Saturday, 16 April 2011

THE SYRIAN UPRISING

Ken Berwitz

Like hafez assad, his father before him, bashir assad is the dictator of Syria

And, like his father before him, bashir assad has no compunctions at all about murdering his own people to stay in power.  In 1982, hafez murdered something like 10,000-20,000 to quell an uprising against him in the city of Hama.  bashir's butchery of his own people is nowhere near that number - yet. (Let's remember that he still has time to make up the difference.)

What do the protesting/rebelling Syrians want, and how far are they willing to go to get it?  Read this excerpt from today's dispatch from Reuters:

(Reuters) - Protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad swept into the capital Damascus on Friday for the first time since a growing wave of pro-democracy unrest began to put pressure on his 11-year rule.

Thousands of protesters marched elsewhere across the country despite a fierce crackdown and some political concessions announced by Assad in an attempt to quell spreading unrest.

Shouting "God, Syria, Freedom," protesters repeated the same demand for democratic reform and freedoms across many cities.

In Damascus, security forces used batons and teargas to prevent thousands of protesters marching from several suburbs from reaching the main Abbasside Square.

"I counted 15 mukhabarat (secret police) busloads," one witness said.

"They went into the alleyways just north of the square chasing protesters and yelling 'You pimps, you infiltrators, you want freedom? We will give it to you'."

God, Syria, Freedom?  Knowing they are facing a brutal dictator who won't think twice about killing his own people, but going to the streets anyway?  That's pretty strong stuff.

What do you suppose the protesters are after?

Yes, we know they want assad removed as their head of state, one way or the other.  But then what?  How can anyone tell?

Well, let's look at what has happened since Hosni Mubarak was forced out in Egypt (relatively peacefully, unlike what is happening in Syria)?  Egypt is now lurching toward an Islamic law state, far from the "freedom and democracy" our media proclaimed they would get - media that have become deadly silent about Egypt now that reality is showing itself.

And what do "the rebels" want in Libya?  Well, one of their most important leaders says he has recruited al-qaeda fighters into their ranks because "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".  That doesn't look any more like freedom and democracy than what is happening in Egypt.

Then there is Syria.  Is it desirable that bashir assad, the optometrist-by-trade who was handed a country by his dicatator father, be removed from power?  The answer is yes - just as it was desirable for Mubarak and is desirable for qaddafi to be removed.

But it can never be forgotten that, when one head of state leaves power, someone else takes over.  And if the new leader is even worse than the one who was ousted, what then?

That is what appears to be happening in Egypt, and could very well happen in Libya as well. 

But, for Syria, there is a difference.

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak actually had something to recommend him.  While it is easy to see what was wrong with his regime, Mubarak also managed to be at peace with Israel for 30 years and to sometimes be a good ally of the United States. (No wonder President Obama was so eager to see him deposed!).

By contrast, Libya and Syria are run by subhuman murdering scum.  There is nothing good about qaddafi or assad.  The only reason for wanting them to remain in power is that, bad as they are, the alternative might even be worse. 

In Libya, that is a very real possibility, given that "the rebels" actively recruit al-qaeda to their ranks.  This, obviously, leads to the question of why the USA and NATO are bombing Libya on their behalf - a question our wonderful "neutral" media are not asking (thus protecting the Obama administration while defaulting on their jobs as journalists). 

In Syria, however - with its murderous dictator and Iran as his major protector - an even worse government is far less likely.  Even if post-assad Syria becomes a non-democratic Islamic state, how much worse is that than being led by a dictator/mass murderer who is backed by an even bigger dictator/mass murderer? 

The one caveat here is that Syria is not currently engaged in a war with Israel, and a new leader conceivably would be crazy enough to try it.  But a) given Israel's military strength relative to Syria as an individual country, that is highly improbable, and b) if there were a multi-country attack on Israel in the future, Syria under assad would have joined in anyway.

Personally, I would love to see a truly free, democratic Syria - a western-style democracy like Israel.  But I understand that it is a near-impossibility at this time.  Realistically, the best we can hope for right now is that assad is ousted, even if the new government is undesirable, on the grounds that it will almost certainly be less undesirable than assad. 

Is that an ugly choice?   Yes.  But things are as they are. 

And as for the Syrians who really, truly do want freedom and democracy?  God help them.  Maybe someday........


KING BARACK & THE ILLEGAL CZARS

Ken Berwitz

Did we have an election in 2008, or was it a coronation?

I ask this because Barack Obama is not acting as an elected official, but as a king who answers to no one - certainly not to the constitution, with its separation of powers.

We saw this with ObamaCare when, after federal judge Roger Vinson ruled it unconstitutional, President Obama and his Democrat cohorts moved right along with its implementation as if the judge and his ruling did not exist.

And now we are seeing it with the just-passed legislation regarding "Czars" who are appointed by the President without any congressional oversight.

Read this excerpt from an article by Jonathan Strong, writing for dailycaller.com, and see for yourself:

Obama signing statement: despite law, I can do what I want on czars

In marked contrast to vows as a candidate not to use presidential signing statements as an end run around Congress, President Obama released a statement on the just-signed spending bill saying despite the laws restrictions on czars, he will construe the law not to interfere with presidential prerogatives.

The move is an aggressive power play by Obama to gain an added advantage from the deal struck a week ago between the president, Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to narrowly avert government shutdown.

The legislation prohibits government money being spent on four Obama czars, newly created positions with far-reaching sway over federal agencies but facing no confirmation vote in the Senate.

What the hell is going on here?  Did someone redo the Oval Office and install a throne?

And where are our wonderful "neutral" media?  Why must I go to a political web site to read this?  Why isn't it lead-story news in the mainstream print and broadcast media?

Would these same media have ignored it if George Bush were appointing Czars this way?

How do these toadies have the nerve to wonder why people hold media in such low regard?  How do they have the nerve to wonder why people call them biased? 

Zeke .... ..... Yup, you just said it all about the good that Obama-Apparatniks do for America. .... ..... A more accurate term might be "Commisars" . (04/16/11)


THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: PROTECTOR OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

Ken Berwitz

This doesn't require much in the way of commentary.  Like so much of what the Obama administration does wrong, it is right in your face.

Excerpted from the "corruption chronicles" blog of judicialwatch.com:

Obama Spares Arrested Illegal Immigrant Protesters

In the Obama Administrations latest move to protect illegal immigrants while an amnesty plan gets worked out, Homeland Security officials said they wont take action against a group of outlaws arrested in Georgia last week.

 

The illegal immigrants participated in a disruptive Atlanta demonstration to protest a state measure that bans undocumented students from attending some public colleges. The seven self-described activists, who proudly boasted about their illegal status, were arrested by local police for blocking traffic in bustling downtown Atlanta for about an hour.

 

Local media followed up this week by inquiring about the arrested demonstrators and the Homeland Security agency responsible for removing illegal aliens, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), confirmed that it was not taking any enforcement actions against the student demonstrators. One ICE official pointed to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitanos well-documented stance on not deporting illegal immigrant students.

 

Last summer the Obama Administration ordered authorities to stop removing illegal immigrants who are students while lawmakers craft legislation to officially shield them from expulsion. The move, which has spared an estimated 700,000 illegal aliens, came in response to nationwide rallies by defiant illegal immigrants protesting their eminent removal or that of their undocumented parents.  

The Obama administration refuses to secure our borders (and sues a state which tries to do so).  It ignores a ruling against ObamaCare.  It ignores a legislative agreement which prevents the creation of more unvetted "Czars".   And now we find out that it declines to act against illegals who break the law while flaunting the fact that they are illegals.

Tell me:  On the day we elected Barack Obama President did we also vote to nullify the constitution?  We must have, because it is clear that this administration has no intention of abiding by it. 

And it is just as clear that most of our wonderful "neutral" media are happy to look the other way on Mr. Obama's behalf while his administration acts as if they can make up the laws as they go along.  The "journalists" who do this are a disgrace to their profession - and apparently could not care less.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough. 


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!