Demonizing Putin

It is easy to sum up our diplomatic strategy in Ukraine in one sentence. “Vladimir Putin is a bully”. Our government has used these exact words. Demonizing someone is only effective as a strategy if there is some higher power to which to appeal. As the world is today, there is no power higher than the nation state. This begs the question, “To whom is the Obama Administration appealing, and to what code of laws are they referring when they characterize Putin’s actions as illegal?” It doesn’t seem that they know. It seems to be some mythical “international community” that the President believes will follow his every whim because he is Obama.

Our State Department and our President have made this a poor substitute for an actual diplomatic strategy.

Our government and ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made a comparison to Hitler in what looks like a desperate attempt to find a historical parallel but is really more pandering to this “international community” that they believe they lead. I offer a much more obvious and appropriate episode of history. One need not go further back than to the nineteen-sixties.

In November of 1982 Yuri Andropov, a sort of hero to Vladimir Putin, becomes General Secretary of the Communist Party. Yuri Andropov made the decision to invade Afghanistan but this is not the most striking similarity but it is Andropov’s most well known legacy.

In 1968 Alexander Dubcek was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia bringing with him a program of liberalising reform. It resembled the new direction of the government of Ukraine. Yuri Andropov, the new head of the KGB, started an aggressive program of disinformation consisting of rumors of a NATO backed coup. This is again, just like in Ukraine. Andropov instituted what the Soviet government called “active measures” which is essentially manipulating a situation through kidnappings, assassinations, etc. Just like in Ukraine.

The reform movement known as the “Prague Spring” was crushed by Andropov’s KGB and the end result was a Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Just like in Ukraine.



A Word On International Law

This journal has always taken the position against a military strike against Syria. There are humanitarian concerns such as dead civilians that will inevitably result. That has been our concern for the people of Syria. Our concern for the nation of Syria and the future of the nation state however has been our government’s assault on the sovereignty of another nation. It seems that every serious member of this national discussion that is in opposition of military strike proposes other options that further erode the national sovereignty of both sides, and I begin to wonder if that is their true aim.

This journal takes the position that the best course of action is to do nothing. We keep hearing that a strike on Syria would be in violation of “International Law”. Can anyone explain what this international law is? There are no international treaties signed by the United States that prohibit war on another country, and our people have never consented to be governed by any body, certainly not a foreign one, to govern them. We have consented to be governed by our Federal, State, County, and City governments, and those governments are only legitimate as long as they have our consent.

One of the main arguments against Assad’s government is that somehow his people have not consented to be governed by him. Those same people are proposing handing the crisis and right of governance and military action over to an international body to which neither the United States nor the Syrians have given consent.

To erode our sovereignty and hand power over to ANY body or leader outside this country and outside our constitution is an act of treason, and this journal is bold enough to call it out as such.

More to come shortly…..

A Time For Reflection, A Letter From the Editor

Several things have been weighing heavy on my mind of late. Lets pray for peace, if it be God’s will, for the safety of innocent Syrians, for freedom and liberty for the people of Egypt, for the safety of Israel, and let us pray for dissidents. Let us pray for the right to dissent and for the wisdom required for dissidence.

Let us pray for guidance during the upcoming economic turmoil, and the foresight to prepare for famine.

Please join with your churches in praying for wisdom for our leaders who are at the moment wisely or unwisely headed to conflict, and pray for wisdom for the people in our republic to direct our leaders to peace.

Pray for those men and women of conscience in our government who have been driven to do what is right to protect our country, that they remember to first seek to understand before seeking to be understood.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.  –Matthew 5:9

Shana Tova

-The Editor

Martin Luther King Jr.

Our government asks us to remember the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 when we are screened and groped at the airport. They ask us to remember 9/11 when we follow procedure to get a bank account. They want us to remember 9/11 when they tell us they need to use warrantless searches and wiretaps and spy on our phone calls for “safety”. Today they ask us to forget 9/11 as they attempt to arm and support Al-Qaeda1 in Syria. This is not something we at Ary Global Foreign Policy Journal can do.  We can not support dishonoring the sovereignty of another nation to aid a force singing praises of Osama bin Laden2 and slaughtering Christians3.

Remember this: While shuffling the names of men to blow up every morning on “Terror Tuesday”4 5 like a mad man, Barack Obama has a bust6 of Martin Luther King JR in his office watching what has been called the fruition of his dream and legacy.

We may only have days, or less before our country bombs Syria. Here at this journal, we have been concerned about this statement by General Wesley Clark for some time, and it is even more urgent now:

Contact your representatives in congress and demand they vote no on authorization for war.


1. Obama backed rebels name brigade Osama bin-Laden

2. Obama backed rebels celebrate 9/11

3. Obama funded rebels behead Christians

4. “Terror Tuesday” Drone Strikes

5. Out of Sight Out of Mind Interactive Drone Strike Map

6. Oval Office Bust of MLK


Obama funding rebels beheading Christians, using child soldiers

Obama backed rebels praise bin-Laden

FSA rebels name brigade Osama bin Laden

US-backed terrorists behead 40 Syrians including baby

MLK Bust

Seperation of Powers

It has come to the attention of this journal that several members of Congress believe that they should cede their authority to declare war to the Office of the President. They claim no philosophic high ground in taking this position, they merely make claims about the nature of the Executive Branch which have no legal substantiation. I charge that they do so willingly, and if not they should withdraw their remarks and explain themselves.

Peter Thomas King Representative for New York’s second congressional district has made the outrageous statement that President Obama is “abdicating his responsibility”1 on Syria and that he does not need congress to wage war. This outrageous statement is clearly incompatible with Article one2 of the US Constitution. Peter King should take a second look at the oath3 he is breaking if he continues attempting to abdicate legislative power which his constituents have given him on loan. Federalist number 694 among others makes this point even clearer:

“The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

As we have said in this journal in the past, the legislature of this country, or any other branch of government for that matter, has neither the authority, nor any legitimate reason to cede power to any of the other co-equal branches of government. To attempt to do so would surrender the legitimacy of the government, violate the constitution and break their oath of office.

This journal will always be ready and willing to continue to explain basic American law and the meaning of the oath of office to those unwilling to honor their office.


1. Peter King on Syria

2. Article 1 of US Constitution

3. U.S.C. Title 5 Oath

4. Federalist No. 69


Monroe Doctrine

House GOP Leadership Responds On Syria

Today, Speaker of the House John Boehner’s Press Office released the following statement:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) today issued the following joint statement.

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress.  We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised.  In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th.  This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”1


I am glad to see that the house leadership, for the moment, is not ceding their constitutional authority to the Executive branch. It is an important point to make, which this journal has made before2, that under Article One of the U.S. Constitution the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress.
An equally important point to make on this matter is, should the issue arise, the U.S. Congress does not have the authority, nor should it have, to cede any of its duties to either of the other co-equal branches of government.
I would also remind members of Congress that the American people are not behind this proposed war. Beyond the obvious points made about death and destruction, the United States is in no immediate danger. The country does not benefit in any way from attacking Syria, whether it be with missiles, airstrikes, or “boots on the ground”. We have municipal bankruptcies34
crumbling infrastructure and millions of jobless.
Missiles cost millions of dollars and we have already met our debt ceiling. According to NBC news from $607,000 to $1.4 million or more, depending on how you account for research, development, testing and support — and inflation.5
Contact your Congressional representatives and tell them NO to war in Syria or involvement in the conflict.
Citations and Articles: