Have You Noticed How Political Lines Are Blurring?

Over the years I’ve said and written nasty things about liberals. Liberals, progressives, lefties, whatever the name. And I’ve defended conservatives—blindly at times. I’ve publicly defended policies I privately considered stupid.

All in the name of advancing my agenda. I believed—and still believe—the liberty agenda is the best one. The only one for people live out the full potential of their lives, to own their own lives, and to leave the world better than they found it.

Times They Are a Changin’

As central planners in Washington (and other places) suck up  more control over our lives, I have a harder time shouting “filthy rotten leftie” at liberals. Some of my very best friends are liberals, and they’re wonderful human beings.

But personal allegiances aren’t the only reasons I ‘m uncomfortable fighting the generic left.

More and more, it seems, the left and the right have a common enemy and a common cause. Look at a few recent examples:

A Common Enemy

People of every political stripe are waking up to the reality of a common enemy: the political elite.

elitism

The political elite know no party or ideology. It exists to maintain and increase its control and power over everyone  and everything. Washington wants to control the economy, right down to the clothes you wear and the fluids you drink.

Political elitists are usually good people seduced by the siren song of political clout. The seduction envelopes and corrupts them. The song fills their heads with reasonable sounding arguments for transferring more power and privilege from the many to the anointed few.

The elitists work our minds like stage magicians, offering the illusion of control with distraction and fantastic stories that suck us in.

Morning in America

But now more and more of us—the plebes—are waking up. We’re seeing that the enemy isn’t the liberal on the left or the conservative on the right or even the “independent” who can’t make up his mind.

Our enemy is that political elite. Not the individual elitists, really, but the critical mass of that elite. Isolate them, and they rediscover their basic humanity.

And that’s what Morning in America will look like. An awakening. The terrifying understanding that power corrupts and accumulates. Then the comfort of realizing that there are more of us plebes than there are of those elites.

Finally, we’re stirred—compelled—to act. For our own humanity.

History shows that these awakenings suck to live through. But without them, life isn’t worth living at all.

 

P.S. If you don’t buy the Elite – Plebe dichotomy, Matt Drudge has an alternative in this tweet:

Either way, the battle lines are being redrawn.

Here's my position on war in Syria.

Am I Crazy If I Don't Believe the President?

John McCain and John Boehner believe him. John Kerry believes him.

Nancy Pelosi, too.

But I don't.

I don't believe the US has irrefutable, indisputable proof that the Syrian government intentionally killed 1,500 people with sarin gas.

I don't believe it.

Not yet.

And neither does Yossef Bodansky.

You're probably thinking "this Bodansky guy's some conspiracy kook, too."

Here's Bodansky's Wikipedia header:

Yossef Bodansky (born in Israel) is an Israeli-Americanpolitical scientist who served as Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. He is also Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and has been a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). In the 1980s, he served as a senior consultant for the Department of Defense and the Department of State.

He is also a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications and a contributor to the International Military and Defense Encyclopedia and is on the Advisory Council of The Intelligence Summit. Bodansky's numerous articles have been published in Global Affairs, Jane's Defense Weekly, Defense and Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy and other periodicals.

Bodansky's more credentialed than Barack Obama and John Kerry combined.

Bodansky doubts the US official story--the story Obama, Kerry, McCain, and Boehner are advancing as justification for another war. His sources are affiliated with the Syrian opposition.

Those sources have evidence that the opposition launched the sarin gas attacks that allegedly killed over 400 children and 1,000 others.

But that's not all.

Bodansky suspects the White House aided the deadly attack.

The extent of U.S. foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

Bodansky's article in World Tribune explains:

The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that U.S. intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing U.S. and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of U.S.-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.

If true, Obama could spend time at the defense table at The Hague.

Call me crazy. Call me war-weary. Call me a kook.

I'm not ready to launch another war. I'm not ready send Americans into another civil war in the Middle East. I'm not ready to help Damascus to become the next Benghazi.

We've seen the chaos that ensued from our interventions in Libya and Egypt. We know that Obama is incapable of finishing a job. We know we've lost or damaged some of the best young people of the Millennial Generation with very little to show for it.

I know McCain's a war hero who plays pocket poker during hearings on the war, but I know he's wrong a lot.

I fear that if we jump into this war in Syria, the consequences could be huge. Russia will likely step up support of Assad. Al Qaeda will end up with more American weapons and intelligence. When cruise missiles prove inadequate, US Marines will die in someone else's civil war.

I'm tired of watching flag-draped caskets with motorcycle escorts parade down I-44 past my office window.

I won't vote for anyone who votes for this war unless they first convince me that war in Syria is the only thing that will preserve the republic. If Ann Wagner or Roy Blunt votes for war and survives their primary, I'll vote for a third party or abstain from those votes. If the next GOP presidential candidate emerges from Congress, same there.

I'm ready for peace.

Are you?

Obama's Little Mind on Foreign Policy

Barack Obama proves he would be a dangerous commander-in-chief. Two weeks ago, he told us that the United States is obliged to stay out of wars, even to prevent genocide. He would not have fought Germany in World War II unless Germany attacked the United States. He would not stop the genocide in Darfur or Congo. He would not have gone to Somalia or Bosnia.

That, again, was two weeks ago.

In last week's YouTube debate, Obama told us that as President his first foreign policy blunder . . . move would be trips to North Korea, Chile, Cuba, and Syria. He clearly doesn't understand how dictatorships work, thinking such visits would do any good for the people of those country. As was know, dictators capitalize on naive foreign leaders by turning state visits into propaganda devices.

Now this week.

Yesterday, Obama changed course again. Now he's all for going to war with Pakistan. An AP analysis sees right through Obama's stance:

This new policy is designed to show that Obama would be a tough commander in chief when times demand it, even though he opposed the Iraq war and wants to open a dialogue with foreign foes.

But Obama goes further than the analysis indicates. By invading a sovereign country without its consent and in violation of treaties, Obama would likely start a war with a nuclear power. The chain-reaction of such an invasion would be unpredictable and immensely dangerous. India could pre-emptively strike Pakistan, hoping to take out its nuclear missiles. Israel might do the same, drawing Syria, Egypt, Iran, and other into an all-out Middle East war. How would Pakistan's other neighbors respond? How many men would join al Qaeda in response?

Ed Morrissey, blogging on Obama's shifting stance, says this latest foreign policy gaffe ought to end Obama' career as a serious candidate for president. I agree. (See Ed's links to Michelle Malkin, too.)

Barack Obama has evolved from curiosity to wonder to worry. His handle on how the world works is very loose and shaky. One more blunder, and even his race, curiousness, and "wonder boy" status won't save him. Party leaders will have to look hard at the weak mind that lies beneath his polished surface.