Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Obama Follis: A Short Comedy

A Short Mock Play in One Act

Cast of Characters-
Chorus: A Voice of reason
Barack Obama: President of the United States
America: People of the United States

Act I

Chorus: Where to begin on the Obama administration and the Middle East? The whole thing smacks of the most delicious irony one could imagine.

Some time ago, Iran cried foul when its election appeared rigged and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was elected over his more progressive counterpart. Ahmedinejad was guilty of numerous human rights violations against the multitudes of protesters, who merely wanted to ensure that the democratic election was on the level. The Iranian people cried out to the American president, and he had to take a stance...

[Enter Barack] Barack [to America]: We need to just keep our nose out of this Iran thing. After all, who could possibly imagine that a faux-democratic theocracy run by the mullahs would rig an election to maintain power and continue their efforts to destroy Israel? We are not at war with Islam, you know. Perhaps we should just turn a blind eye...

Chorus: And so Obama proved that he's just not that interested in democracy after all, leading the People to believe that maybe he was serious when he said that bringing democracy to Iraq was a fool's endeavor. But then, Egypt erupted.

America: Barack, there's some guys protesting in Egypt against that Mubarak guy that has kept relative peace with Israel for like thirty years.
Barack: That guy has got to go! When the people call for change, we must answer the call of history and assist them. [Aside, to audience] Pay no mind to the fact that the group protesting Mubarak's authority in Cairo is one-fifth the size of the one those gun- and God-clingers amassed in Washington, D.C. last year.

[Weeks pass, and Barack leads political campaign against Mubarak. Mubarak resigns.]

Barack: So Mubarak is out, all signs point to the Muslim Brotherhood being in. And that is not a bad thing, because we are not at war with Islam, after all. Democracy wins!
America: Well done, Barack!

Chorus: Only problem is, the Muslim Brotherhood bases their ideology on the Hasan Al-Banna 1928 treatise, Jihad. Here's a small taste of it: "It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb {House of War -- the non-Muslim world} every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this." So despite the President's assurances, some among the People became unsettled at the thought that even when there's peace, they could expect attacks from the Islamic fundamentalists of Egypt, considering that simply being a non-Muslim is enough justification to do so. And some began to wonder if the treaty Israel has with Egypt would be upheld, when suddenly...

America: But, wait, look over there! Libya is following the example of other Middle Eastern countries and calling for democracy. What should we do with that Gaddafi guy?
Barack: Get him out of there, of course!
America: But Barack, who will replace this government?
Barack: The people of Libya will decide that.
America: But Barack, don't the people of Libya hate Europeans, Americans, and Israel? Isn't there a strong al-Qaeda presence there?
Barack: We don't know that for sure. American fear-mongers might say that because Libyans are primarily Muslims. But we are not at war with Islam.
America: [aside, so as not to be heard by many] Yeah, but it sure seems like most of those guys chanting "Death to America" say "Allahu Akhbar" a lot...

Chorus: And so commenced the "coalition" military effort against the Libyan government. At this, a confused America began to reflect...

America [to Barack]: Didn't you say that George Bush acted illegally when he acted with 30 countries in coalition to initiate the Iraq War? Now you are engaging in similar militaristic democracy shaping with the support of only 16? What gives?
Barack [to America]: You should be proud of what I've done. We've saved Libyan lives from a ruthless dictator who was ready to direct his armed forces against his people.
America: But didn't Saddam Hussein ruthlessly murder his own people and unleash chemical weapons upon hundreds of thousands of Kurdish Muslims?
Barack: That was different.
America: How?
Barack: In Libya, there will be no ground troops. I will show Gaddafi that I mean business, but will let him know that I will not exert effort beyond a certain point if it may make it easier for my opposition to draw a parallel between my regime and the Bush administration. That way, we can appear to be serious about human rights, but we will also not upset the Islamic world too much. We're not at war with Islam, you know. Now if you'll excuse me, all these questions and people wanting me to say stuff is really cutting into my family's vacation time in South America.
America: Oh yeah, sorry about that, Mr. President. [Exeunt Barack] Oh well. I wonder how things are with that Charlie Sheen? He's one crazy cat...

Chorus: And so, Barack Obama plods onward, leading the American people down the path he has laid: spend lots of money at home, confuse your enemies by acting tough while apologizing for being tough, and for God's sake, don't mention that we could be fighting the forces of Islamic fundamentalism.

There is a certain irony that negates any tragedy in this tale. Whereas in the tragedy of Oedipus the King the hero is blinded as the result of his tragic fall, Barack Obama rose to power and reigns as a result of, and in spite of, his blindness. The outcome of which is the dark comedy of current American politics.


William Sullivan

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Still Batting .1000 Against Fundamentalist Islam, Robert Spencer Hits Another Pair of Homeruns

Robert Spencer has made a living socking dingers off the weak rhetoric of Islamic apologists in Western culture. And if you missed it, his latest two were pretty impressive.

Barack Obama sent his national security advisor, Denis McDonough, to quell the fury of protesters who claim that the Congressional hearings on Islamic radicalism "unfairly single out Muslims as potential terrorists."

McDonough said to a Washington-area mosque: "Being religious is never un-American. Being religious is quintessentially American."

To which the venerable Robert Spencer replies on his website,

Really? Being religious in any way? Then why was the Waco compound besieged and burned down? Why was Mormon polygamy outlawed? Jim Jones was a terrific fellow?

The U.S. has in the past identified ways in which being religious might be harmful to the national security. Now we face a threat from people who commit violence and explain and justify their actions by reference to the texts and teachings of a particular religion, and the White House is saying that any investigation of that is out of the question. Will this not have the effect of ensuring that the unexamined, unresisted behavior will continue?

McDonough served him up, so Robert smacked it 380 feet over the left field wall.

In a separate at-bat, Spencer expands upon the undeniable fact that the government is entirely selective about which religions it prosecutes or protects. He references that a 17 year old Islamic protester named Anam Chaudhry, who “pointedly wrapped herself in an American flag,” said "I'm not some sort of alien. I'm like everyone else... It's a shame that some people can't see that. But we come in peace."

It’s safe to assume that Robert expected the gist of what Anam had to say. He’s been in the game long enough to know that an Islamic apologist calling everyone else intolerant is the only pitch they can bring: high, inside heat meant to scare the batter enough to back out of the box altogether. But Spencer has learned to hit it with gusto. He just digs in, and responds:

Does Anam Chaudhry, wrapped up in her flag, really think that Congressional hearings about jihad activity in the U.S. actually threaten her? Why? If there were an armed group of Christian terrorists plotting violence in the U.S. and justifying them by reference to Bible texts, and a Congressmen held hearings about the radicalization of Christians, would non-radical Christians feel threatened? Should they feel threatened? Or might the claim that such hearings did indeed threaten non-radical Christians be an attempt at fearmongering by the radicals, designed to intimidate those holding the hearings into being too afraid of public pressure to accomplish anything useful?

450 feet over the center field fence. And I’m sure in his next at-bat, he’ll hit another homerun. It’s getting so that we don’t wonder if he will hit one off of these scrubs, we just wonder how far.

We’re witnessing some of the most amazing stuff ever. Robert Spencer should be a national icon, a hero for his work in exposing fundamental Islam. It’s clear, there’s just nothing that that fundamentalist Muslims or Islamic apologists can say that can stop his hellacious assault of logic and reason!

So why are all the cheers and accolades for his performance so muffled? It’s because so few of us are actually in the stadium watching the game. Millions of drones are sitting in awe next door, watching Obama’s grandiose, staged performance, complete with politically correct clowns and jugglers of the truth.

William Sullivan

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Our "One-trick Pony" in Chief

When President Obama tackled the economic crisis in early 2009 via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, what was his plan of action?

More money, and more reform.

When President Obama tackled the problems with the rising cost of healthcare, what did he offer as a solution?

More money, and more reform.

It's clear that Biggie had it right when he said, "mo money, mo problems." Because problems is all we've gotten from Obama spending all of our money that we haven't made yet. Despite the Recovery Act, banks still have deficits and still don't lend. Sure, some fish hatcheries (pp. 123) in our national parks did get stocked. (for $165MM, by the way) But is that worth the billions we owe to foreign interests? What did the money and reform in healthcare give us? Fewer insurance policies being offered, a few thousand more IRS agents to breathe down our necks, and government administrated student loans.

Now, President Obama sees that there is a problem with American education. Here are the only facts of the case that matter. Since 1970, spending on education has tripled. Since 1970, quality of education has waned, and we are being surpassed by the rest of the world in terms of education.

What does that tell the sane individual? That throwing money at the problem is not working.

What does that tell Barack Obama? That we just haven't been throwing enough money at the problem. Oh, and we haven't reformed enough, either.

"People started to realize what is needed is not either, or -- not either more money or more reform, it's both. Both more money and more reform."

Yeah, you've suggested that before, Mr. President. But that's not what people are starting to realize. They're starting to realize that "Mo Money, Mo Reform" is the only thing you know how to suggest, and though it might have worked in the cesspool of Chicagoland in your community organizing days, it is not a viable economic strategy for our nation. It just puts us deeper in debt.

Oh, and a news flash, Mr. President: Americans don't like it.

William Sullivan