Months ago, President Obama threatened that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, it would invite direct U.S. retaliation. Pat Buchanan characterized Obama’s statement, “Foolishly, [Obama] put his credibility on the line by warning that any Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line’ and be a ‘game changer’ with ‘enormous consequences.’ Not only was this ultimatum unwise, Obama had no authority to issue it. If Syria does not threaten or attack us, Obama would need congressional authorization before he could constitutionally engage in acts of war against Syria. When did he ever receive such authorization?”

Buchanan goes on to explain why Obama’s statement is foolish, “Because it is not our war. There is no vital U.S. interest in who rules Syria. Hafez Assad and Bashar have ruled Syria for 40 years. How has that ever threatened us?”

I appreciate Buchanan’s fidelity to the Constitution, but Obama didn’t get congressional authorization to attack Pakistan, Libya, Yemen or anywhere else, so I doubt he’s concerned about getting it to attack Syria. Further, Americans have no vital interest in any of those places, yet Obama attacked them all. Obama cares nothing about such things.

But Obama’s statement gave the Syrian rebels, Israeli government and U.S. warmongers the leverage they needed to pressure Obama to directly intervene in Syria. Buchanan recognized the threat: “It is well within the capacity of [Syrian President] Assad’s enemies to use or fake the use of poison gas to suck us into fighting their war.”

Assad’s enemies rapidly took advantage. In March, the press dutifully reported that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its people, but there were several things wrong with this report. Most obviously, it came from the rebels. The attack killed a number of Syrian soldiers. The Syrian government immediately asked the United Nations to investigate the use of chemical weapons. The attack did not aid the Syrian government, but it provided great potential to aid the rebels. The initial investigation implicated the rebels.

Despite all that evidence, the British and Israeli governments and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel declared they believed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. The warmongers beat the war drums throughout April, pressuring Obama to intervene directly. Fortunately, Obama resisted.

U.N. investigators remained honest in the face of this dishonest pressure. According to the Chicago Tribune, “U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday. The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.”

You might think this would put this false flag attack to bed, but the Russia Times reports Secretary of State and warmonger John Kerry continues to lie about the attack, “‘There is no question in my mind that this fight is about the terrible choices that the Assad regime has made,’ Kerry told reporters on Friday, ‘to use gas, which we believe there is strong evidence for the use of.’”

Since this false flag attack failed to draw the U.S. into Syria’s civil war on the side of the rebels, the rebels conducted another false flag attack, this time against a village in Turkey, a NATO ally. CNN reports on behalf of the warmongers, “‘The investigation into the perpetrators is for the most part complete. It has been determined that the organization and its members who carried out the attack were in contact with pro-Syrian regime Al Muhabarat (Syrian Intelligence Services) organization in Syria,’ [Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay] said. ‘The organization is identified and for the most part the persons involved are identified.’”

But as with the last attack, there are several problems with this narrative. The people of Reyhanli, the Turkish town targeted, are mostly supporters of Syrian President Assad and in the same tribe. This attack did nothing to advance the interests of the Assad government, but it has the potential to pull Turkey and NATO into the war on the side of the rebels. In addition, the attack was a car bomb, the kind of attack perfected by al Qaeda and its allies leading the Syrian rebellion.

These attacks and the naked exploitation of them for political benefit illustrate the sociopathic nature of people attracted to government. Politicians and high-level bureaucrats think nothing of killing innocents with chemical weapons and car bombs to advance their personal interests. This is another drop in the ocean of evidence supporting my claim that government, because it is a coercive organization, attracts the worst people to work for it, and the worst of the worst rise to the top.

There’s nothing altruistic about Obama’s resistance to intervening in Syria either. He’s playing smart politics because the American people are against intervention by a 3-1 margin, thank goodness.

 By Mark Luedtke

Dayton’s rulers suffered an historic defeat at the polls Tuesday, May 7. I knew the people of Dayton were fed up with the long time status quo, but I didn’t know it was this bad.

Only 9,869 people voted in the runoff election for mayor. That’s a fantastically low turnout.  According to Wikipedia, the 2011 population estimate for Dayton is 142,148. It’s probably lower now, but that’s the lowest number I could find. Less than seven percent of Dayton citizens selected our mayoral candidates. That means over 93 percent of Dayton’s citizens reject the system. Granted, this analysis does not account for non-voters under the voting age, but even if you subtracted out the underage population, this turnout is still fantastically low. Winner Nan Whaley spent over $100,000 to buy 4,965 votes. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this farce is the people of Dayton overwhelmingly reject Dayton’s system of rule.

The Dayton Daily News tried to cover up this turnout disaster by focusing on the defeat of incumbent Mayor Leitzell, “City Commissioner Nan Whaley dominated Tuesday’s runoff vote for mayor of Dayton in an election that saw a sitting mayor defeated in a May primary for the first time in at least 50 years.” But this election was about the system, not Leitzell. Before the election, the DDN hinted at the establishment’s problem, “The last time Dayton had a May runoff vote for mayor was 2005, when only 14,465 people voted ­– roughly one-tenth of the city’s population.” Since then, both the population and the turnout percentage have fallen.

This doesn’t surprise me. The people of Dayton have been voting with their feet by leaving the city in droves for 50 years. Dayton’s population loss ranks fifth in the U.S. We’ve lost 20,000 people in the last decade. And we know the problem is taxes. As Dayton’s government steals more of our money, more people leave. Dayton’s 2.25 percent income tax makes everybody 2.25 percent poorer, depressing our economy. College graduates race out of Dayton to get higher paying jobs in vibrant economies in states and cities with lower taxes, especially those with no income tax. Bright people would rather live and work where the government steals less of their money and doesn’t punish productivity.

Dayton’s rulers know this. That’s why they have to grant tax breaks to draw businesses to the region. But the people already here never get a tax break.

Low tax locales tend to have better services, growing art programs and well-maintained infrastructure instead of the disintegrating infrastructure and struggling art community we suffer because we pay exorbitant income taxes to the city and the state. Having no income tax enables wealth creation, which draws people in, improving quality of life. High income taxes push people away, especially the most productive and creative, diminishing quality of life.

Rulers used to claim divine right to rule. U.S. rulers replaced divine right with the “will of the people.” Politicians repeat that mantra with religious reverence. Using a related form, Leitzell commented, “The citizens of Dayton have made their decision and I hope they’re happy with it.” The people have spoken loud and clear. They reject Dayton’s political system and government. If Whaley and candidate A.J. Wagner really care about the will of the people expressed by the overwhelming majority of Daytonians, both will withdraw from the race. The same with candidates for commissioner. But that will never happen because politicians don’t care about the will of the people. They preach that phrase to manipulate us. They care about winning elections so they can control the loot in order to enrich themselves and their cronies. It doesn’t matter if they win two votes to one.

To Leitzell’s credit, his defeat tells us he looted poorly.

The only people motivated to vote in this election were cronies of the candidates. Families, friends, business associates and others who expect to profit if their candidate wins voted. Bureaucrats and city employees who might gain or lose voted. The other 93 percent of Daytonians didn’t vote because no matter who wins, the status quo remains. The income tax remains. The firehouse squandering Dayton’s most valuable property overlooking the river at Main Street and Monument Avenue remains. The public restroom squandering another valuable property overlooking the river at Patterson and Monument remains. The exodus from Dayton continues. The degradation of our great city by government continues.

Terrible turnout is why our rulers put tax levies on the primary ballot. Politicians can energize cronies to vote for new taxes because they will be enriched by them. The other 93 percent, though they will be made poorer by new taxes, know the system is rigged against them so they don’t show up to vote in primaries.

The Founding Fathers famously rejected democracy as majority mob rule. Dayton’s system is even worse. We are ruled by a tiny minority mob of politicians, bureaucrats and cronies for their benefit and our detriment. This is true of every local, state and the federal government in the U.S.

The views and opinions expressed in Conspiracy Theorist are the views and/or opinions of the author and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of the Dayton City Paper or Dayton City Media and are published strictly for entertainment purposes only.

By Gary Leitzell

Photo: Dayton City Hall: “A commission that is not swayed by a national agenda or distracted by what the other side is doing will always work in the best interests of the citizens.” – Dayton Mayor Gary Leitzell

This is an election year for three members of the Dayton City Commission, and during such times there are an awful lot of people who do not fully understand how their local government works here in Dayton. I will try to cover a few things to better the understanding.

A little history first: Dayton has a City Manager form of government. It was proposed by John Patterson in 1913 for several reasons. One was to remove corruption from City Hall. Another reason was to prevent a strong socialist movement from influencing local politics. The International Workers of the World were influencing politics around the country before the onset of World War I and it was a time when unions were forming. The Barney and Smith Car Works here in Dayton hired a large number of Hungarians who were touched by the concept of socialism in their homeland. John Patterson had a dreadful fear of unions. By getting a five-member commission elected to hire a city manager would mean that three Socialist commissioners would have to get elected in order to hire a Socialist city manager. There were not enough unions or socialists in the city at the time to get three commissioners elected.

How does it work? The city manager runs the city. The city manager has the full resources of the city at his fingertips and hires experts in planning, waste collection, police, fire safety, building safety, directors of recreation and youth services, the airport, the water department and a convention center. He also has financial experts and budget experts that report to him. The entire budget of the City of Dayton is around $550 million. The general fund budget, which derives its revenue from the city income tax, is $150 million. This is the source of wages for the firemen, policemen and public works employees that we think about every day when we think of city government.

The city manager reports to the city commission. He reports to the people elected to represent the residents and taxpayers of Dayton. The city commission is made up of five members. One is the mayor. Each member of the commission has one vote and the vote is equal to each other commission member. Commissioners are paid around $38,000 a year to work part time. The mayor is paid $45,000 a year and is expected to run the weekly commission meetings as well as perform numerous ceremonial duties. The purpose of the commission is to meet with citizens and discuss local issues or items with them and report back to the city manager. Their function is to direct policy. The city manager then utilizes his staff to come up with solutions, ordinances, programs or processes to affect those policies. When that is done, it is presented to the city commission. The manager also presents contracts and expenditures to the city commission if they exceed a $10,000 limit. The commission members can vote to support or deny the city manager’s recommendations.

The commissioners are elected by the voters and the election is non-partisan. That means that party affiliation is not declared on the ballot and in reality the parties should not have a need to influence elections. This has not been the case in Dayton since the early 1960’s. To become a commissioner or mayor, you need to be a registered voter residing in the City of Dayton and you must get 500 registered voters from Dayton to sign a petition to place your name on the ballot. Since the election is non-partisan, all candidates have to get a minimum number of 500 signatures and cannot submit more than 1,500 signatures on their petitions. Once on the ballot, you have to convince a majority of voters to elect you. This year, for the first time in maybe 20 years, there was a primary election for both the mayor and the commissioners up for reelection. In order for this to happen, more than two candidates have to get on the ballot for mayor and more than four for commissioner. The primary election is effectively a run off. The two highest vote getters for mayor and four highest for commissioner go on to the general election in November.

I am writing this on May 7, 2013. Today is Election Day for the primary here in Dayton. I have voted, but the results are not due for several hours. The following is my opinion and not the opinion of the city, this newspaper or any other person.

I can say that having been the mayor of Dayton for three-and-a-half years now and having experienced the wrath of one political party and indifference of the other, I believe that our charter’s requirement that the election is non-partisan is crucial to the future success of this city. Historically, before the 1960’s at least, business leaders elected businessmen to act as a board of directors to oversee the city manager. After the 1960’s, the political parties supported candidates to do their will with local tax dollars, and from that point on the City of Dayton moved in a downward direction. The time has come to incorporate the original intent of the charter and get community leaders elected who are not beholden to any outside influences. A commission that is not swayed by a national agenda or distracted by what the other side is doing will always work in the best interests of the citizens. If you are a Dayton resident, then you need to vote in November. This year, you have very unique opportunity to elect people who are not affiliated with political parties. Do your homework and study the candidates. Evaluate what each brings to the table. Don’t let party affiliations or union endorsements sway you. Creativity is needed in Dayton to keep the renaissance happening. You have a voice. It counts, so use it!

By A.J. Wagner

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requires employers to post, in a conspicuous place for employees to see, a notice of rights for workers. The notice tells workers the following:

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), you have the right to:

• Organize a union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.

• Form, join or assist a union.

• Bargain collectively through representatives of employees’ own choosing for a contract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions.

• Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment or union organizing with your co-workers or a union.

• Take action with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer or with a government agency and seeking help from a union.

• Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or the picketing.

• Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining a member of a union.

Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to:

• Prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time, such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing union literature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots or break rooms.

Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union or for the union that represents you in bargaining with your employer to:

• Threaten or coerce you in order to gain your support for the union.

• Question you about your union support or activities in a manner that discourages you from engaging in that activity.

• Fire, demote or transfer you, or reduce your hours or change your shift, or otherwise take adverse action against you, or threaten to take any of these actions, because you join or support a union, or because you engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection or because you choose not to engage in any such activity.

• Threaten to close your workplace if workers choose a union to represent them.

• Promise or grant promotions, pay raises or other benefits to discourage or encourage union support.

• Prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances.

• Spy on or videotape peaceful union activities and gatherings or pretend to do so.

• Refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union.

• Use or maintain discriminatory standards or procedures in making job referrals from a hiring hall.

• Cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against you because of your union-related activity.

• Take adverse action against you because you have not joined or do not support the union.

If you and your co-workers select a union to act as your collective bargaining representative, your employer and the union are required to bargain in good faith in a genuine effort to reach a written, binding agreement setting your terms and conditions of employment. The union is required to fairly represent you in bargaining and enforcing the agreement.

Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If you believe your rights or the rights of others have been violated, you should contact the NLRB promptly to protect your rights, generally within six months of the unlawful activity. You may inquire about possible violations without your employer or anyone else being informed of the inquiry. Charges may be filed by any person and need not be filed by the employee directly affected by the violation. The NLRB may order an employer to rehire a worker fired in violation of the law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and may order an employer or union to cease violating the law. Employees should seek assistance from the nearest regional NLRB office, which can be found on the Agency’s Web site: nlrb.gov.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has now ruled that to make an employer post this statement is a violation of their rights to free speech. The Court cited a quote from Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.: “Some of [the] Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”

The ramifications of this ruling, if upheld by the United States Supreme Court, are huge. This decision begs the question of other government requirements such as warnings on cigarette packages, food nutrition labels, allergy warnings, fair debt collection practices warnings, safety notices and so many more.

This decision may be taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Of course, they can’t be forced to say anything on the topic if they so chose.

Disclaimer: The content herein is for entertainment and information only. Do not use this as a legal consultation. Every situation has different nuances that can affect the outcome and laws change without notice. If you’re in a situation that calls for legal advice, get a lawyer. You represent yourself at your own risk. The author, the Dayton City Paper and its affiliates shall have no liability stemming from your use of the information contained herein. 

 By A.J. Wagner

At the opening of the May 2 meeting called by Dayton Metro Library for public input into the library’s building plans, we were informed that discussion of the Arcade or any other option would be limited. After all, we were told the Arcade advocates were working on faulty presumptions.

How ironic. The Arcade advocates are asking the board to consider a study to put the presumptions to rest. They are not asking for the Arcade to become the library at this time. The advocates understand the need for a thorough feasibility study to determine the costs and possibilities so that a good decision can be made. Four individuals were given two minutes each to ask for further study and we were cut off. The board has spoken. Their presumptions stand. Facts are not welcome.

The board provided a letter to the media that outlines their position. The letter is strong on presumptions, making it wrong on the law. Thus, it is the subject of this week’s “Law and Disorder.”

The letter asserts: “The Arcade is not one building but a multi-use complex. If we were to acquire the property, we would be taking responsibility for space we do not need and are not equipped to fill or to manage.” This presumes, incorrectly, that the library does not have the option of buying a part of the Arcade complex. They do.

The letter asserts: “We do not have unrestricted ownership of the property where the Main Library is situated … [W]e would not reap any proceeds if we left that property and moved elsewhere.” The truth: Gunther Berg, owner of the Arcade, has offered to buy the old library as a part of any deal. The actual costs of these transactions are presumed to be high, but for now are unknown. A feasibility study would nail this down.

The letter asserts: “We have been steadily moving away from leasing space for our facilities because of the loss of control that entails. Maintaining control of the Main Library is non-negotiable.  More important, even if we were prepared to make that compromise, no entity has stepped forward to take on the complicated, risky and financially draining work of restoring the Arcade.” The truth: The library currently sits on land leased in perpetuity from the City of Dayton and Berg brought a renowned historic architect to Dayton a few weeks ago to look at, and potentially, manage the project. Further, the library has yet to hire an architect to take on the complicated, risky and financially draining work of restoring the current library.

The letter asserts: “For structural reasons and because the corridors are very much part of the historic fabric of the buildings, tearing down walls or moving them may not in all cases be possible. At best, doing so likely would be cost prohibitive.” The presumptions are italicized. A study can resolve the real possibilities.

The letter asserts: “Maintenance and energy costs would be significant at the Arcade.” Without a study, we do not know how significant. Modern construction techniques will make the Arcade energy efficient. How efficient? Do the study.

The letter asserts: “In previous redevelopment attempts of the Arcade, unanticipated costs have been significant.” The Board proposes rehabbing the existing library with the same potential risks. What are the risks? Do the study.

The letter asserts: “Our legal counsel is unequivocal that we cannot take the money generated from the sale of general obligation bonds issued for a public purpose and then loan it to a private developer.” By purchasing the property, this issue would be overcome. No loans need to be made to the developer from the funds. A study could show how to do this within the law.

The letter says: “It’s also important to understand that, as a public entity, Dayton Metro Library is not eligible to receive historic tax credits.” A study of the use of tax credits would show how the library could obtain credits and sell them to other entities saving millions in construction costs. How much? Do the study.

The letter asserts: “As you can see, the case for remaining at our current site is overwhelming … The libraries we are creating across Montgomery County must serve citizens for decades to come, and we have to maximize the dollars taxpayers have entrusted to us. Please be assured that we have done our due diligence regarding this incredibly important decision.” Without a study, there is no due diligence.

Because of space limits, I have not addressed all elements of the letter. But in the end, we are not asking for the library to be moved, we are asking for a study of all of these elements to determine the feasibility of moving the library. The study will cost nothing. Please do it.

 By Jim Bucher

As a born and raised Daytonian living in the same house my grandfather raised my dad, aunt and uncle, then me and my brother, now I’m doing the same with my kids. I’m pretty knowledgeable on the subject of, “What in the heck happened to our once proud city neighborhoods?”

I know, I know what you’re saying, “There he goes again.” But I’ve lived through it all. The boom of the ‘60s, when families thrived and took care of their homes, yards and each other, for one.

Now, I know things change, but the way they have – and so dramatically – right under our noses, is just pathetic.

Let’s go back (insert dream sequence here).

When I was growing up in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Five Oaks with Corpus Christi Church nearby and most parishioners living a stone’s throw from their place of worship, my brother and I, being Lutheran, were out numbered 10 Catholics to one Lutheran, our home was ground zero for playing.

In our middle-income neighborhood, most dads made the same wage whether at NCR or Frigidaire, but we had four mouths to feed total. Some neighbors 18, our toy and game budget stretched further. The bottom line was, most everyone cared for their respective domiciles. Then “white flight” hit.

Lots of our neighbors gave up and headed to the suburbs, with forced busing looming, they were not going to be told where their kids could go to school and with whom.

To this day, I run into many people my age that say, “Oh yeah, we lived in your neighborhood at one time,” and all seem to remember leaving about the same time –when they couldn’t attend their neighborhood school any longer, but rather one across town.

Looking back (still in the dream sequence here) busing was a colossal failure and I’d beg someone to tell me otherwise.

Then, in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the decline continued and cities and towns like Centerville and Kettering thrived, but we held our own.

Before we knew it the ‘90s were upon us. I witnessed many of the kids I grew up with coming back and buying the homes they grew up in. We have three on our block.

Then, in a blink of an eye, crime increased, people fled, couldn’t or didn’t want to sell their homes and therefore rented them out to people that sometimes didn’t care what they did to said property. The decline accelerated.

I, along with a few stalwarts, decided, “If we flee, the criminals win.” Man, I think, woulda, coulda, shoulda, ‘cause if I had to do it all over again, Centerville here I come. But I stayed, and so, too, did some really fine neighbors, some of which would “stand their ground” and nothing would provoke them to move and they’re still here. We have a great, diverse group of African-Americans, whites and Hispanics. Where many neighborhoods are defined by one group, Five Oaks is the exception.

Fast forward now to 2013 and our neighborhood and many around the city are in peril, blighted and just plain awful: Foreclosures, absentee landlords, owners that live out of state, renters that don’t care, etc. For every nice home, there are five boarded up, burnt out or gone completely on what seems to be every block. Homes where I, as a kid, would play. It’s just shameful. These once stately, almost 100-year-old, middle class homes with the great woodwork, floors and unique architecture are gone.

Where was city hall? I’m not sure on that one. I can’t tell you, but it sounds like maybe they, too, were absentee.

Today, at press time, Dayton voters have a chance for the status quo (to pick two candidates for mayor in the primary, general election for mayor and commissioners is in November) or new leadership. I’m really not supposed to take sides and without an all-out endorsement, I’m going with new leadership.

Now, can one person – a new mayor – make a difference? The answer is “yes,” but it will take us all to roll up our sleeves and hunker down for the long haul.

What seems to be happening now isn’t working. It seems the current administration’s answer is to demolish, leaving beautiful (tongue in cheek) empty lots. And the foreclosures seem to be ebbing (please continue to read and support my column so I’ll get paid and not be on that list.), but right now I’m 30 thousand under water, my house price plummeted during the ‘08 economic mess and what didn’t help is what seemed like every other home was foreclosed on and now owned by a bank.

By the way, did any of those Wall Street thieves go to jail on that ‘08 disaster? I guess I answered my own question.

Will the neighborhoods come back to the way they were? Probably not. Can we try to improve our way of life and make it practical to stabilize and restore these beautiful old homes, eventually filling them with families before they disappear from the landscape? The answer is a big fat un-foreclosed “YES.” I want to see the day when the term, “there goes the neighborhood” means, “Wow, there goes the neighborhood” on a comeback.

OK, dream sequence of the past ends here and my new “dream,” hoping to become a reality begins.

Cheers and oh, please vote!

Buch