It's clear now that no one one on Capitol Hill knows the content of any big, pivotal bills put before Congress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka Obama's stimulus? The vast majority on the Hill couldn't have read it. It was $787 billion in taxpayer money, passed in Obama's first year in office without any specificity about where each million or billion was going. We later found that $90 billion went to green energy, subsidizing, among other bad investments, windfarms that hack thousands upon thousands of birds to death each year. "Awesome, save the planet!" said the Eco-sensitive greenies. The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, aka Obamacare? Another $900 billion (by the very conservative projections) in federal spending. But everyone gets healthcare even if they don't wanna pay for it? "Sweet!" said the single-payer morons. "I want my mom to have to wait two years for an MRI like they do in Canada and the UK!"
Even when Republicans took control of Congress in a November election last year, the CRomnibus bill -- $1.1 trillion in federal spending -- was passed with Republican John Boehner simply promising us that "frankly, it's a good bill."
The legislative process nowadays seems to be something akin to me showing my five-year old son a copy of Moby Dick and having him say, "Whales are cool, that's a great idea, dad. Let's go with that." Then five minutes into it he recognizes that it's a slow and boring book, and he realizes that he had no idea what he got himself into. But he's stuck with it, because if he doesn't sit and endure it, I'll take away his dinner and start him on lawn duty for the rest of his and his children's life.
That's what government does these days. Take the latest Net Neutrality bill that passed through the halls of Congress. It was passed under the guise of busting up the digital trusts, destroying the internet monopolies. What exactly does the bill give the government the power to do? Who knows? No one read the bill in its entirety! But now, here we sit, after the bill has been passed, reading commentary about all the implications inherent in the bill which gives government the kind of power to regulate the substantial commerce via the internet.
In our granting the government such power as taking out a credit card in our grandkids' name, or fundamentally changing our healthcare system, or regulating our intellectual consumption via the internet, wouldn't in make sense, Congress -- as our representatives -- to read the damn bill before it's passed?
William Sullivan
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Obamacare Skewered in Song
First of all, we would like to apologize for the hiatus in uploading content to the blog. These last months have been busy, but we will be looking to remedy this. And also, a big thank you to all readers, we are now poised to cross the threshold of 100,000 hits for this site. Very thankful to have our readership.
I once heard comedian Steven Crowder explain Houston talk radio czar Michael Berry why he does what he does, creating humorous videos with a conservative political bent. He said that Thomas Sowell could be in a debate with Jon Stewart, and while Sowell is an intellectual mountain to Stewart's molehill, young people will think Stewart wins the debate because he makes them laugh.
It's extraordinarily sad, but true. It's hard to keep young people's attention, probably now more than ever, what with these fancy new "smartphones" and "social media" and whatnot. (Granted, I wasn't exactly whittling wood in my day, but having just turned 33, my crotchety geezer talk just got a little more cred) And now, more than ever, we need young people to understand that this government is looking to spend their future today. We need them to know that they are going to finance healthcare for everyone older than them, that it will be more difficult to find full-time employment, and that they will be the ones our government relies upon while chasing the dragon of its spending addiction.
Our collective future as a free nation is dependent upon young people seeing through the lies and whitewash surrounding the Obamacare rhetoric. And to those ends, videos like this one below are essential to our liberty. When such creative people are able to blend their talents with political ideals, especially in a manner that is so relatable, condensed, and undeniably true, we should applaud it and share.
I once heard comedian Steven Crowder explain Houston talk radio czar Michael Berry why he does what he does, creating humorous videos with a conservative political bent. He said that Thomas Sowell could be in a debate with Jon Stewart, and while Sowell is an intellectual mountain to Stewart's molehill, young people will think Stewart wins the debate because he makes them laugh.
It's extraordinarily sad, but true. It's hard to keep young people's attention, probably now more than ever, what with these fancy new "smartphones" and "social media" and whatnot. (Granted, I wasn't exactly whittling wood in my day, but having just turned 33, my crotchety geezer talk just got a little more cred) And now, more than ever, we need young people to understand that this government is looking to spend their future today. We need them to know that they are going to finance healthcare for everyone older than them, that it will be more difficult to find full-time employment, and that they will be the ones our government relies upon while chasing the dragon of its spending addiction.
Our collective future as a free nation is dependent upon young people seeing through the lies and whitewash surrounding the Obamacare rhetoric. And to those ends, videos like this one below are essential to our liberty. When such creative people are able to blend their talents with political ideals, especially in a manner that is so relatable, condensed, and undeniably true, we should applaud it and share.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Bill Whittle Discusses the Lynching of George Zimmerman
This excellent video explores the facts of the Trayvon Martin shooting, set in comparison to the narrative presented by the media -- one that in spite of Zimmerman's exoneration in a court of law, seems to yet pervade the social consciousness of millions of Americans.
Whether these Americans are only passively interested or ideologically bound to the accepted media narrative does not matter. There is no excuse for such ignorance and complicit support of the unjust desires of a mob. As John Adams said to the jury while making his unpopular defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre:
John Adams made this defense not because he loved the British, but because it was right. He later looked back at this moment as one of his proudest, saying that judgment of death against these soldiers who acted in self-defense would be "as foul a stain upon this Country as the Execution of Quakers and Witches, anciently."
Thankfully, the law has been upheld, and George Zimmerman found innocent. But regrettably, the mob calling for his lynching still holds sway, thanks to racial arsonists like Al Sharpton, the dishonest journalism of ABC, and none other than the president of the United States.
This video only touches the tip of the iceberg. But it's a good place to start for any reasonable person who craves truth.
William Sullivan can be followed on Twitter.
Whether these Americans are only passively interested or ideologically bound to the accepted media narrative does not matter. There is no excuse for such ignorance and complicit support of the unjust desires of a mob. As John Adams said to the jury while making his unpopular defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre:
Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the facts; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, they had a right to kill in their own defense.
John Adams made this defense not because he loved the British, but because it was right. He later looked back at this moment as one of his proudest, saying that judgment of death against these soldiers who acted in self-defense would be "as foul a stain upon this Country as the Execution of Quakers and Witches, anciently."
Thankfully, the law has been upheld, and George Zimmerman found innocent. But regrettably, the mob calling for his lynching still holds sway, thanks to racial arsonists like Al Sharpton, the dishonest journalism of ABC, and none other than the president of the United States.
This video only touches the tip of the iceberg. But it's a good place to start for any reasonable person who craves truth.
William Sullivan can be followed on Twitter.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Egyptian Salafi Cleric Weighs in on the Boston Bombing
Cleric Murgan Salem has some pretty dire revelations for America, seen in the video below.
There is much in this chilling clip that is revealing, and first and foremost is the obvious reminder that, even if the attack in Boston was not an act of Islamic jihad, jihadists see such attacks as a victory. Clearly, he sees the attack as too "amateurish" to have been the work of al-Qaeda and posits that it could have likely been an American who is dissatisfied with American policy, but nonetheless, the bombing sends a message that we Americans can be attacked anywhere, anytime, and by anyone.
Second, we notice that his appraisal of jihad runs in clear conflict with the standard leftist mantra about armed jihad being a fringe phenomenon, only embraced by those who follow the twisted perversion of Islam practiced by the late Osama bin Laden, for example. He assures the world that it is not bin Laden or al-Zawahiri that gave the world the notion that violent jihad is a religious imperative -- that honor belongs with Allah and the Quran. While many Muslims, particularly in the West, have evolved a more progressive view of jihad, the more archaic brand of jihad still courses in the veins of Islamic fundamentalism, pumped by various hearts like al Qaeda. Hence, Islamic fundamentalism remains a global scourge, not a fairy tale made up by right-wing conservatives.
Third, and I thought most interesting (considering the above mentioned items are not necessarily news to me, but reminders), we notice that he believes America to be finished. What is his reasoning, beyond the fact that Islamic fundamentalists will be emboldened and increasingly take the jihad to America's back yard? He cites America's bloated debt and Americans' increased dependence on welfare. In America, millions of the usefully dim refuse to see this as a problem, believing our unfathomable debt to be sustainable, and steadily increasing welfare dependence to be a good thing. In the Islamic world, fundamentalists cheer at our willingness to commit to economic self-atrophy, thereby assisting the jihadists who long for America's demise.
Barack Obama sought to improve relations with the Islamic world through dialogue, insisting that with the right leadership, the Islamic world would respect and accept a relationship peaceful relationship with America. But it appears that our president's candor and domestic policies have done little more than assure the Islamic world that we are weaker than ever, and ripe for destruction.
William Sullivan
There is much in this chilling clip that is revealing, and first and foremost is the obvious reminder that, even if the attack in Boston was not an act of Islamic jihad, jihadists see such attacks as a victory. Clearly, he sees the attack as too "amateurish" to have been the work of al-Qaeda and posits that it could have likely been an American who is dissatisfied with American policy, but nonetheless, the bombing sends a message that we Americans can be attacked anywhere, anytime, and by anyone.
Second, we notice that his appraisal of jihad runs in clear conflict with the standard leftist mantra about armed jihad being a fringe phenomenon, only embraced by those who follow the twisted perversion of Islam practiced by the late Osama bin Laden, for example. He assures the world that it is not bin Laden or al-Zawahiri that gave the world the notion that violent jihad is a religious imperative -- that honor belongs with Allah and the Quran. While many Muslims, particularly in the West, have evolved a more progressive view of jihad, the more archaic brand of jihad still courses in the veins of Islamic fundamentalism, pumped by various hearts like al Qaeda. Hence, Islamic fundamentalism remains a global scourge, not a fairy tale made up by right-wing conservatives.
Third, and I thought most interesting (considering the above mentioned items are not necessarily news to me, but reminders), we notice that he believes America to be finished. What is his reasoning, beyond the fact that Islamic fundamentalists will be emboldened and increasingly take the jihad to America's back yard? He cites America's bloated debt and Americans' increased dependence on welfare. In America, millions of the usefully dim refuse to see this as a problem, believing our unfathomable debt to be sustainable, and steadily increasing welfare dependence to be a good thing. In the Islamic world, fundamentalists cheer at our willingness to commit to economic self-atrophy, thereby assisting the jihadists who long for America's demise.
Barack Obama sought to improve relations with the Islamic world through dialogue, insisting that with the right leadership, the Islamic world would respect and accept a relationship peaceful relationship with America. But it appears that our president's candor and domestic policies have done little more than assure the Islamic world that we are weaker than ever, and ripe for destruction.
William Sullivan
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Romney's Biggest Mistake
Mitt Romney believed the American people were smart. He honestly believed that the American people were smart enough to realize that a president that has had his way for four years was still somehow campaigning on what he would do if given the chance. He believed that the American people were smart enough to realize that the slight upticks in the economy were not because of Obama's regulations and fiscal policies but in spite of them. He didn’t feel that he had to present this to the American people in a harsh, mud slinging, negative way. Instead his approach was based more on presenting a better alternative, a better America. He did this in a no-nonsense and yet never condescending way. Polls consistently show that people overwhelmingly disdain negative attack ads when asked face to face. Romney took them at their word, and unfortunately the actual results of many a political race have proved negative ads have quite a different effect when a person is behind the voting curtain. This race was no different.
Romney also believed that the American people, as a whole, are not satisfied being subsidized by the government. He believed that 16 million more people on food stamps is a horrible statistic that should outrage Americans. He never believed in stripping away the helping hand but instead instituting a plan where people would get themselves back to work. He believed that Americans would jump at the opportunity to have a life where the sky is the limit, not one where you are capped by a welfare check. A nation where people are constantly striving to improve their lot in life so that next year has the possibility of being better than the last, not because the government gives you a slightly larger handout, but because the government no longer impedes or punishes your success.
Mitt Romney truly believed in the American people. Today it is obvious he was mistaken.
Calvin Parker
@murph_clp on Twitter
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Before You Say "War On Women" Again...
To be sure, I'm all for having a discussion about how healthcare should be administrated in this country. Personally, I advocate local and private administration rather than a federal single-payer system, and I think history, evidence, and fiscal reason support my preference. But sure, let's have the conversation about the merits of boths paths, and lawfully implement changes without circumvention of the Constitution. Looking at you, Democrats that support ObamaCare.
But where I take particular issue is when some among the American left argue that the lack of a federal birth-control mandate constitutes a GOP-led "War on Women."
Before using these words in the future (as they have little value beyond being an emotional trigger, anyway), read this amazing and informative article by Robert Fisk. It may offer perspective on some other cultures and ideologies that truly wage war upon women. I will suggest reading it all (full link below), as it is a global epidemic that warrants far more attention than it is given, but for those pressed for time, here is an excerpt that particularly affected me:
"[A] young woman found in a drainage ditch near Daharki in Pakistan, "honour" killed by her family as she gave birth to her second child, her nose, ears and lips chopped off before being axed to death, her first infant lying dead among her clothes, her newborn's torso still in her womb, its head already emerging from her body? She was badly decomposed; the local police were asked to bury her. Women carried the three to a grave, but a Muslim cleric refused to say prayers for her because it was "irreligious" to participate in the namaz-e-janaza prayers for "a cursed woman and her illegitimate children"."
Now, remember that Rush Limbaugh is known far and wide as a misogynist of the highest order for saying that Sandra Fluke should buy her own birth control and for calling her a slut. Then, think about the fact that events like this are quietly happening every single day in other nations, most often in predominantly fundamentalist Islamic ones, without the slightest mention of condemnation by the American left.
And then, reflect on how incredibly ridiculous this GOP-led "War On Women" nonsense really is.
Found at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html
William Sullivan
** Above image courtesy of Global Post. Hat tip to Dr. M. Zudhi Jasser for providing this article.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
For the Heroes of Oahu, the Trumpets Will Not Fade
"Their tenacity helped define the Greatest Generation and their valor fortified all who served during World War II. As a nation, we look to December 7, 1941, to draw strength from the example set by these patriots and to honor all who have sacrificed for our freedoms."
These are the words of President Barack Obama, commemorating and honoring the heroes of that fateful day that saw the beginning of a conflict against the most ardent and determined enemy America has ever faced: the empire of Japan.
Today, we look back in reverence at the sacrifice that, once made in moments of unnatural bravery, has endured for the generations that followed, granting Americans life's most precious gift- freedom. We bear witness to these final years where the remaining survivors of the greatest conflict the world has ever known can be personally thanked for their sacrifice. My grandfather, William Jackson Sullivan, a hero of the European theatre in WWII and a man after whom I am named, left this world peacefully this year, serving as a reminder of the great honor we have had in knowing such valiant men who risked all to ensure that others could be free. Such men deserve our undying reverence.
And on this day, in speaking to a group of surviving veterans of the attack on Dec. 7th, 1941, Barack Obama's words (though I don't often agree with him) are entirely appropriate.
William Jackson Sullivan II
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Crazily Increasing Wealth of the 1%
"This week, a new economic report confirmed what most Americans already believe to be true: over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier. In fact, the average income for the top one percent of Americans has risen almost seven times faster than the income of the average middle class family. "
-President Obama, October 29, 2011.
Ummmmmm...
THE TOP 1% WEALTH SHARE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1916-2000
Sometimes lies make for a better story than the truth, I guess. Courtesy of Randall Hoven's brilliant observation, Graph of the Day on American Thinker.
William Sullivan
-President Obama, October 29, 2011.
Ummmmmm...
THE TOP 1% WEALTH SHARE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1916-2000
William Sullivan
Monday, October 31, 2011
What Obama Accomplished in Libya
On October 20th, Barack Obama said that "he is "very proud" of the US role in the Libyan operation, calling it proof that working with allies can be effective."
But what, effectively, did we accomplish? On October 31st, the Daily Mail reported:
What did we accomplish? Our blind ambition to spread democracy and ruthlessly depose dictators has created a political vacuum in Libya that has granted a legitimate mandate for the most notorious anti-Western terrorist organization on the planet.
Ten years ago, George W. Bush declared war on Al Qaeda for their crimes against America and the Western World. He began a mission to seek out and destroy this vile terrorist organization at all costs.
In 2011, Barack Obama had a hand in giving them a nation. And he is proud of this accomplishment.
William Sullivan
But what, effectively, did we accomplish? On October 31st, the Daily Mail reported:
The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.
The standard fluttered from the roof of the courthouse in Benghazi, where the country’s new rulers have imposed sharia law since seizing power.
Ten years ago, George W. Bush declared war on Al Qaeda for their crimes against America and the Western World. He began a mission to seek out and destroy this vile terrorist organization at all costs.
In 2011, Barack Obama had a hand in giving them a nation. And he is proud of this accomplishment.
William Sullivan
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Retro Debate- Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton
Very interesting video, from 1994.
You've got to hand it to Slick Willy. First of all, I give him credit for honestly fielding and addressing the question. At least Clinton tries to debate the numbers before crawling back into the bastion of party talking points, like "balanced approach," and "fair shares," which is more than we could ever expect of our current president. Second, he sure knows how to work an audience. When Clinton's argument confirms that HillaryCare would increase cost for businesses across America, what does he do? He cracks a joke, poking fun at his notorious love of food, and suggests that the healthcare mandates would only add 2% to Cain's company's bottom line. And that's no big deal, right? Just pass it on to consumers, they'll pay it!
Sound familiar? If you have a Bank of America account, it should. A recent federal mandate levied by those lawyers in Washington (and unsurprisingly, spearheaded by Democrats) has negatively impacted BoA's profitability, so now we have to pay $5 a month to use our debit cards. Administrative costs have been passed on to consumers. No big deal either, I guess.
But once the laughter from Clinton's joke subsides, Cain explains that this "2%" figure, and his numbers in general, are all wrong. The burden to the company would be much higher than Clinton estimates. But shortly after, Clinton skates out of this moment with minimal damage by suggesting that if Cain would only send his numbers to the White House office, Slick Willy'd straighten him out. Cain then went on to send over those numbers, and subsequently authored an op-ed on the subject for the Wall Street Journal, and is credited as a major factor in the collapse of support for HillaryCare.
Personally, I'd relish an opportunity to see Herman Cain debate Barack Obama, and have become more excited at the prospect after seeing this exchange with Bill Clinton, who is, in my estimation, far more skilled in debate than our current teleprompter junkie in the Oval Office. It would be an absolute evisceration of Obama's platform. One guy is a seasoned businessman and mathematician that understands real-world fiscal operation, and the other guy is a college professor and politician that understands the socialistic concepts that he read about in some books. One guy has created geniune wealth, while the other has only manipulated it to satisfy his radical ideology.
Every four years, we bicker about which representative we should select from among the putrid cesspool that is American politics. I, for one, find Herman Cain to be a breath of fresh air, and miles from ordinary.
William Sullivan
You've got to hand it to Slick Willy. First of all, I give him credit for honestly fielding and addressing the question. At least Clinton tries to debate the numbers before crawling back into the bastion of party talking points, like "balanced approach," and "fair shares," which is more than we could ever expect of our current president. Second, he sure knows how to work an audience. When Clinton's argument confirms that HillaryCare would increase cost for businesses across America, what does he do? He cracks a joke, poking fun at his notorious love of food, and suggests that the healthcare mandates would only add 2% to Cain's company's bottom line. And that's no big deal, right? Just pass it on to consumers, they'll pay it!
Sound familiar? If you have a Bank of America account, it should. A recent federal mandate levied by those lawyers in Washington (and unsurprisingly, spearheaded by Democrats) has negatively impacted BoA's profitability, so now we have to pay $5 a month to use our debit cards. Administrative costs have been passed on to consumers. No big deal either, I guess.
But once the laughter from Clinton's joke subsides, Cain explains that this "2%" figure, and his numbers in general, are all wrong. The burden to the company would be much higher than Clinton estimates. But shortly after, Clinton skates out of this moment with minimal damage by suggesting that if Cain would only send his numbers to the White House office, Slick Willy'd straighten him out. Cain then went on to send over those numbers, and subsequently authored an op-ed on the subject for the Wall Street Journal, and is credited as a major factor in the collapse of support for HillaryCare.
Personally, I'd relish an opportunity to see Herman Cain debate Barack Obama, and have become more excited at the prospect after seeing this exchange with Bill Clinton, who is, in my estimation, far more skilled in debate than our current teleprompter junkie in the Oval Office. It would be an absolute evisceration of Obama's platform. One guy is a seasoned businessman and mathematician that understands real-world fiscal operation, and the other guy is a college professor and politician that understands the socialistic concepts that he read about in some books. One guy has created geniune wealth, while the other has only manipulated it to satisfy his radical ideology.
Every four years, we bicker about which representative we should select from among the putrid cesspool that is American politics. I, for one, find Herman Cain to be a breath of fresh air, and miles from ordinary.
William Sullivan
Friday, September 2, 2011
If the Shoe Fits, It Must Be Islamophobia
In the honest telling of that story, some people tend to have strange reactions. Some people (affectionately self-proclaimed yet derogatorily known as Truthers) get all worked up and ask that Americans venture into some illogical rabbit hole of zany and needlessly elaborate conspiracy theories. But thankfully, these people are isolated in the leftist or anarchist fringe, so no one really bothers with what they think.
But there is another group of people, however, with mountains of political clout and billions in funding that wish to rewrite the history of this event and its aftermath. And they take particular exception with this coloring book and it's conveyance of the facts to impressionable children. Heaven, forbid.
Wayne Bell, the Publisher of Really Big Coloring Books, Inc., says there’s been a negative backlash against the book “We Shall Never Forget 9/11: The Kids’ Book of Freedom.”No portrayal of Muslims grieving? If I want my child to read fairy tales, I'll pick up a copy of the Brothers Grimm. But as far as reality, I don't remember any massive effort of the Muslim community to denounce armed jihad in the wake of 9/11. And if they had, believe me, the media would let every man, woman, and child know about it, and Americans would be a little less unsettled. I have no doubt that there were Muslims that grieved, but certainly not prevalently enough to warrant inclusion into a short coloring book meant to explain the events surrounding 9/11.
“These are people from Al-Jazeera that have called in here numerous times, people from Iranian TV, people from Palestinian Hamas TV,” Bell said, “A lot of people from the Islamic community have called in here and said increasingly negative things prior to the book being made and then after we made the book too, about the book itself.”
The book features images of Osama Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists. It also shows American citizens upset by the attacks, including a woman with a cross around her neck. But it shows no Muslim Americans mourning the attacks.
The Council on American Islamic Relations has criticized the book as one-sided, only portraying Muslims as either “extremists” or “terrorists. ”
And as far as the "why" of 9/11, it's really rather simple. Self-proclaimed soldiers of Allah flew planes into building killing thousands of innocent people because they subscribed to a doctrine of hate known as fundamentalist Islam. Short and sweet, no need to muck it up with references to the statistically marginal grieving of domestic Muslims, thank you.
Telling our children that fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for the worst attack ever committed on US soil and that they carried it out in the name of their god is not indoctrinating them. In fact, to tell them anything otherwise would be lying to them! It is important to convey to our children that being a Muslim does not make one evil or malicious, but it's doubly important that they are told the truth.
And it's hard to deny what that truth is. All signs point to the publisher receiving threats for having published this coloring book that simply tells the truth about 9/11- threats from the Islamic fundamentalists that are upset because they are portrayed as violent extremists. This is some way to overcome that perception. "We are a peaceful religion, dammit! Portray us that way, or we'll kill you."
The book can be purchased here.
William Sullivan
Thanks to Robert Spencer and JihadWatch for story.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Political Trivia: How Many Times Must a Question Be Answered For Chris Matthews to Finally Understand?
Ten? A hundred? A thousand?!?
You got me. It's a trick question. Unless Chris Matthews likes your answer, (that is, unless your answer jives with the Obama administration's talking points) he'll just never, ever get it.
Take this clip from his show. It's a fantastic example of what I'm talking about. Here's the gist, but watch if you have ten minutes, as seeing Matthews get absolutley destroyed is well worth the time invested.
Matthews: "What is the GOP plan to cut budgets in the House bill?"
GOP Rep Walsh: "There are $111 billion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts that will be determined through bi-partisan negotion."
Matthews: "Yeah, Congressman, but there are no cuts in the bill."
Walsh: "Umm, there are $111 billion worth of cuts."
Matthews: "But Congressman, can you just answer the question, please? Where are the spending cuts?"
Walsh: "Look, you moron, there are $111 billion in cuts outlined in the bill! Your president may send thrills up your leg with his rhetoric, but I take issue with the indisputable, reprehensible lie he has told the American people in efforts to scare them into accepting his spendthrift agenda! 80% of America supports a balanced budget amendment. Most states have to live with one, and all households do. It's something the American people understand, why can't you?"
Matthews: "Yeah, yeah, Congressman. But lemme ask you this. Where are the cuts?"
They say you can't fix stupid. And if that's true, Chris Matthews is truly FUBAR.
William Sullivan
You got me. It's a trick question. Unless Chris Matthews likes your answer, (that is, unless your answer jives with the Obama administration's talking points) he'll just never, ever get it.
Take this clip from his show. It's a fantastic example of what I'm talking about. Here's the gist, but watch if you have ten minutes, as seeing Matthews get absolutley destroyed is well worth the time invested.
Matthews: "What is the GOP plan to cut budgets in the House bill?"
GOP Rep Walsh: "There are $111 billion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts that will be determined through bi-partisan negotion."
Matthews: "Yeah, Congressman, but there are no cuts in the bill."
Walsh: "Umm, there are $111 billion worth of cuts."
Matthews: "But Congressman, can you just answer the question, please? Where are the spending cuts?"
Walsh: "Look, you moron, there are $111 billion in cuts outlined in the bill! Your president may send thrills up your leg with his rhetoric, but I take issue with the indisputable, reprehensible lie he has told the American people in efforts to scare them into accepting his spendthrift agenda! 80% of America supports a balanced budget amendment. Most states have to live with one, and all households do. It's something the American people understand, why can't you?"
Matthews: "Yeah, yeah, Congressman. But lemme ask you this. Where are the cuts?"
They say you can't fix stupid. And if that's true, Chris Matthews is truly FUBAR.
William Sullivan
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Who's the Maximalist Here, Jay?
Last week, when asked if the president would embrace Senator McConnell’s invitation to Capitol Hill to discuss the budget impasse, White House spokesman Jay Carney was direct in giving his opinion of the Senator’s offer. “What the Senator invited the President to do was to hear Senate Republicans restate their maximalist position. We know what that position is. And he also invited him to hear… what would not pass. That's not a conversation worth having. What we need to have is a conversation about what will pass. ”
His use of the word “maximalist” immediately creates a glaring “pot and kettle” moment for the White House spokesman. Three more times during this interview, Carney applied the term “maximalist” to describe Republican opposition to the president. The suggestion of this redundant reminder, of course, is that while the president is willing to make concessions and compromise, Republicans are bullheadedly “drawing lines in the sand.” Yet what is our gracious president actually offering his opposition? He demands that Republicans defy their constituents and be willing to embrace tax hikes and trillions of dollars in new debt over the coming decade- and if they do not, he won’t even talk to them. He’ll just plug his ears, and run off to Pennsylvania to attend a fundraiser like he did last week.
It's hard to think of a more "maximalist" position than that. So the implication that the president’s position is conducive to compromise while Republicans are just stubborn as mules must be the result of a deceptive political campaign to vilify opposition.
And as we’ve come to expect of the Obama administration, that’s exactly what it is.
William Sullivan
His use of the word “maximalist” immediately creates a glaring “pot and kettle” moment for the White House spokesman. Three more times during this interview, Carney applied the term “maximalist” to describe Republican opposition to the president. The suggestion of this redundant reminder, of course, is that while the president is willing to make concessions and compromise, Republicans are bullheadedly “drawing lines in the sand.” Yet what is our gracious president actually offering his opposition? He demands that Republicans defy their constituents and be willing to embrace tax hikes and trillions of dollars in new debt over the coming decade- and if they do not, he won’t even talk to them. He’ll just plug his ears, and run off to Pennsylvania to attend a fundraiser like he did last week.
It's hard to think of a more "maximalist" position than that. So the implication that the president’s position is conducive to compromise while Republicans are just stubborn as mules must be the result of a deceptive political campaign to vilify opposition.
And as we’ve come to expect of the Obama administration, that’s exactly what it is.
William Sullivan
Monday, May 23, 2011
This Week at Presidential University - Netanyahu Gives Lesson About Middle East
This video must be seen.
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited President Obama immediately after the president's suggestion that Israel be willing to withdraw its borders to the pre-1967 lines that existed before the Six-Day War. This means returning Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli citizens have settled.
Netanyahu calmly gives our president a history lesson, which I can only assume he had never heard before this day- for if he had, there is no possible way he could make the suggestion that he did. Either that, or he is willfully colluding against Israel.
But obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu has faith that Obama's horrible judgment was simply ignorance of history, for which he can be forgiven.
In watching Netanyahu speak, I see strength and resolve. Outward and genuine respect. Compassion for his people. Intelligence and prudent foresight. I see a leader that is worthy of my admiration, a leader that I would gladly follow, and I am thankful the Israelis elected. In watching Obama, I see a man reciting political rhetoric, as we now know, from a teleprompter. Incitement to envy and class welfare. Murky ambition in supporting Middle Eastern uprisings. And in his befuddled face, as Netanyahu deconstructs Israeli history for him, I see him thinking of the political ramifications of what he is saying, not thinking of the substance.
Like our president, all Americans need to listen to this man explain why, as I have suggested before, Israel cannot possibly negotiate with Hamas and why retracting it's borders would leave Israel indefensible to the threats that will inevitably strike.
William Sullivan
In case you cannot view the embedded video below, it can also be found here.
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited President Obama immediately after the president's suggestion that Israel be willing to withdraw its borders to the pre-1967 lines that existed before the Six-Day War. This means returning Gaza and the West Bank that Israeli citizens have settled.
Netanyahu calmly gives our president a history lesson, which I can only assume he had never heard before this day- for if he had, there is no possible way he could make the suggestion that he did. Either that, or he is willfully colluding against Israel.
But obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu has faith that Obama's horrible judgment was simply ignorance of history, for which he can be forgiven.
In watching Netanyahu speak, I see strength and resolve. Outward and genuine respect. Compassion for his people. Intelligence and prudent foresight. I see a leader that is worthy of my admiration, a leader that I would gladly follow, and I am thankful the Israelis elected. In watching Obama, I see a man reciting political rhetoric, as we now know, from a teleprompter. Incitement to envy and class welfare. Murky ambition in supporting Middle Eastern uprisings. And in his befuddled face, as Netanyahu deconstructs Israeli history for him, I see him thinking of the political ramifications of what he is saying, not thinking of the substance.
Like our president, all Americans need to listen to this man explain why, as I have suggested before, Israel cannot possibly negotiate with Hamas and why retracting it's borders would leave Israel indefensible to the threats that will inevitably strike.
William Sullivan
In case you cannot view the embedded video below, it can also be found here.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Arrogance Unbound
What is the most handy way for a president to circumvent checks and balances necessary for America to engage in foreign military action? Pretend they don't exist.
Of course, to do this you have to have a propaganda machine deeply within your pocket, champing at the bit to deflect all criticism as right-wing lunacy. And it helps to have formerly anti-war liberals and RINOs of the establishment defect to your cause.
The rationale behind the interjection of American military influence in Libya could be a lengthy discussion. The proposed presence of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alone should be enough to warrant a detailed debate as to the merits our actions as they pertain to American interests. But like anthropogenic climate change, the left positions the discussion as "over" despite having never taken place. The verdict is in, and it says that Gaddafi must be out.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to now be the policy of Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. For the latter to even have an influential opinion on American foreign intervention represents an enduring travesty for Congress, after having accused his fellow soldiers of fabricated crimes as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War organization. But nonetheless, it's curious how quickly these former peaceniks have shifted position on foreign intervention to oust dictators since the Iraq War that had Congressional and international support.
And now Obama is suggesting that he doesn't need Congressional support to intervene in Libya; our efforts is too limited. But the fact is, regardless of how limited our role is in the war, it is costing a tremendous amount of American money and effort, and has now been going on for a substantial amount of time. And as our role in Libya shapes the perception of our nation, America and it's elected officials as a whole should be represented. Many of whom would disagree with his course of action.
Perhaps Barack Obama needs to be reminded that the country's path was never meant to be at his discretion alone. But somehow, I think he knows that. He just doesn't care.
William Sullivan
Of course, to do this you have to have a propaganda machine deeply within your pocket, champing at the bit to deflect all criticism as right-wing lunacy. And it helps to have formerly anti-war liberals and RINOs of the establishment defect to your cause.
The rationale behind the interjection of American military influence in Libya could be a lengthy discussion. The proposed presence of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood alone should be enough to warrant a detailed debate as to the merits our actions as they pertain to American interests. But like anthropogenic climate change, the left positions the discussion as "over" despite having never taken place. The verdict is in, and it says that Gaddafi must be out.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" seems to now be the policy of Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. For the latter to even have an influential opinion on American foreign intervention represents an enduring travesty for Congress, after having accused his fellow soldiers of fabricated crimes as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War organization. But nonetheless, it's curious how quickly these former peaceniks have shifted position on foreign intervention to oust dictators since the Iraq War that had Congressional and international support.
And now Obama is suggesting that he doesn't need Congressional support to intervene in Libya; our efforts is too limited. But the fact is, regardless of how limited our role is in the war, it is costing a tremendous amount of American money and effort, and has now been going on for a substantial amount of time. And as our role in Libya shapes the perception of our nation, America and it's elected officials as a whole should be represented. Many of whom would disagree with his course of action.
Perhaps Barack Obama needs to be reminded that the country's path was never meant to be at his discretion alone. But somehow, I think he knows that. He just doesn't care.
William Sullivan
Friday, April 15, 2011
To New York: Consider the Shuttle a Gift. Sincerely, Texas
Anyone with half a brain knows that the first two places ever considered for retired NASA shuttles should be Houston, TX and Cape Canaverel, FL. No two cities are more identified with or have done more for space exploration.
But New York, known more for pizza and rude inhabitants than space travel, will now be home to a retired shuttle, while Houston got snubbed. Texans are understandably confused, so Chuck Schumer said in response:
"When people from Paris, Beijing, Tokyo and Amsterdam start saying they want to go to Houston, maybe then they'll get a shuttle," Schumer told the Daily News. "I'd say to Texas, don't mess with New York."
Sorry, Chuck. No one's buying that you're a tough guy. And thanks for confirming that "arrogant New Yorker" stereotype.
I'd go on, but I think AlamoZ in the comment section of the linked article pretty much sums up what is likely every Texan's feelings on the matter:
That's okay Schumer, New York can keep the shuttle. In fact, California can keep theirs too. Texas will just keep on taking all of your tax-burdened corporations as well as your productive members of society.
Now that just could not be said any better.
William Sullivan
Thursday, April 14, 2011
School Days, Gruel Days
If you've ever wondered why private schools and online distance learning programs are becoming more and more attractive for parents and students everywhere, here's one more reason.
At Little Village Academy in Chicago, children are prohibited from bringing their lunches from home, and are required to eat the school offering. This is a progressive move to join Chicagoans Barack and Michelle Obama in their crusade to combat childhood obesity, so try to imagine that horrible lunch food you remember as a child made exponentially worse by trying to make it “healthy.”
It’s pretty obvious that the kids don’t like it. When reporters visited the school, seventh grader Fernando Dominguez, like a modern-day Samuel Gompers, bilingually incited his classmates to the unison chant, “We should bring our own lunch!” Most parents are understandably upset by this, too, because many children choose to eat nothing at all rather than choking down the horrible lunch food the school offers. Sure, eating nothing won’t make them fat, but we can’t exactly say that’s healthy, either.
But in spite of the obvious popular opinion of the student body or the ire of their parents, Principal Elsa Carmona feels strongly that making the children eat the disgusting food that she wants them to eat is a good thing. And as little sense as that makes, she even has a few parents carrying water for her. Parent Miguel Medina, for example, thinks the no-home-lunch policy is good, because “when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."
But he’s wrong. There is control. Just not the control he and the principal want.
Most parents understand and embrace the opportunity to provide an element of control in their child’s life. They use that opportunity to nurture their child’s exceptionalism and potential as an individual in a society of other individuals. Mr. Medina, it seems, would defer this opportunity to the “experts” of society, because parents (including him, I presume) just aren’t smart enough to know what is good for their kids.
We need to understand that this is not “about nutrition and the excellent quality of food they are able to serve in the lunchroom.” It’s not about a concerned principal “encouraging healthier choices.” This has nothing to do with your kids’ weight or health.
It is simply another blow to the rights of the American family. It is part of a revolutionary movement to control the most intimate choices we make in raising our children. Parents have been stripped of the right to choose what their child will eat. And not least of all, parents are forced to buy a bad product that they and their children do not want.
And nothing about any of that is American.
William Sullivan
Monday, April 11, 2011
Jimmy Carter Lays Blame For Women's Rights Infractions
Jimmy Carter believes that religion is to blame for the injustices women endure around the world. Well, not the religions themselves, but the leaders of those religions. According to a recent AP report, “Carter said such teachings by “leaders of Christianity, Islam, and other religions” allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings.”
It’s certainly shocking that he breaks accepted liberal protocol by speaking negatively of Muslims, but it is both unjust and irritating that he chooses to directly juxtapose the crimes of Christianity to the crimes of fundamental Islam as far as women’s rights are concerned.
Despite having existed about two-thirds the life of Christianity, Islam is, both in scope and severity, exponentially more culpable for the subjugation and heinous mistreatment of women.
Are Christians around the world frequently stifling women’s freedom of expression by demanding that they cover all skin apart from their face? Are Christians practicing genital mutilation of young women to smother their sexual desires? Are Christians bartering, selling, and marrying off their daughters at ages as young as nine? Are Christians slaughtering their daughters for tainting the family honor? Are Christians denying women the right to legal defense and, when unjustly condemned, taking them in bondage to village squares so that blood-frenzied townspeople can bludgeon them to death with a bunch of big rocks? And are Christians worldwide raping those condemned women prior to execution in order to eliminate any outside chance of divine salvation?
Are Christians around the world doing these horrible things while claiming the word of God as their sole motivation?
Even Jimmy Carter, whose ineptitude has allowed history to unanimously disgrace him, should know that the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic “no.” But here’s an interesting question for the bumbling ex-president. Have all of these things happened in the Iranian regime that he helped to establish by clearing the lane for Ayatollah Khomeini?
The answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes.” So Christianity is not to blame for such heinous and contemporary abuses of women. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, sort of is.
Jimmy Carter criticizing others for their role in brutal violations against women's rights is the irony of all ironies. I’d ask him to descend from the pulpit of women’s rights considering that he has no right to be there, but his prattling helps to expose the stupidity of his progressive, PC ilk.
So keep on talking, Jimmy. And while you’re at it, endorse Obama in 2012; he could use your support.
William Sullivan
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Brendan O'Neill Shreds Liberal Stupidity About the Quran Burning
Yes, Pastor Jones' Quran burning should probably not have taken place. It is far too broad a condemnation, absolutely insensitive, and little more than a rudimentary form of protest that should be beneath sensible Christians or Americans. It is an act that brought those who participated closer to the lower levels of humanity populated by the Muslim fanatics they wanted to denounce.
But ultimately, it was an act of free speech, protected by the United States Constitution, and the calls to blame him for acts of violence overseas are ridiculous.
This is an utterly brilliant analogy conveying that very point. Enjoy.
William
Pastor Terry Jones is no more to blame for the Afghan violence than Martin Scorsese was for the shooting of Ronald Reagan
The American pastor Terry Jones might be a bit of a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with the Koran, but he’s right about one thing: he is not responsible for the fatal rioting in Afghanistan. His burning of the Koran can no more be blamed for those acts of violence than Martin Scorsese can be blamed for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. (Reagan’s wannabe assassin, John Hinckley Jnr, claimed to have been inspired by Taxi Driver.) The feverish attempts to pin the blame for the Afghan instability on Pastor Jones demonises freedom of speech as something terrifying, even murderous, and it treats Muslims as brainless, wide-eyed automatons who can’t be held responsible for their actions.
Jones’s burning of the Koran was daft. But it did not directly cause “the tragic, deadly violence” in Afghanistan, as one Pentagon spokesman claimed. To suggest that it did, to argue that Jones has “blood on his hands”, as the New York Daily News put it, is to overlook the fact that there is an important bridge between words and actions. That bridge is us, people, the audience, the public, who are possessed of free will and thought and who must make a decision about whether, and how, to act on the words we hear. The idea that words lead directly to action, that the image of a burning Koran in the US leads inevitably to violence in Afghanistan, is to cut out these middle men and present speech as an all-powerful force that dictates world events.
Such an outlook is dangerous for two reasons. First because there would be no limits to the curbing and policing of speech if we all bought into the mad notion that it can directly cause other people’s deaths. If words really are so dangerous, then surely they should be treated as just another weapon, like gun and knives, whose usage must be tightly controlled by the cops and powers-that-be? Already, post-Koran controversy, some Democratic politicians in the US are hinting that the First Amendment, which guarantees free expression, might need to be rethought, since certain forms of speech “endanger the lives of a lot of innocent people”. The consequence of calling into question the free will of people who hear or read certain words is to generate an Orwellian rush to clamp down on anything judged to be “problematic speech”.
And the second problem with the “blame Jones” brigade is that it lets rioting Afghans off the hook. It says they’re not really responsible for the bloodshed they unleashed; Jones is. There’s a great irony here, because many of the commentators who make this argument do so in order to express their apparently enlightened and cosmopolitan sympathy with beleaguered Muslims in Afghanistan, yet in the process they patronisingly depict Afghans as overgrown children, as attack dogs almost, who hear a command or see an offensive image and act on it, robot-like. Modern-day liberal pity for Muslims would seem to be a comfortable bedfellow of the old-world colonial outlook: in both instances Third World people are treated as hapless, helpless creatures who must have their eyes and ears shielded from dodgy ideas.
The consequences of taking this approach to the Koran controversy are potentially dire. Just as in the Muhammad cartoons controversy, Western liberal politicians and thinkers are giving Muslims a licence to feel offended, a licence to go crazy; they are effectively legitimising violent responses to offensive images by saying: “It’s understandable. This is what happens when we fail to respect their culture.” Given a green light by self-flagellating Western observers, who will be surprised if groups of Muslims behave in a similar fashion next time someone pulps a Koran or depicts Muhammad as a goat?
Original article may be found at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100082375/pastor-terry-jones-is-no-more-to-blame-for-the-afghan-violence-than-martin-scorsese-was-for-the-shooting-of-ronald-reagan/
But ultimately, it was an act of free speech, protected by the United States Constitution, and the calls to blame him for acts of violence overseas are ridiculous.
This is an utterly brilliant analogy conveying that very point. Enjoy.
William
Pastor Terry Jones is no more to blame for the Afghan violence than Martin Scorsese was for the shooting of Ronald Reagan
The American pastor Terry Jones might be a bit of a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with the Koran, but he’s right about one thing: he is not responsible for the fatal rioting in Afghanistan. His burning of the Koran can no more be blamed for those acts of violence than Martin Scorsese can be blamed for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. (Reagan’s wannabe assassin, John Hinckley Jnr, claimed to have been inspired by Taxi Driver.) The feverish attempts to pin the blame for the Afghan instability on Pastor Jones demonises freedom of speech as something terrifying, even murderous, and it treats Muslims as brainless, wide-eyed automatons who can’t be held responsible for their actions.
Jones’s burning of the Koran was daft. But it did not directly cause “the tragic, deadly violence” in Afghanistan, as one Pentagon spokesman claimed. To suggest that it did, to argue that Jones has “blood on his hands”, as the New York Daily News put it, is to overlook the fact that there is an important bridge between words and actions. That bridge is us, people, the audience, the public, who are possessed of free will and thought and who must make a decision about whether, and how, to act on the words we hear. The idea that words lead directly to action, that the image of a burning Koran in the US leads inevitably to violence in Afghanistan, is to cut out these middle men and present speech as an all-powerful force that dictates world events.
Such an outlook is dangerous for two reasons. First because there would be no limits to the curbing and policing of speech if we all bought into the mad notion that it can directly cause other people’s deaths. If words really are so dangerous, then surely they should be treated as just another weapon, like gun and knives, whose usage must be tightly controlled by the cops and powers-that-be? Already, post-Koran controversy, some Democratic politicians in the US are hinting that the First Amendment, which guarantees free expression, might need to be rethought, since certain forms of speech “endanger the lives of a lot of innocent people”. The consequence of calling into question the free will of people who hear or read certain words is to generate an Orwellian rush to clamp down on anything judged to be “problematic speech”.
And the second problem with the “blame Jones” brigade is that it lets rioting Afghans off the hook. It says they’re not really responsible for the bloodshed they unleashed; Jones is. There’s a great irony here, because many of the commentators who make this argument do so in order to express their apparently enlightened and cosmopolitan sympathy with beleaguered Muslims in Afghanistan, yet in the process they patronisingly depict Afghans as overgrown children, as attack dogs almost, who hear a command or see an offensive image and act on it, robot-like. Modern-day liberal pity for Muslims would seem to be a comfortable bedfellow of the old-world colonial outlook: in both instances Third World people are treated as hapless, helpless creatures who must have their eyes and ears shielded from dodgy ideas.
The consequences of taking this approach to the Koran controversy are potentially dire. Just as in the Muhammad cartoons controversy, Western liberal politicians and thinkers are giving Muslims a licence to feel offended, a licence to go crazy; they are effectively legitimising violent responses to offensive images by saying: “It’s understandable. This is what happens when we fail to respect their culture.” Given a green light by self-flagellating Western observers, who will be surprised if groups of Muslims behave in a similar fashion next time someone pulps a Koran or depicts Muhammad as a goat?
Original article may be found at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100082375/pastor-terry-jones-is-no-more-to-blame-for-the-afghan-violence-than-martin-scorsese-was-for-the-shooting-of-ronald-reagan/
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.
Finis
William Sullivan
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
