstone and Bricmont explain, the “intelligence” is so “dubious.”

Black propaganda has other “intelligence” applications as well, and is often used to recruit informants, and create deserters and defectors.

In his autobiography Soldier, Anthony Herbert told how he reported for duty in 1965 in Saigon at the joint CIA-military Specials Operations Group.  The spooks asked him to join a secret psywar program. “What they wanted me to do was to take charge of execution teams that wiped out entire families and tried to make it look as though the VC themselves had done the killing. The rationale was that other Vietnamese would see that the VC had killed another VC and would be frightened away from becoming VC themselves. Of course, the villagers would then be inclined to some sort of allegiance to our side.”

As counter-terror guru David Galula explained, “Pseudo insurgents are a way to get intelligence and sow suspicion at the same time between the real guerrillas and the population.”

In a similar case in 1964, a famous CIA propaganda officer organized three armed “survey teams” which operated in neighboring hamlets simultaneously.  When Vietcong propaganda teams departed from a hamlet, his cut-throat cadre would move in and speak to one person from each household, so the VC “would have to punish everyone after we left.”

In other words the CIA’s mercenaries (like some the CIA’s mercenaries in Syria) were provocateurs, setting people up for recriminations, for intelligence and publicity purposes.

Here’s another example: in 1964, CIA officer Nelson Brickham worked in the Sino-Soviet Relations Branch, where he managed black propaganda operations designed to cause friction between the USSR and China.  At the heart of these black ops were false flag recruitments, in which CIA case officers posed as Soviet intelligence officers and, using actual Soviet cipher systems and methodology, recruited Chinese diplomats, who believed they were working for the Russians. The CIA case officers used the Chinese dupes to create all manner of mischief.

Brickham in 1967 created the Phoenix program in South Vietnam.   The Phoenix program’s operations chief in 1970, Colonel Thomas McGrevey, had a “penetration agent” inside COSVN – the Central Office of South Vietnam.   COSVN’s deputy finance director was the penetration agent.  The deputy alerted McGrevey when the finance director was going on vacation, enabling McGrevey to mount a black propaganda campaign which framed the finance director for running off with embezzled funds.

A circular about the Phoenix program issued by the revolutionary Security Service in 1970, described how the nationalists viewed the CIA.  As stated in the circular, “the most wicked maneuvers” of the CIA “have been to seek out every means by which to terrorize revolutionary families and force the people to disclose the location of our agents and join the People’s Self-Defense Force. They also spread false rumors.  Their main purpose is to jeopardize the prestige of the revolutionary families, create dissension between them and the people, and destroy the people’s confidence in the revolution. In addition, they also try to bribe poor and miserable revolutionary families into working for them.”

Forged letters are a CIA specialty. Former CIA officer Philip Agee told how he mounted a successful operation using forged letters against Ecuadoran Antonio Flores Benitez, a key member of the Communist revolutionary movement.   “By bugging Flores’ phone, we found out a lot of what he was doing. His wife was a blabbermouth. He made a secret trip to Havana and we decided to do a job on him when he landed back in Ecuador. With another officer, I worked all one weekend to compose a “report” from Flores to the Cubans. It was a masterpiece. The report implied that Flores’ group had already received funds from Cuba and was now asking for more money in order to launch guerrilla operations in Ecuador. My Quito station chief loved it so much he just had to get into the act. So he dropped the report on the floor and walked on it awhile to make it look pocket-worn. Then he folded it and stuffed it into a toothpaste tube-from which he had spent three hours carefully squeezing out all the toothpaste. He was like a kid with a new toy. So then I took the tube out to the minister of the treasury, who gave it to his customs inspector. When Flores came through customs, the inspector pretended to go rummaging through one of his suitcases. What he really did, of course, was slip the toothpaste tube into the bag and then pretend to find it there. When he opened the tube, he of course “discovered” the report. Flores was arrested and there was a tremendous scandal. This was one of a series of sensational events that we had a hand in during the first six months of 1963. By late July of that year, the climate of anti-Communist fear was so great that the military seized a pretext and took over the government, jailed all the Communists it could find and outlawed the Communist Party.”

Likewise the catalyst for the 1973 coup in Chile was a forged document-detailing a leftist plot to start a reign of terror – which was discovered by the enemies of President Salvador Allende Gossens.  The result was a violent military coup, which the CIA officers (who had set it in motion through disinformation in the Chilean press) sat back and watched from their hammocks in the shade.

And on and on it goes.

General Ed Lansdale formalized CIA black propaganda practices in the early 1950s in the Philippines.  To vilify the Communists and win support of Americans, one of his Filipino commando units would dress as rebels and commit atrocities on civilians, and then another unit would magically arrive with cameras to record the staged scenes and chase the “terrorists” away.   Cameras were the key.

The CIA also concocted lurid tales of Vietminh soldiers’ disemboweling pregnant Catholic women, castrating priests, and sticking bamboo slivers in the ears of children so they could not hear the Word of God.  Lansdale’s henchman, CIA agent-cum-journalist Joseph Alsop, gleefully reported this black propaganda.

The American “press” is the vital, arrogant, fatal, dominant X in black propaganda.  When it comes to the CIA and the American press, one black hand washes the other.  To gain access to CIA officials, reporters suppress or distort stories.  They sell their black souls for scoops.  In return, CIA officials leak stories to them.  At its most incestuous, reporters and CIA officers are blood relatives.  At one point, The New York Times correspondent in Vietnam, James Lemoyne, just happened to be the brother of the CIA’s counter-terror team chief in the Delta, Navy Commander Charles Lemoyne.

In a democratic society the media ought to investigate and report objectively on the government, which is under no obligation to inform the public of its activities and which, when it does, puts a “spin” on the news.  As part of the Faustian Pact, when government activities are conducted in secret, illegally, reporters look away rather than jeopardize profitable relationships (or careers).  The intended result is that the unwitting public is robbed of its freedom of speech – for how can you speak freely if you don’t know what’s going on?

If Lansdale hadn’t had Alsop to print his black propaganda, there probably would have been no Vietnam War.   Likewise, Judith Miller, disgraced facilitator of the war on Iraq and rehabilitated Fox KKK-TV correspondent, brought you the Iraq War through false documents provided by CIA analysts.

We rarely know who the Alsops and Millers are in our midst, until after the fact.  The CIA has a strict policy of keeping its atrocities to itself.  And it is aided, in its eternal quest to deceive the American public, by the fact that black propaganda validates the beliefs of the Kevin Dumbs among us, as it assures their imagined security and sense of being exceptional.

In fact, black propaganda operations, and the CIA itself, are antithetical to democratic institutions.

A big part of the CIA’s current success is its ability to deliver its message through Left publications, and the Left’s unstated policy of self-censorship in regard to CIA operations.   Most insidious, perhaps, are the former CIA officers who claim to be anti-war, and seek a veil of immunity by claiming to have been “analysts.”  This is akin to saying “I was a bookkeeper for the Mafia.  I never killed anyone.”

Of course it’s the bookkeepers who tell the bosses the names and addresses of the delinquents who haven’t paid their extortion money this week.  The Phoenix Directorate in Saigon had analysts performing the same assassination, kidnapping and torture function on an industrial scale.

Despite the popular portrayal of the CIA as patriotic guys and girls risking everything to do a dirty job, the typical CIA officer is a sociopath without the guts to go it alone in the underworld.  They gravitate to the CIA because they are protected there by the all-powerful Cult of Death that rules America.

The most dangerous facet of having former CIA officers slithering around is their uniform message that the CIA is necessary.   These are not Phil Agees, revealing the ugly truth and calling for the CIA’s abolition.  Like all the CIA’s political and psychological warfare experts, they are at the forefront of the war on terror, using psywar to achieve the goals of the Cult of Death that rules America.  The result is a theatre of the absurd, a world of illusion.

Now we are told that the CIA Syrian mercenaries may launch a chemical attack on Israel from government-controlled territories as a “major provocation.”  What you can be sure of is that some provocation will be launched and that the press, including most of the Left, will cover it up.

Doug Valentine is the author of five books, including The Phoenix Program.  See www.douglasvalentine.com or write to him at dougvalentine77@gmail.com

by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

The Obama administration tells the American public that its “intelligence” on Syrian government culpability for chemical attacks is ironclad, and that the “world” agrees with Washington. But much of the planet clearly disagrees. “Is it possible that the ‘world’ does not equate their interests with American interests?”

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized…That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” – President Obama August 20, 2012

It is now generally accepted as fact that on August 21, 2013 a nerve agent, probably sarin gas was used on the Syrian civilian population. According to Dr. Bart Janssens, from Doctors Without Borders [5], “[T]he reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent…convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress…”

What is not known is who is responsible for the chemical attack. The United States has placed the blame on the Assad regime. President Obama stated, “…the United States (has) presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people. Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.”

Other credible sources believe that the case against the Assad regime is not as former CIA director George Tenet said about WMD’s in Iraq, a “slam dunk.” According to the Times of Israel [6], “The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, US intelligence officials say.”

There are conflicting perceptions of reality and requisite action or response. President Obama claims that chemical weapons have been used; the US claims that it has evidence that the Assad regime used them; ergo military intervention (airstrikes) must be the response by the “International Community.” Other countries such as Germany, Russia, China, and Britain agree that chemical weapons have been used but don’t agree that the US “evidence” that Assad used them is as conclusive as the US claims. Also, other countries don’t agree that even if Assad used chemical weapons a military response is the best response. A military response could actually exacerbate the situation not make it better.

“What is not known is who is responsible for the chemical attack.”

President Obama has stated a number of times that the “world” is aghast at the use of chemical weapons. He called the Syrian attack a “challenge to the world”. He is also claiming that he did not set the “red-line.” In Sweden he stated, ‘‘I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line…‘The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of world population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent.’’

First question, when did the American government, when did President Obama become the spokesperson for the world? Second question, if the world is so aghast at this attack why is most of the “world” against American intervention into the Syrian Civil War? Is it possible that the “world” does not equate their interests with American interests?

It is important to understand that the Syrian “rebels” are not a monolith. There are a number of factors, some political, religious, and cultural that are motivating different groups to engage in war. Also, within those factors are various actors that have different if not conflicting motivations. It is possible that defectors from the Assad regime have given access to chemical stockpiles to certain rebel forces. It is possible that al Qaeda affiliated forces have used chemical weapons with the hope of drawing the US into the conflict. With US intervention in the conflict it becomes an easier recruiting tool for al Qaeda affiliated forces. These are just a few examples of why the “world” is not so quick to cast their lots with US action.

One of the factors driving President Obama is the fact that he has backed himself into a corner with his own irresponsible rhetoric. He never should have used the term “red- line” to begin with. Just as the adage is “don’t pull a gun on a person unless you are prepared to use it” there is also an adage in diplomatic circles, “don’t draw a line in the sand unless you are prepared to take action if it is crossed.”

Now that President Obama has injected the “red-line” into the Syrian Civil War; if he fails to act; what does that say about his “red-line” with Iran? The Israeli newspaper Haaretz [7] has laid this out very clearly, “A president cannot commit his nation to a red line if he is also committed to securing congressional approval before responding to the crossing of that red line. What if Congress denies approval? Must the president still keep his red line commitment? If he does not, what does this say about other red line commitments, such as that made regarding Iran’s efforts to secure nuclear weapons?”

It was also irresponsible for President Obama to say [8], “I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets… But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests… I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.” That’s not a “decision” that’s inconsistent muttering and doublespeak.

The Syrian Civil War is a perilous situation. This is not the time for inconsistent and dangerous rhetoric. President Obama continues to talk in the “world” context but the longer this plays out the more it looks like he’s going to have to go it alone. He has indicated that he is prepared to do that, the problem is he will go it alone at our expense.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the Sirisu/XM Satellite radio channel 110 call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues with Leon” Go to www.wilmerleon.com [9] or email:wjl3us@yahoo.com [10]. www.twitter.com/drwleon [11] and Dr. Leon’s Prescription at Facebook.com

© 2013 InfoWave Communications, LLC