Could the British vote mean the end of the world order as we know it?
John Kerry is not exactly inspiring confidence as Secretary of State.
He's become the biggest cheerleader for war against Syria in the entire administration.
At the Senate hearings yesterday, he wouldn't even rule out putting boots on the ground in Syria, even though President Obama had assured us on Saturday that this wouldn't happen.
Asked directly about it, here's what Kerry had to say: If chemical weapons were at risk of falling into the hands of Al Qaeda types in Syria, he said: "I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a President of the United States to secure our country."
He then backtracked and tried to slam the door shut on putting U.S. ground troops there, but if you were listening, you had to conclude that this door is still kind of open.
And anyway, why is the U.S. planning an action that logically will help Al Qaeda types in Syria, who are opposed to the Assad regime?
Kerry also repeated Obama's falsehood from Saturday that the President has the authority to attack Syria without authorization from Congress. By saying so, Kerry shows himself to be ignorant or disdainful of the Constitution and of the War Powers Act.
Once more, a majority of the American public doesn't want war. And once more, the political class is intent on dragging us into it.
To be sure, if it is proven that Assad used chemical weapons, that would be a war crime.
But remember, at the Nuremburg trials, Justice Robert Jackson said the greatest war crime of all was waging an aggressive war.
And that's what John Kerry and Barack Obama seem prepared to commit -- unless we organize and stop them.
If you liked this story by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine, check out his story Bradley Manning's Unjust Sentence.
Follow Matthew Rothschild @mattrothschild on Twitter.