President Barack Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff, current Chicago mayor and eternal Democratic godfather Rahm Emanuel advised: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” In keeping with the philosophy of the hollow-eyed Gollum of Grant Park on turning public tragedy into political treasure, liberals from the ivory towers of the corporate media to the sewers of the left-wing blogosphere have raised the hue and cry about firearms in the wake of the killing of three students, allegedly at the hand of the severely disturbed T.J. Lane in Chardon, Ohio.
Of course, the bodies are not yet cold and the tears not yet dry. But by all that is Obama-approved, the Democrats will turn this sordid tale into a volley fire at the battlements of the Bill of Rights — or further humiliate themselves trying.
Leading the charge of the lout brigade was, of course, MSNBC, aka the Democrat Channel. Someone named Alex Wagner, who apparently worked for the George Soros-backed vomiteers at ThinkProgress before running away to join the MSNBC circus, donned her tinfoil hat on Tuesday, ranting:
“… the only protection against gun violence is, in the end, the law. And yet, in the very same states that have seen the country’s grisliest gun crimes — Colorado, Virginia and Ohio — state legislators have — remarkably — tried to weaken gun control…”
Well, Obama forbid anyone mention the law, the police, some semblance of personal conduct or even common decency — all of which Lane ignored — to the intrepid Wagner. Clearly, showing regard for the victims and their families never entered the equation, although we’ll forgive MSNBC for its macabre scavenging. It needs the sensationalism; it has nary a viewer to spare.
It’s also worth noting Wagner’s resurrection of the almost laughably clichéd phrase “gun violence.” Every time liberals need to blame the bugaboo of firearms and/or the National Rifle Association for some human-caused tragedy they pull out that phrase. Dismissing “gun violence” as a weak-kneed leftist catchphrase is trite. But when a group of devout Democrats get together to exploit senseless violence in an effort to breach the walls of the Bill of Rights, clichéd and trite are as close as anyone is likely to get to logic and reason.
Meanwhile, the Democrat hate-speech clearinghouse Dailykos featured Sam Diener, the “Education Coordinator” at the “Center for Nonviolent Solutions.” Diener scribbled out nearly 1,700 words under the heading “Talking Points on the School Shooting in Chardon OH.” In the text of the predictably far-left screed, Diener states flatly what has yet to be proven: “Guns increase danger.” Actually, people with malevolent intentions increase danger; guns are merely a tool. Blaming guns for what Lane allegedly did in Chardon is like blaming General Motors for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
Guns are merely a scapegoat for the misdirected wrath of a liberal movement that is always quick to excuse criminal behavior. Consider the fact that the same Democrats who routinely demand an abrogation of the Bill of Rights will line up to defend people who use guns to commit violent crimes, notably if they’re African-American and if the crimes involve killing police officers.
Furthermore, consider the fact that Democrat-controlled cities like Detroit, Washington and Obama’s and Emanuel’s hometown, Chicago, are virtual war zones despite draconian anti-gun laws.
I often refer to what I like to call “the politics of easy.” It is indeed easy to blame guns for crimes such as those Lane allegedly committed. Being inanimate objects, guns are unlikely to muster much of a defense. It’s easier still to use anti-gun rhetoric in defense of criminal behavior — especially when said defense will provide brickbats with which to attack their political enemies. And if said enemies — in the opinion of the liberal elite — need to be disarmed, that’s all the better. So what if some personal tragedies need to be turned into stage characters in a twisted liberal passion play?
While the Republican Presidential candidates vie for top billing in Tampa, Fla., the Democrats have evidently convinced themselves that President Barack Obama is a shoo-in for another four-year occupation of the White House. Let me rephrase that: The Democrats are trying desperately to convince themselves that President Barack Obama is a shoo-in for another four-year occupation of the White House.
Isn’t it interesting, then, that their anointed savior can’t muster up approval ratings that consistently eclipse the 50 percent mark? Isn’t it more interesting that some polls show Obama packing his gear and clearing out in favor of — among other people — Congressman Ron Paul, a man about whom the media can hardly bring themselves to comment? Isn’t it even more interesting that the corporate media can’t (won’t) mention Obama’s anemic performance, but will offer fealty that borders on blasphemy?
The list of reasons why the thinking voter should eschew casting a ballot for Obama is nearly as long as a Russian novel, but you don’t have the time and we don’t have the bandwidth to enumerate them all here. Each week, I put together a video commentary for Personal Liberty Digest® entitled “The Great Eight.” Today, I offer you a print version. With apologies to David Letterman (and my production crew):
From our home office in Cullman, Ala., it’s the top eight reasons not to vote for Barack Obama this fall.
8. Permanent Vacation.
Spain, Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard, more Hawaii, more Martha’s Vineyard, Aspen and even more Hawaii. Remember how much the liberals hated George W. Bush’s brush-clearing misadventures? At least he was pretending to work once in a while — at his own house. And don’t we all enjoy being lectured about our eating habits by the first lady — in between her 2,500-calorie fundraiser meals, of course. Hypocrisy is ugly. No wonder the Democrats are so damned hard on our eyes — even when they’re wearing diamonds from the Harry Winston Collection.
7. The Devil-May-Obamacare.
For a great socialist leap forward, the President’s reanimation of Hillarycare’s corpse has taken an oddly back-shelf position of late. It’s almost as if the Democrats don’t want us remembering that they ignored public sentiment, the rules of legislative engagement and one or two juicy parts of the Constitution as November rolls toward us. I suspect Obama may come to regret his decision to force churches to pay for abortions, but that’s presuming he develops a conscience and understanding of the 1st Amendment between now and Election Day. Knowing the liberal mindset, he’ll lose and blame the loss on us “God and guns” types. I’d say more, but it might move my name up on the death panel (yes, Virginia, they are real) list.
6. Gassed Out.
As much fun as the Democrats’ new sitcom “That was then; this is now” has been to watch, I just don’t see a real future for it. Their attempt to cut Obama loose from that $5 per gallon gas-price anchor he’s dragging around is sadder than Arianna Huffington’s wedding videos. When George W. Bush was President, exorbitant gas prices spurred Democrats including Senator Barbara Boxer and current Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to hold shrieking press events in which they blamed Bush for everything short of trapping people in their homes. The corporate media obligingly reported the liberal finger-pointing with breathless vigor. Now, gas prices are evidently rising in a vacuum, with the same people suggesting Obama has “little control” over them. That was then; this is now.
5. Hooray For Hollywood.
Obama leans heavily on financial and propaganda support from the left coast as much as he does on anyone outside the offices of Goldman Sachs. Hollywood’s hypocritical horde has hardly hidden their disdain for non-liberals. But they seem to forget: Only liberals are dumb enough to vote based on advice from renowned thinkers like Sean Penn and Rosie O’Donnell. Sean, go back to Venezuela. Maybe Hugo Chavez will let you be his court jester. Rosie, have another sundae. Oscar host Billy Crystal (no relation; I eat bacon) cracked a joke during the recent Academy Award yawnfest in which he compared Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to a “dark knight, an American psycho and a charismatic crack addict.” The crowd roared with laughter. I noticed that a whole team of writers put their thinking caps on to produce a joke that wasn’t fit for amateur night at the Ha-Ha Hut. Of course, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich probably thought “I’m totally the dark knight in that one.” That’s actually pretty funny, when you think about it. Maybe Billy’s a distant cousin.
4. Crony Capitalism.
So, religious (read: Christian) organizations get stuck with the same onerous Obamacare mandates that the Democrats’ union thug cronies managed to escape? All those exemptions, and Obama couldn’t find one more for the people who believe abortion is murder? Meanwhile, General Motors is certainly heating things up since its bailout; those Chevy Volts are really hot — in a manner of speaking. And all those so-called “green jobs” projects have produced in spades, have they not? Granted, the “jobs” in question all went to bankruptcy lawyers; but at least someone benefited from Obama’s payoff to his cronies. It was certainly heartbreaking watching those poor attorneys wandering around outside the courthouse. “Will guide you through Chapter 7 for food.” A look at Obamanomics reveals the biggest beneficiaries are guys like Warren Buffett, George Soros and Jeff Immelt (not to mention Mark Rezko). When hypocritical billionaires are hurting, Obama is there for them. What a guy.
3. Let’s Hear It For The Girls!
Tell you what, liberals. You keep Janeane Garofalo, Barbra Streisand, Sheila Jackson-Lee and — I’m guessing here — Janet Napolitano. We’ll keep Bo Derek, Anne Coulter, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Besides the fact that the combined IQs of the former group don’t equal any one of the latter, our women look like women. The best part is, none of five conservative women I mentioned would disagree with me. The former group would slap you with some kind of injunction for making a remark like that at the next Moveon.org meeting. At least our girls know where Mars is. For that matter, at least our girls know what Mars is.
2. On The Job.
Unemployment has remained a thorn in the American economic side for the better part of Obama’s term. Factor in the number of people who are so discouraged by Obamanomics, and the number rises to close to 15 percent. That’s 15 percent of a workforce that easily exceeds 100 million people. Imagine everyone in the New York metropolitan area updating their resumes at the same time. Add the illegal aliens who the Democrats — and a fair number of the Republicans — won’t address in a meaningful manner, and the math gets even more muy malo. Of course, the Democrats will suggest that the illegals are doing only the jobs that no one else wants. I’ll admit, mowing Nancy Pelosi’s lawn doesn’t sound like a day at the beach, but where are these Americans who are happily living off the dole? I mean, outside Detroit.
1. It’s The Constitution.
Four words: Attorney General Eric Holder.
Of course, I left off more than a few good reasons to avoid voting for Obama and/or his fellow clown car riders. Hell, trying to pin down only eight was tougher than figuring out who the 10 biggest douchebags are at a personal injury lawyers’ convention.
This November’s Presidential election will indeed be a landmark event in American politics. Will we choose to play Horatio at the bridge, standing tall against the march of liberal statism? Or will we dive into the river, in which we will surely drown?
I recently faced an attack from a liberal acquaintance. Given the tendency of most liberals to react to differing opinions with all the restraint of Bill Clinton in the plus-size misses department, I shouldn’t have been surprised at the level of venom spewed forth from this particular individual; but it caught me off guard nonetheless. The fellow objected strongly to my remarking on the hypocrisy that tagged along on first lady Michelle Obama’s vacation to the spectacularly wealthy ski resort of Aspen, Colo.
The individual in question was outraged — outraged, I say! — that I would dare to besmirch Obama’s good name, even suggesting I was suffering from something he called “Obama Derangement Syndrome.” (Author’s aside to liberals: “Obama Derangement Syndrome?” Cribbing Rush Limbaugh? I thought you liberals fancied yourselves the creative types.) I’m going to assume that the symptoms of ODS include an inability to ignore liberal arrogance and hypocrisy, accompanied by the urge to make remarks that liberals find entirely acceptable except when they’re directed at their own masters.
Suffice it to say, this cat’s claws came out sharp. He thought tagging the first lady with a political barb was unacceptable. To him, and to the rest of the legion of liberals who read the Personal Liberty Digest™ on a regular basis, I say: She seems to enjoy the spotlight, and you all can’t seem to get enough of shining it on her; hotter than you expected, isn’t it?
During the Presidency of George W. Bush, his twin daughters made themselves a virtual staple of the political comedy circuit. To be fair, when the first daughters forced their Secret Service detail to stand outside the 7-Eleven while they tried to eyelid-bat the clerk into letting them buy a 4-pack of Bartles & Jaymes®, even smarmy little bridge trolls like Janeane Garofalo got to join the fun. Now that the Oval Office occupant meets with the liberals’ approval, the first family has evidently fallen off the “approved for mockery” list.
Obama makes the talk show circuits, attends the multimillion-dollar fundraisers, smiles at us from the covers of half the glossies in the supermarket checkout line and tells us to “Move it!” She has become a fashion icon, and she mingles with the wine-and-cheese set wearing dresses that cost more than the average family’s car. She proudly wears the robes, but we’re expected not to notice how poorly they fit.
In Aspen, she and the kids stayed at the multimillion-dollar home of a multimillionaire Democratic sugar daddy and Barack Obama crony. The first family’s Christmas trip to Hawaii involved two different planes, as did their trip to Martha’s Vineyard. And the cost of her trip to Spain could have covered the bills for the private planes Al Gore uses to shuttle between his science fiction conventions. (All right, that last one isn’t true. Jet fuel is expensive.)
You want to enjoy the trappings of power and wealth? Have at it. We conservatives have no interest in denying anyone success. But don’t turn around and tell us only you deserve it. To put in a parlance many of your liberal millionaire and billionaire cronies ought to recognize (having heard it more than once, I’m sure): That sort of thing is unseemly, Madame.
God forbid anyone suggest that the first lady — being such a strong woman — should ever take the back seat to her husband. But perhaps the President might suggest her next vacation involve a visit to a knock-off theme park and an outlet mall. All those caviar-and-champagne photo ops don’t translate particularly well to the majority of us who party with hot dogs and beer.
Liberals insist the rest of us show the same deference to Obama that they denied the Bush daughters, their grandmother (Barbara-Bush-looks-old jokes. Brilliant!) and even Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome-afflicted son Trig. Yet, women to whom they object politically (Palin and Michele Bachmann come to mind) have been subjected to savagery that ought to involve a prison sentence. At least Palin and Bachmann put their money where their mouths are. If Obama wants to act like Marie Antoinette, she’s going to have to eat the cake.
The supermarket is not a place where anyone hopes for surprises. Beyond a winning lottery ticket, finding a coupon for 10 percent off a 12-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon or getting a smile from the cute checkout girl, surprises at the supermarket usually involve forgetting the shopping list, finding out they’re out of PBR (horrors!) or discovering that the price of some staple has skyrocketed.
While pushing my cart through the aisles the other day, I discovered the price of my favorite brand of pasta had reached $1.69 per box — nearly a dollar more than it cost the day President Barack Obama took office. Since I’m the sort of fellow whose feats of culinary legerdemain away from the grill lean toward boiling water or making really outstanding… reservations, a hike in the price of pasta strikes fear in my heart. Imagine the compounded trepidation that sent a shiver down my spine when I realized the price of macaroni and cheese has also embarked on a northward climb. Since the cost of Doritos and Pop Tarts also rose, we know three things to be true:
- The prices of staple groceries are climbing across the board, meaning middle-class families are coughing up more of their hard-earned pay for food purchases.
- The economy is still mired in the economic quicksand of the past couple of years.
- Bachelors nationwide are in serious danger of starvation.
That list seems out of place, especially considering the days-of-wine-and-roses claptrap that the Democrats and their minions in the corporate media have been serving up of late. In fact, add the price of gasoline and the middle class, about whom President Obama and his accomplices claim to be so concerned, once again teeters on the edge of the fiscal precipice. In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer held a shrieking press conference at a Washington, D.C.-area gas station to complain about President George W. Bush’s lack of action on gas prices, which were lower than they are now. If Boxer is now demanding answers from Obama, I haven’t heard her.
Any working stiff can tell you: The prices at the grocery store, the gas station, the pharmacist and even the sport shop where he buys bulk ammunition have risen dramatically, outstripping inflationary increases. There’s no sign that the pricing trend will slow down, much less revert to pre-Obama levels.
Although the wine-and-cheese-millionaire set backing Obama and the Democrats won’t discuss it, food prices in the United States rose as much as 10 percent in 2011, with most experts agreeing even more dramatic price hikes should be expected for 2012 and beyond. The liberal elite’s feigned concern for us common folk begins with meaningless rhetoric and baseless finger-pointing and ends with, well, meaningless rhetoric and baseless finger-pointing. None of the major economic indicators have shown anything but costlier trends since Obama arrived in the White House on a wave of hope and change (not to mention race-baiting and hate speech).
Where are the sunnier days and star-filled nights Obama and the Democrats promised us? Surely, things must have improved somewhat. After all, I hardly think Michelle Obama would have taken the kids skiing in the millionaire’s playground of Aspen, Colo. if there were a chance that someone might misinterpret their snowbound cavorting for Marie Antoinette-like disregard for the “little people.”
The truth, I expect, is far worse. I doubt the perspectives of the millions of Americans suffering under the yoke of Obama’s economy ever entered Michelle Obama’s mind. It is a fair bet that the plight of everyday Americans has gone — and will continue to go — unrecognized by the liberal millionaires who claim to have a monopoly on “caring.” Their version of “caring” extends only as far as giving a decent tip to the valet at the restaurant, throwing a couple of extra bones for their caddie at the golf club and perhaps dropping a few coins in the Styrofoam cup that belongs to the homeless guy on the sidewalk. Beyond that, “caring” is reserved for speeches, fundraisers (at which they tell each other how much they care, in between white wine spritzers) and campaign ads.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush stepped on a publicity land mine when he was unable to give an accurate price for a gallon of milk. Democrats, eager to play Bush as an out-of-touch elitist, hammered him for not knowing the economic circumstances of average Americans. Fast-forward to 2012, and I wonder if liberals like the Obamas even care.
Last summer, a 66-year-old Chicago-area insurance broker named Denny McCann met his tragic end when he was run down by a motorist named Saul Chavez. At the time of the accident, Chavez — who dragged McCann’s body a few hundred feet while trying to flee the scene — had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .29. For everyone outside Lindsay Lohan and about half the remaining Kennedys, a BAC of .29 has passed wearing the lampshade and is sleeping with the coat rack. For Chavez, a BAC of .29 was well past the limit at which he could control a motor vehicle. For McCann, a BAC of .29 was fatal.
The tale of Chavez and his motoring misadventures is already a tragedy. An examination of Chavez’s driving record turns it tragicomic. Evidently, Chavez has made a practice out of getting behind the wheel sauced to the gills. In fact, his re-enactment of the worst parts of a Ted Kennedy biopic — which left the McCann family in mourning — was not the first time he was apprehended. In fact, Chavez might have been making license plates for the cars he could no longer legally drive were it not for a justice system with a soft spot for alcoholic Mario Andretti impersonators.
As if the sordid saga of Chavez wasn’t already sorrowful enough, there’s another twist which is even more wretched: Chavez isn’t even supposed to be here. In addition to being a dangerous boozehound, Chavez is an illegal alien. To make matters almost ludicrous, authorities in Chicago — in keeping with the Windy City’s “sanctuary city” politics — knew about Chavez’s undocumented status three years before he killed McCann. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement was unaware of Chavez’s wild rides through the Windy City because Chicago deliberately refused to tip off the Feds as a matter of policy. As noted in a recent investigation into the Chavez story by The Daily Caller, Chicago is one of the cities that ignores President Barack Obama’s own Secure Communities program. Cook County authorities actively refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities on cases involving illegals — including a specific detainer for Chavez, who has now fled the jurisdiction without a trace.
Even in cities that try to abide by immigration law, delivering justice to immigration-law violators and their accomplices is a trick; Chavez is hardly the only illegal immigrant to break our laws with fatal results. So-called “sanctuary cities” like Obama’s beloved, Democratic-machine-run Chicago give parasites like Chavez a place to hide and feed off unsuspecting citizens without consequence.
It doesn’t take genius to understand why the Democrats want to reward illegals like Chavez; the liberal presumption is that amnesty will turn into votes. They’re robbing Peter to pay Paco. But their strategy carries an inherent risk: Anyone willing to crawl across the desert to trim Warren Buffett’s hedges possesses a far stronger work ethic than a sizeable number of the Democrats’ base. When the newly acknowledged citizens find out they’re going to have to chip in to carry the corpulent dependent-class types who already sold their votes (and souls) to the Democrats in return for taxpayer-funded largesse, they may decide to deliver their votes to someone else. And they will have the muscle to play kingmaker.
In the meantime, some of the same people upon whom Obama and the Democrats want to bestow the gift of citizenship despite their flouting of the law are taking our money, our jobs and — in some cases — our lives.
By the time I bothered to log on to Facebook this past Saturday, Whitney Houston had been dead for a few hours. It’s not that I wasn’t paying particularly close attention to the wires on Saturday, it’s just that I was not paying particularly close attention to anything on Saturday. Suffice it to say, when I logged on to “the Book,” the first thing I noticed was a stream of posts about the demise of America’s erstwhile sweetheart.
Some of the status updates regarding Houston tended toward the shamefully cliched: “Crack is whack!” What incisive wits with which so many Facebookers are blessed! Elsewhere, the inappropriately maudlin held sway: “Rest now, Whitney. You were the voice of a generation.” Houston was born in 1963. Her birth year places her at the end of the baby boomer generation. While I won’t argue that Houston could sing magnificently (a fact reflected in her stratospheric record sales), I’m not sure she was the “voice of a generation.” And spare us the crocodile tears, people; you didn’t know her personally.
The rest of those who shared some sentiment regarding Houston’s death offered varying themes of the “cautionary tale.” I will grant that Houston’s apparently self-induced death is a cautionary tale, but let’s not overstate the case. Pretty much every minute of Houston’s last two decades or so served as a cautionary tale. And the warning it carries has nothing to do with the tragedy of addiction, nor does it sound some alarm regarding the perils of fame.
The cautionary tale told by Houston’s death centers on the fact that Americans care far too much about precisely the wrong people. Houston was a gifted singer who frittered away her talent, her image, her career and ultimately her life by behaving like a spoiled child with access to a piggy bank the size of the hogs at the 4-H club’s livestock pavilion. Another supremely talented singer/actor eschewed logic at every turn and ignored even her own advice and snuffed herself out well ahead of schedule. That makes Houston about as remarkable as an abandoned building in Detroit.
To say our culture is celebrity-obsessed is trite. It would also undersell the point. Houston died, and the Nation donned its funeral suit. But she simply added her own name to a list which stretches back across decades. Billie Holliday, Hank Williams, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Keith Moon and John Bonham shuffled off their mortal coils in similar fashion. The President of the United States made a political joke about “Biggie and Tupac” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Oh, what a chuckler! Two “gangsta-rappers” who spent their entire careers living off angry “music” glorifying shocking violence, drug abuse and almost cartoonishly horrendous behavior died in a manner befitting their lyrics. Tee-hee, Mr. President.
Steven Tyler and Keith Richards have somehow evaded the reaper, but their infamously hard lifestyles are winked at by fans and pundits alike. We know their approaching ends are well-deserved; we even laugh with them about it. But then, so many of us will try to attach ourselves to their deaths in the worst way possible. When we treat these people and their self-destructiveness as somehow acceptable — even noble (Houston is “singing to the angels”?); we set the bar awfully low.
Doubtlessly, some of you will email Bob, demanding he fire me, reprimand me or otherwise punish me for what some might mistake for my dancing on Houston’s grave. To you, I say: “You’re seriously missing the point.” Don’t weep for Houston. Don’t act horrified by her death. Don’t endeavor to turn her early departure for the grave into what Obama Administration Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske described as a “teachable moment.” Do shake your head at the waste of talent. Do blame her for failing herself and her family. And do remember there were, are and will be better people who pass on through tragic and/or heroic circumstances who won’t be the subject of awards-show memorials, fawning print and Web retrospectives or coldhearted columns like this one.
Editor’s note: Over the next several days we will be making upgrades to our site. During this time, you may see some issues, including but not limited to the site loading more slowly than normal. Additionally, on Thursday morning your ability to post comments will be turned off for a few hours. These upgrades should be completed by Friday morning if all goes as planned. Thanks for your patience. –BL
The echoes of his oath of office had barely faded when President Barack Obama added another accolade to his resume. Just nine days after he began his occupation of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he infamously won. Although the prestige of the Nobel laureates has declined in recent years (their number includes the murderous Islamofascist Yasser Arafat and the faux-scientist Al Gore), Obama’s win was hailed by his minions as proof that his ascension from obscurity was the first step toward a modern-day Pax Americana.
Unfortunately, much like the votes of millions of people who were duped by a campaign heavy on simplistic turns of phrase (“hope and change”) and light on depth, the votes of the Nobel Prize Committee were miscast. Obama’s promises of a more peaceful world under his watch flitted like ash from the pyres of global conflict. The pullout from Iraq fades against the continued battles in Afghanistan. The NATO strikes that both literally and figuratively killed off Gadhafi in Libya — for which Obama proudly took credit — have produced a civil war that rages on.
Meanwhile, the situation in Syria is developing into a magnified version of the Libyan quagmire. For those of you who missed Bob Livingston’s Friday column “Has World War III Begun?”, Syria is shaping up to be a proxy fight between East and West. My concerns are:
- The vocally belligerent and potentially nuclear-armed Iranians have chosen to back the Syrians in general and Bashar Assad in particular, despite the fact that most Syrians are Sunni and the Iranians are primarily Shiite. That happens to be a religious distinction that has spurred on more than a few shooting wars in the Levant and surrounding regions over the centuries — a lesson the Iranians evidently missed during their decade of war with Iraq.
- Obama’s allegiances are, at best, in question. As we recently learned, his Administration leaked valuable intel to Iran regarding Israeli defensive strategies.
- Both Iran and Syria enjoy material support from both the ChiComs and the Russians. Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to enjoy armed conflict as much as he enjoys posing shirtless for pictures. The ChiComs have also demonstrated a lack of compunction when it comes to killing people. The neighborhood drunk and the neighborhood bully have joined forces, and in front of them lie at least two nations in Iran and Syria whose leaders believe spreading Islamofascism is God’s own work. Don’t think for one moment that Obama’s ham-fisted domestic acumen and mewling foreign policy have escaped their collective notice.
What gives me the greatest pause is the fact that Obama is allowing — is being forced to allow — the British and French to press forward into a conflict which looks to be the combat equivalent of gasoline on a five-alarm fire. Nobel laureate Obama is perfectly willing to commit our troops and material to battle, but is either unwilling or unable to lead from the front.
To be fair, it is entirely possible that Obama is so overwhelmed with the fallout from his Administration’s scandals and incompetence on the home front that he simply lacks the wherewithal to focus on the growing difficulties abroad. Should that be the case, the American electorate can remedy the situation by dismissing Obama from office in the fall. However, I suspect his minions want war. The members of the Democratic elite have been redoubtable in their efforts to portray the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize on speculation as a wartime stalwart. Should war erupt over Syria before Election Day, look for Obama’s horde to deploy the same “don’t change horses” strategy they used during the 2004 Presidential election. But the perils of entering new conflicts behind a leader who defines the pejorative front-runner are legion.
The Democratic Party has positioned itself as the anti-war party since the regrettable tenure of President Jimmy Carter while beating the drums when war suited their needs. President Bill Clinton certainly proved that by lobbing cruise missiles at dark-skinned people every time he needed cover for another bimbo eruption.
And for the first time in most of our lifetimes, the lesser nations of the world openly mock the United States, as well as consort and conspire with whomever they wish without fear. I wouldn’t follow these duplicitous Democrats to the bathroom; none of us should follow them into war.