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.

Finis

William Sullivan

As The World Burns...

The Middle East is in a state of unprecedented upheaval that could plunge the world into war. Europe is in chaos due to vast budget shortfalls. Oil prices are poised to breach the ceiling previously known. The dollar is primed for collapse, and several currencies are being touted as a possible new trading standard.

Meanwhile, in America, public sector unions are fighting for their life to retain the influence they hold in deciding how public money will be spent. And their supporters are pulling out all the stops. Pro-union lawmakers are going AWOL and shirking the civic responsibility they have sworn to uphold. Our pro-union president is seeking to apply his federal influence in the fray, though he has no Constitutional right to do so. And pro-union lawmakers call for blood in the streets to get what they want.

But aside from unscrupulous union supporters, what is being done in Wisconsin is exactly how our government was meant to work. The state's budget shortfall has been directly linked to the collective bargaining rights of the unions in that state: strong-arming unions manipulated politicians to promise more in deferred benefits than it is possible to pay now that the bill is due. To reconcile this, officials have been elected by the people to plug the fiscal hole that the unions have created. To do this, Governor Walker of Wisconsin has suggested that public servants begin contributing 5.8% to their own pension funds, and that they pay for 12% of their healthcare premiums. Oh yeah, and the unions have to give up the collective bargaining rights that led to this mess in the first place.

This is all to be voted upon by elected officials, and it is constitutionally sound. Consider this to be our republic's way of giving shareholders, i.e., taxpayers, a say in how the business they have invested in is run.

Democrats are crying foul in this instance because Republican leaning police and firefighters in Wisconsin were not asked to make any such adjustments. It is as if they believe that unions and the entire public sector of Wisconsin should all be subject to equal accountability for the collective public pension problems, regardless of which segment caused the problems or which segments have performed better than others. (Need more proof that Democrats today are socialists?) But the fact is, it is entirely possible that the state funded teachers' pension is collapsing while that may not be the case for firefighters and cops who rely on city or county pensions.

The municipal troubles in our nation are incredibly different everywhere you look, so the problems in Wisconsin do not necessarily translate to problems in California, while problems in California don't necessarily translate to problems in Texas. And beyond that, Texas' problems don't necessarily translate to Dallas or Houston's problems. And even further beyond that, Houston firefighters' problems don't necessarily translate to Houston police officers' problems.

The issue certainly isn't black and white. So we need to be reasonable, and allow each city and state to take their own approach to handle the problems with public sector pay and benefits based on the type and severity of each problem. However, we also need to be steadfast in addressing these problems, because is clear that most municipalities, if not all, do have problems that endanger taxpayers.

If there is one universal flaw in public compensation, it is the very notion of the defined benefit. There can be no question that defined benefits cannot exist with birth rates and life expentancies as they are* without perpetually increasing tax liabilty. In my opinion, they must be amended across the board in favor of defined contribution plans. How quickly that transition must take place will depend upon the solvency, or lack thereof, of each municipality.

But we who would seek to amend troubled defined benefit programs are not calling for blood in the streets like the pro-union Democratic legislators that are so quick to decry the "hate speech" on talk radio while implicitly suggesting pure violence in the name of their cause. As much as we in the private sector would like to end public sector unions' noxious existence, we instead choose to elect politicians that would fulfill our wishes constitutionally, and right each ship, respectively.

And Walker is just doing what he was elected by the people to do; right the fiscal ship of Wisconsin. Of course, given that there are idiots among the protesting teachers holding signs that say "Egypt supports Wisconsin workers," maybe the proper action for Walker should be to just fire them all and hire from among the millions of unemployed to take their place. If teachers there think that protesting against a ~5% contribution to the retirement fund they will eventually collect is anything like revolting against a Middle Eastern Islamic dictatorship, the replacements could not possibly be any dumber than the teachers they already employ.

William Sullivan

* William G. Shipman, a leading global expert regarding Social Security, is one of many voices heralding the unsustainable nature of defined benefit plans, and is currently working with legislators to reform Social Security for the private sector. You will find incredible evidence of the flawed nature of defined benefits in today's world here.