Obama's decision on Syria: just a pragmatic coward's choice?

It shows that Obama wanted the job of president really bad, but he didn't want the WHOLE job. Perhaps he should have hired a stand-in Commander in Chief?

I don't know who talked Obama into facing the Syrian chemical attacks like a leader, but they must be silver-tongued advisers who aren't the peacenik hippy-bred types like Obama and most of those surrounding him.

I cannot imagine he'd have even brought up this idea of a missile attack himself, seeing how painfully long it took him to make his "decision" to act. Such magnificent drama must be going on in that self-adoring head of his: cowardly, academic, hippy-raised, political animal that he is!

It's a rare sight to see him forced to put on "big boy pants" and make some tactical decisions as a leader of a country of great military importance and substance. That's why he should never have been made CiC, but we don't elect presidents to be leaders of our military anymore, do we? We've enjoyed a relative freedom from ominous threats in the U.S. since WW II -- no matter what you think of Sept, 11, 2001. And it seems, even despite any concerns over terrorists, the impact has been so indirect that we are electing overzealous camp counselors (or professional campaigners, if you prefer), rather than experienced leaders of substance. Or, so the election of Obama twice would suggest.

This Syrian decision, slow-roasted as it was, suggests something at a broader level. It shows what a comparatively spoiled, entitled, isolated, coddled, misinformed, blissfully ignorant population can do to muddle up, through elections, a very free country, despite having options otherwise. It appears that, in the U.S., the slight majority of active voters are mainly interested in yet even greater domestic comforts (read: petty, selfish interests) compared to the citizens of much of the world. Consider such delusions in the US as a "fairness" doctrine or the silly notion that safety can be guaranteed by "gun-free zones." People who uphold such ideas are not interested in choosing leaders who wish to deal with the planet as it is, which is a "law of the wild" place. This world can be cruelly hierarchical (far worse in other countries than in the US), ruled by a specific pack of elites, with many peoples without basic liberty, many governments of tyrants, nations packed with populations who have deeply broken and haggard lives. People who dream of even being among the poor in America are all over the world.

This Syrian chemical weapons attack response decision-making drama shows that we elected a president who is only a political animal, and who is a mere government bureaucrat at heart, and a coward (where leadership is concerned, not where campaigning is concerned). This Syrian response shows that Obama wanted the job of president really bad, but he didn't want the WHOLE job. Perhaps he should have hired a stand-in Commander in Chief?

We elected Obama twice to be Commander in Chief. But, not really, because the duty of CiC doesn't really matter to his voters, it seems. The Coddler in Chief is more their style, maybe. Whoever is the star of the news and gets on magazine covers matters. To hell with substance, right? Well, no, actually, but it is what's important to the uninformed problem children of society. It seems they are topping the voter rolls.

It is stunning to me how the majority of voters would prefer to choose the lying rhetoric that feeds their delusions about domestic bliss rather than taking ownership of themselves and letting this robust nation be the caretaker that fights the tyrants of the planet. What's worse, the domestic bliss Obama has been peddling isn't working out either, is it? Unemployment, race relations and other issues are not improving under him.

Don't let anyone give you killing bin Laden as an example of Obama's brass. He just signed the paper and then shamelessly used the epic military covert action for himself, politically, like any coward would use others' heroism to prop themselves up. Some were even impressed by Obama's swagger after bin Laden's death. Fellow cowards.

Obama will likely use the missile action against Syria the same way he used SEAL Team Six. He will use it the way someone unaccustomed to being a leader would use such an action: for political advantage.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

GUN CONTROL PATROL: so now it's only about "expanded background checks"?

Obama says it's all about "expanded background checks" now. (Facebook post)

GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?

This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).

A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).

This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.

So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?

I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

While polls find King's 'Dream' is elusive, so are commonsense attitudes about racism

Check out this quote from a recent Pew Research finding on race in America (under the heading King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal... ). I make a few points in reaction to it, and the circular problem of misusing racism in today's America: 
Incarceration. Black men were more than six times as likely as white men in 2010 to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and local jails, the last year complete data are available. That is an increase from 1960, when black men were five times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.

SIX TIMES as likely?! Some want to call that racism. They are FOOLS of the highest order. Or, sad, piteous, willing victims of narrow-minded suspicions.

The disparity of prison time for whites versus blacks is about as much to do with race bias as someone being overweight has to do with food being advertised on TV. Not to mock actual racism, but those blame, the victimhood, and the paranoia that surrounds so much allegations of racism. That is: one's weight is about them, not food ads.

With criminal incarceration, it is about people being criminals, not some grand scheme to "keep them down." Racism exists, light and hard, but to run to it every time there's a philosophical or physical scuffle is a cycle of failure. That's not to minimize the matter, when facts prove racism had a hand in some event, but unreasonable aspersions ought not to be batched in with actual racist activities. Paranoia and habitual distrust isn't a reliable source for social change.

Committing crime and going to prison is a problem that cannot be solved through blame, racial or otherwise, but through improving one's plight. That's not easy, or simple, when one is steeped in a culture of victimhood, self-pity, misleading heroes, and a habit of blaming others for your problems. Changing the response of those who cry victim when it's not the case is what will change such a disparity as this prison one, not crazed claims of rampant racism in the courts.

Such lashing out is a cycle of failure, whether it is about racism or any other suspicion of being wronged. There is an understandable lingering sense of betrayal, frustration and anger in impoverished or dysfunctional communities, but that does not prove systemic racism.

How can getting jailed for committing a crime be racist, certainly to such an overwhelming degree, without it being proven as more than a mere suspicion? These claims amount to claims of having seen Bigfoot, though. Sometimes there is racial problems, but often, it's something else. You cannot call someone a racist for jailing a black criminal -- unless they let white criminals go SIX TIMES for every black criminal, for the same crime. Is this happening? Where's the exposés on that today?

Are we to all damn our lying eyes with regard to race and racial biases, or racial hypocrisy? I hope we can recover MLK's dream, but it won't be easy while people insist on pointing the finger, like stabbing their sword at imaginary dragons.

Let freedom ring, indeed. And let REASON reign! 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)