Trump's Reckless Attack on the Syrian Military at Shayrat

I want to be clearly on the public record strongly denouncing Donald Trump's action attacking the Syrian military in Shayrat for alleged chemical-weapons use in Khan Sheikhoun. It was a very dumb thing to do, and that's an understatement. To attack a nation solely on unsubstantiated allegations is the height of folly. That cannot be overstated.


Tom Usher

Donald Trump doesn't have, and never will have, proof that the Syrian military carried out the alleged chemical attack. On the contrary, the timing of the entire episode, on the heels of the Trump administration having said that it was not focused on ousting Assad but rather combating IS and on the heels of the Syrian military's advances nearly across-the-board, clearly suggests that Trump caved into the neocon's agenda, which is appalling. Assad didn't need to use chemicals and knew full well that doing so would be counterproductive to his cause.

I only pray that Vladimir Putin will, relatively speaking, remain the grownup in the room (the global stage). Of course within Mr. Putin's worldview, there is only so much he can tolerate before directly confronting the US militarily.

If this is Trump's idea of brinkmanship, he's grossly miscalculating. His advisors, the one's he's agreed with in the decision to attack Syria, are woefully foolish.

A pattern will finally emerge that will tell us what Trump really thinks he's doing and what he thinks he can get away with in both the short and long run.

My impression concerning this recent episode is that President Trump is erratic and more of a shallow thinker than he'd like the world to believe. It appears he was manipulated by the neocons and so-called liberal interventionists into militarily striking Syria before hard evidence gave even the semblance of justification under international and domestic secular law.

When he was running for President, he scolded Hillary Clinton that she did not know that Russia (that President Putin) had hacked the DNC or hacked her illegal server or Podesta's emails or the election, etc. He said that there wasn't evidence available to definitively conclude Russia did any of those things. Yet, here we are with that same man, Donald Trump, authorizing/ordering the US military to hit the Syrian military based upon evidence that is no more substantial than what he, Trump, said was insufficient in the case of Russia and hacking. So, we see Trump go from sober to drunk, if you will.

It also seems quite clear to me that the "news" media was put into lockstep and in high gear to gin up just such an attack.

Who benefits? The US military industrial complex, the US global imperialists, those who hate Vladimir Putin because he doesn't agree with the sexual-anarchy movement of the United States, those who hate Basher Assad because he doesn't want neoliberal/corporatist economics running unbridled in Syria after the war (and it will end), that's who.

One thing is quite clear (and it's no fake), Donald Trump was never in Vladimir Putin's pocket, not even close. It's not the reason Trump did what he did. He didn't do it to prove that.

Trump did complain during the campaign that President Obama had made a huge mistake concerning the "red line" on chemical weapons. We are to believe that Donald Trump believed then that the Syrian military was responsible.

So, he's not as bright as he thinks he is. He's more easily manipulated. He's more gullible. We're all less safe in the flesh for it.

Hillary Clinton already was at foolish odds with Putin. We wouldn't have been better off with her.

It remains to be seen whether Trump can learn and correct his course before he sails humanity over the edge of no return. Let us pray.


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.