To Cure the Economy

One hears a great deal about the dangers of the situation in Syria these days. Right now, the Syrian Government is attacking rebels in the city of Aleppo.  Recently the massacre in Houla made world news. Whether it is styled as "civil unrest" or "civil war" isn't particularly relevant; whatever it is, Syria is a dangerous place to be.

CNN recently ran an opinion piece titled "Syria's Christian Conundrum."  The author, noting that she was a Christian herself, expressed perplexity and disappointment that the majority of Syrian Christians had not embraced the "prospect of democratic change... [to] an open, democratic, inclusive, secular and religiously tolerant society" which, she believes, should arise after the fall of Assad. Yet the kidnappings and forced conversions of Christian women in Egypt, being reported in Christian news sites (but not the mainstream media) gives the lie to the delusional belief that democratic governments rather than Islamist governments rise to power in these Middle Eastern countries.

Consider the nations like Egypt and Libya, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, in which the West actively sought to assist or by force of arms bring about the rise of "open, democratic, inclusive, secular, and religiously tolerant society." Or such nations as Turkey, and Pakistan, and a whole host of other nations in the Middle Eastern region in which open and democratic governments were encouraged. In all of these, where there have been elections, the people have chosen to move toward Islamist fundamentalist governments; where there have not been elections, the leadership has embraced the same Islamist fundamentalism.

That is precisely why the U.S. must not become involved in Syria: too little certainty that any involvement can produce a result which has any benefit for the United States- or the West. For example, some reports attribute the massacre to Assad's regime, but others to internecine warfare between the rebels.  Similarly, Libyan Islamists are moving into Syria to assist the Free Syrian Army. Can it be assumed then that the Free Syrian Army is seeking democracy rather than Islamism?  The rise of Islamists means not only another nation rising in opposition to the interests of the U.S., but oppression of women, children, and minorities of any ideology or ethnicity.

Of course, the fact that Syria is a Russian ally, and that U.S. interference in Syria risks direct military confrontation with Russia, should serve as some disincentive as well.

Given all of that, one would assume there is no reason to go to war in Syria. Yet there seem to be many who are beating the war drums, suggesting there may be those who would prefer war. Not from any patriotic or nationalist drive, nor from any motives to pursue freedom, or compassion for that matter.

After the crash of 1929, America slid into an economic depression. The world economy depressed as well, with conditions becoming so intolerable in some countries, notably Germany, that maniacal despots like Hitler could rise to power. Financial conditions only marginally improved until the advent of World War II drove the engines of industry into high gear and gave rise to a tide of prosperity which lasted for decades after the war.

In other words, there may be those who believe a good war is needed to cure the economy. That may sound cynical, considering the human cost of war, and hopefully it will prove to be no more than cynicism. Yet it is difficult to find any other reason for the push to enter Syria, as there are no other perceptible benefits to America. The United States needs to stay out of Syria.

President Obama got it right!

President Obama got it right! At least, he got the context right. In his remarks on the Aurora shootings, he noted that his daughters attend movies, and asked, "What if Malia and Sasha had been in the theater tonight as so many kids do every day." That is a question that bears reflection.

In discussing the Aurora theater shootings, Michael Moore attempted to answer that question, "Mr.President, what if it were your children?" Now, of course, Moore draws the wrong conclusions, that if the President's children had been at the theater, the President would be calling for more restrictions on gun ownership.

Moore draws a parallel with Obamacare, stating that other countries such as Canada have socialized healthcare because they care about one another, whereas in America, we have the attitude, "I've got mine and to hell with you." Moore simply demonstrates that he, as with most liberals, has no comprehension of traditional American values. After all, "I've got mine and to hell with you," is the Liberal version of capitalism, where moral values are "personal" and do not apply to business matters, while those in need are taken under the wings of government.

The conservative version of capitalism is "I'm working hard to better myself and hard work earns its reward." There is also the corollary conservative belief that for those in real need, we give to and through charity and church, as government is inadequate for those works. And as with Obamacare, there have been few who could legitimately come forward with claims that they have not received care under the American system, as opposed to the many stories of those fleeing "compassionate" socialized medicine for American treatments.

Moore then advances the liberal pap that those who do not share their passion for gun control simply do not really care about the Aurora shootings. However, as with Obamacare, Moore's question betrays him.

Had the President's children been present, what would have happened? Remember, if you will, that these children always travel with ARMED GUARDS. In that case, the joker walks in, throws his tear gas, lifts his gun- and collapses, riddled with bullets from the guns of those ARMED GUARDS.

As the scenario played out in fact, the law-abiding citizens at the theater left their firearms at home and went into the kill-zone created by AMC's "Firearms are prohibited to law-abiding citizens" policy. The shooter strolled through the audience, unimpeded, murdering and maiming those made intentionally helpless by AMC.

In other words, Moore and his gun control cronies only succeeded in making sure that the shooter could get a high body count. And following his advice leads to more deaths, not fewer. Is that the desired outcome? Do we really want 71 dead and wounded as opposed to one dead joker? That should be a rhetorical question. After all, remember the effect one armed citizen had on two armed (would-be) robbers.  Stories like this are repeated everyday; legal gun sales go up, crime goes down, yet those of Moore's ilk can't see the connection.

So Americans are left with three options. First, take your chances in the kill-zones. Second, minimize your visits to kill-zones. Or three, don't go anywhere unaccompanied by the President's daughters.

Obama's Fundamental Transformation

As Team Obama moves the campaign into high gear, the Administration is making moves to fulfill the one campaign promise Obama actually made: to "fundamentally transform" America.

Most Obama voters didn't seem to understand what Obama meant by this, because voters generally assume politicians use generalizations and sales "puff". Therefore, centrist voters assumed Obama meant "improve the economy" or "put Americans back to work" or "reduce taxes." Those in the hard-core left- and the conservative right- understood his terminology. Obama said exactly what he meant, and meant exactly what he said. While most Americans have worked in the private sector, Obama has spent his entire life outside the private sector. So while he's seen private enterprise, he doesn't actually have any experience with it. His mentor, a communist agitator by the name of Davis, told him it was really, really bad, though.

Hence, the Obamacare health system takeover. It was not a fundamental plank of the Obama campaign, but suddenly emerged as an emergency; if the government did not take control of the health sector, Americans were told, it would just collapse. So, while the insurance companies still exist as entities, they have become mere extensions of the government. That is how private industry works in the Fascist Socialist model, with government and big business cooperating to control the behavior of the citizenry.

During the Obama Administration, it has become clear that Obama does not need legislative action to "enact" his agenda. There was Fast and Furious, a covert gun-running program designed ostensibly to find criminals, but since no guns were tracked, more likely designed as an excuse to impose gun-control agenda items. There have been the EPA regulations to limit pollution, designed to drive out coal usage in electrical generating plants and remove over 40 percent of America's capacity.

There was the "slow-walking" of applications to deny oil drilling permits in the Gulf, despite a Federal Court Order. There were the "waivers" of Immigration deportations, based on Executive Orders "reinterpreting" statutory deportation requirements. HHS is issuing "waivers" of the TANF requirements in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, in defiance of express statutory language. So another aspect of Obama's "fundamental transformation" appears: the power of the President to transcend Constitutional limitations and statutory law without anyone in authority calling his office to account.

Another important aspect of Obama's "fundamental transformation" is consistency. Obama is not moving to reform immigration. If he did, the Democrats would lose it as a wedge issue. After all, who can compassionately be anti-immigrant (what's "illegal" mean? it's good, right?) He isn't concerned about the economy; private business is doing "fine." Foreign policy? Why, the Arab Spring! Democracy in the Middle East! Why should America be concerned about a few Islamists taking power? No, it is the direction of his administration which counts, and that is always toward a concentration of power into the hands of the government. After all, progress is the result of government action; if you are a mere citizen, "you didn't build that."

Obama's campaign slogan, "Forward", is the traditional cry of the Socialists. It is no accident, but a deliberate coming out of the closet for socialism in America. It is the open acknowledgment by the Democrat party that it has adopted Socialism as its platform. That is the "fundamental transformation" that Obama apparently has been working towards all his life.