Kerry says Syria’s Assad has to go, but that would be undemocratic

This is completely unacceptable.

09191501Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Saturday that the United States is willing to negotiate the conditions and timing for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down from power, and urged Russia to convince him to negotiate his exit.

Source: Kerry says Syria’s Assad has to go, but U.S. is flexible as to when

Look, a few days ago, I tweeted that the US could require term limits for Assad and limit him to one more duly elected term. Not one person said a word. It's amazing. Why? It's amazing because Assad took that step himself back in 2012.

During the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising, a new constitution was put to a referendum. Amongst other changes,

  • it abolished the old article 8 which entrenched the power of the Ba'ath party. The new article 8 reads: "The political system is based on the principle of political pluralism, and rule is only obtained and exercised democratically through voting.";
  • in a new article 88, it introduced presidential elections and limited the term of office for the president to seven years with a maximum of one re-election.

The referendum resulted in the adoption of the new constitution, which came into force on 27 February 2012.

(Source: Constitution of Syria, 2012 revision)

US foreign policy against Syria and Assad has been, and remains, asinine.

Assad stood for election. He received enough votes that regardless of the war and the refugees at the time, he would have won anyway, hands down. The election was completely free and fair. He is the duly elected President of Syria serving under term limits. If he is allowed to serve out his term, he will step down. Multi-party elections will be held. The winner will be declared based upon a free-and-fair election.

There is zero good reason why the US Obama administration is still insisting that Assad step down before his term of office is over.

Frankly, Vladimir Putin's policy concerning the region is vastly superior to Barack Obama's. If both men and nations are hellbent for violence as a means of conflict resolution, then at least Mr. Obama should join Mr. Putin in stopping IS (the Islamic State) and all the Islamic subjugators. Then Syria would be free (relatively speaking), democratic, multi-party, etc., which is exactly what the US claims it supports in the world.

The mark of a wise man is one who can change, even if it means admitting he was wrong about those he deemed his enemies. So, Barack Obama can simply change his policy toward Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad.

To Hell with the Sunni-Shiite Divide. To Hell with absolute monarchs not chosen by their people but who rather lord it over them by threats of punishment (even death) for simply speaking up for democracy. What kind of allies are they for the US? Let such monarchs wake up and change too.

Let the people in Eastern Ukraine be autonomous. Stop funding their slaughter. Let Kiev turn its attention to fixing it's own nightmarish economy. Time will see Russia, Eastern Ukraine (Novorussia), and Ukraine getting along famously and greatly benefiting the US if the US will stop with the neocon's Trotskyist-modeled global-revolution crap for neoliberal capitalism (anti-democracy).

The only thing Russia has really been doing is threatening to defend itself. Vladimir Putin isn't trying to cause the unconstitutional or violent overthrow of Barack Obama. What's Barack Obama doing vis-a-vis Putin in that regard?

Taking this policy move I'm suggesting would also help ease tensions with Iran and China and generally settle down the entire planet, which is what we need if we're going to stop violent Islamic imperialists and global warming and all the rest of the problems we face, not the least of which is poverty.

UPDATE: Here's a link you should read: Obama Re-Defines Democracy – A Country that Supports U.S. Policy, by Michael Hudson, research professor of Economics, University of Missouri, Kansas City, research associate, Levy Economics Institute, Bard College.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.