Friday, August 30, 2013

Syria - What's In It for US?


"Hey guys - we're the US government and we're here to help."  Yeah, right!  As if the Syrians will have a warm place in their heart for America now or ever.  So it's not friends we're trying to make - I think it's fair to say that the Syrian rebels (that include factions of Al Qaeda, by the way) would just as soon saw off our heads after Obama's surgical strikes as now.  This time we have no coalition or U.N. resolution.  Russia and China say don't go - so we're just going to piss them off.  I heard today there's a big pipeline in the works between Europe and Asia that goes through Syria, so those guys may have a bunch of money at stake.  Syria and Iran say they'll rain missiles down on Israel if we attack, so it potentially endangers Israel.  Plus, who knows what attacks Islamists will launch in the West or in the U.S. in retaliation?  So what exactly is the upside?!  I just don't see one unless this is really all about justice for people senselessly slaughtered in the Middle East - hardly a rare occurrence.  I guess there's one other upside:  Obama can save some face and be tough about a "Red Line" he declared a year ago.  Either way, it seems like a risky mission and I think they should strip Obama of his Nobel Peace Prize the way they decrown Miss America when she gets caught smoking pot or committing some other lapse of judgment.

Personally, I think we should be bringing our military home rather than getting involved in anything.  I think Obama may have even campaigned on that.  But as long as we're playing World Cop, let's choose our side a little better.  So far, we're 0 for 5 as far as I can tell.  In Libya, Egypt I, and Syria, we backed radical Islamists, e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood or even Al Qaeda, believe it or not.  But when secular-seeming protesters fought against their regime in Iran and Egypt II, our position was to stay out of it.  In the case of Syria, there is no good side and we have nothing to gain by being involved.

The only inspirational thing in this debacle I saw was how Parliament in Britain got together, debated the issue, and voted to sit this one out.  How civilized of their prime minister to appeal to their Parliament before committing their nation to an act of war!  I mean, it's not like this is an emergency where the sovereignty of the British or the U.S. was directly attacked or anything.  Imagine Obama getting this mad when a bunch of Islamic extremists attacked our consulate in Benghazi and murdered our ambassador!  That at least would have made some sense.

So let's hope we don't needlessly spark anything bigger than it already is and thank you Ted Cruz for the wonderful tweet yesterday (below).  He's one of us!


Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Phoney: Hope and Change


I guess the big ears should have been the first clue that something was wrong in 2008.  It's remarkable to consider the other similarities between Bush and Obama:

- Both are responsible for doubling the national debt.  For Bush, it went from roughly $4T to $9T.  Now at $17T, it's pretty obvious that we'll hit $18T.  That means that each accumulated more debt than all of the presidents before him combined.

- Both massively grew the government and entitlements.  Bush established the Homeland Security Dept and expanded Medicare.  Obamacare is just one example of Obama's expansion - a new entitlement program destined to collapse just as sure as our existing entitlement programs, not to mention all the new agencies and regulations to implement it.

- Both are absolute disasters when it comes to the economy.  Bush popped the mortgage bubble and Obama has nothing to show for the trillions in stimulus money he's squandered on his green energy and union cronies.  It's true Obama has recovered some of the jobs that were lost in the Great Recession, but I read recently that for every 8 jobs created under Obama in 2013, 7 of them are part time!!

- And now we see that Obama's every bit as willing as Bush to pull us into new conflicts in the Middle East.  Except unlike Bush, he doesn't bother to seek Congressional approval.

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the liberal media treatment of the two and it's incredible how liberals don't seem to mind the hypocrisy.  In fact, just yesterday, I was hearing all about the justification for Obama to attack Syria.  Suddenly it's controversial where I live to oppose getting involved in a new war in the Middle East!  Look at these next two cartoons - what happened to Hope and Change?  Who knew in 2008 that change would mean doubling down?  In Bush's second term, we had a lame duck President.  In Obama's second term, we have a lame duck Constitution.


There are so many similarities in the outcomes with Democrats vs establishment Republicans in power.  The only politicians interested in unraveling the mess we're in are the Conservative Tea Party Republicans - that's why they're vilified.  If you think they're extremists on the fringe, then you've fallen for the liberal media narrative.  Was there anything extreme or right-wing about the American Revolution or the Constitution when you learned about them in school?  As far as I can tell, Tea Party Conservatives have two unifying aims: 1) Balance the Budget and 2) Restore the Constitution, which our government is completely unmoored from.  We agree on social issues, too - they should be left to the states.