World news
Middle East, Obama, and oil
After all that has been written and said about Obama and the Middle East crisis, the entire ordeal still mystifies me.
Middle East crisis: questions
I know all the questions:
- Was this planned?
- Was it spontaneous?
- Was it the result of an unknown video by an unknown videographer?
- Was it the result of our weak foreign policy?
- Were the security guards armed with live ammo?
- Did we have advanced notice?
And I’m sure I’ve missed a few. All good questions; all answers remain questionable.
Still, all the questions and all the answers didn’t resolve the uneasiness for me. Something seemed to be missing. What could possibly be Obama’s reasoning for any of it? Some believe that if it sparked a war, then Obama would win another term. Americans do not change horses in mid-stream, or so we heard when Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for a third term. But I can’t quite accept that reasoning. This crisis may actually make Obama look totally incompetent in foreign affairs. He couldn’t risk that. After all, he touts foreign affairs as being his strong suit.
An ideological imperative for Obama?
The Kimmeredge Oil Well, the oldest continuously productive oil well in Britain. Photo: Graham Horn (Geograph.UK); Creative COmmons Attribution/Share-alike 2.0 Generic LIcense
There is one line of reasoning that I can’t dismiss. It has to do with Barack’s disassociation of the whole matter. Yes, he gave us a relatively benign statement before getting back on the campaign trail. It seemed little more than an obligatory comment forced by his challenger who was speaking out. His disinterest is startling – almost as startling as his refusal to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu in the midst of a crisis. This also reminded me of another time he remained disinterested during a crisis – the Gulf oil spill. Of course that particular debacle suited his ideology of reducing our dependence on any oil – not necessarily just foreign oil.
Before I go into it, let me remind you that this Administration (and I believe that includes Mr. Obama) was more than willing to give Mexican drug lords assault weapons to win a brownie point or two on gun restriction. We all know that this botched strategy (known as Fast and Furious) resulted in the loss of lives of a few Americans but also countless Mexicans. The point here is that the Administration has proven by their actions that they couldn’t care less about the loss of human life if it advances their cause. Applying this realization to the Middle East crisis, it is entirely reasonable to assume that if the situation serves their purpose in some way that they would care less about the cost of lives.
So, if it is not logical to assume that there is a political benefit of some kind (if there is, it escapes me), we should look for an ideological benefit.
Incite riots in the Middle East to raise the price of oil?
Bear with me. If giving guns to drug lords to promote gun restrictions is acceptable to this Administration, then mob riots in the Middle East to promote some ideology may also be acceptable. Now: what ideology benefits from mob riots in the Middle East? As strange as it may seem, there may be an answer. Mob riots in the Middle East affect oil prices by possibly reducing our oil supplies. Reducing our oil supplies result in increased costs, resulting in increased prices at the pumps. Increased prices at the pumps results in less consumption as people make it their business to consume less. Increased prices also make Americans more inclined to develop alternative energies. This is not to be confused with domestic production of fossil fuels. Alternative energy development – regardless of how inefficient it may be at the moment – has always been an ideological goal of this Administration.
Is this the missing piece of the puzzle? God only knows. But I do know that somewhere there is an answer and somehow that answer doesn’t translate to Mr. Obama having the good of America in mind.
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]
RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.
-
Civilization4 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Civilization3 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization4 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Civilization1 day agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoHere’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right
-
Executive2 days agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization4 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization3 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
“almost as startling as his refusal to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu in the midst of a crisis”
Perhaps to register his disapproval at Netanyahu for creating the crisis in the first place?
“But I do know that somewhere there is an answer”
Yes: an idiot made a video. It’s really not hard-
“It’s really not hard,” you say. But you vastly oversimplify.
“But you vastly oversimplify.”
Well, not really. An idiot made a video. He’s not the first idiot to do so and probably won’t be the last, but he undeniably did so. Sadly other idiots – such as Terry Jones – have jumped on his bandwagon. Hopefully no more innocent people will die as a result.
We now learn that the real impetus was “Free Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman!”
“We now learn that the real impetus was “Free Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman!””
That was the impetus for the murders in Benghazi. However this blog post seems to be implying that the “real impetus” for the release of the film was to further Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim AgendaTM in the Middle East.
Which agenda is the dissolution of America. As Dinesh D’Souza makes abundantly clear.
“Which agenda is the dissolution of America.”
Wouldn’t it be rather hard to dissolve a voluntary federation of states unless it wants to be dissolved? In fact, as Jefferson Davis was rudely informed, it’s pretty difficult to dissolve it even when parts of it do want that…
Not that I have any particular objection to US states seceding if they choose to, of course. California would be quite a nice country if the drinking age was lowered and balding 42 year old men with grey in their beards didn’t get asked for ID in bars.
“As Dinesh D’Souza makes abundantly clear.”
No offence to Mr d’Souza, but his name makes me think of the thing you started a Series III Land Rover when the battery died in cold weather.
Not the federation. The free society that the phrase “United States” once stood for.
The secession of California is the last thing he wants. No Democrat could ever be President again without its lion’s share of electoral votes. (Though I know one party that does want to detach California from the United States: El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, who call it Alta California, to go along with Baja California, part of Mexico.)
“Not the federation. The free society that the phrase “United States” once stood for.”
There’s just been a long discussion at ARRSE about this. Lots of the freedoms you have are ones that nobody else actually wants. The freedom to be without health cover, the freedom to be shot in the street by self-appointed vigilantes, the freedom to be disenfranchised by state governors…
“The secession of California is the last thing he wants.”
No doubt, for exactly the same reason as no British Labour Party member wants to see an independent Scotland. However, personally I would like to see an independent California. I rather like the place, but it would be even better with a few less of your sort of freedoms and a few more of the sort I value. That’s an issue of personal preferences, of course, so your mileage may vary. I suspect a lot of Californians would agree with me though.
Let’s translate some of what you call “the freedoms nobody else wants”: the freedom of taxpayers not to have to pay for someone else’s goods or services, the freedom to defend oneself at the instant against a criminal brandishing a gun or knife (and don’t tell me he wouldn’t have it if we had such-a-law!), the freedom not to have your political opponents dilute your vote by voting twice, voting in the names of the dead, etc.
Californians know that if they did secede from (or get thrown out of) the Union, their State would rapidly degenerate to the sort of not-quite-anarchy that now prevails in, say, Liberia in Africa. Or Somalia.
Of course, California has within it those who want, not to become an independent republic, but to become another “United Mexican State”: Alta California, or simply Alta, as opposed to Baja (actually, Baja del Norte and Baja del Sur).
You forget that the productive people of California have left the State by now. True enough, the more salubrious the climate of any given region, the more tom-foolery and confiscatory tax-and-reg policies a resident might put up with, just for the privilege of living in such a nice climate. But that has its limits. And California has now exceeded them.
“the freedom of taxpayers not to have to pay for someone else’s goods or services”
That freedom doesn’t exist, in the USA or anywhere else in the civilised world. Your taxes pay for everyone else’s policing, fire brigade, streets, infrastructure, defence and foreign relations. Compared to that, food stamps are a drop in the bucket.
“the freedom to defend oneself at the instant against a criminal brandishing a gun or knife”
I have that too. So do the residents of teh UK, France and everywhere else in Europe.
“the freedom not to have your political opponents dilute your vote by voting twice, voting in the names of the dead, etc.”
Got that. Unlike you I also have the freedom to have my name left on the electoral roll, without the interference of gerrymandering crooks like Jeb Bush, unless I’m actually insane, a lord or in prison.
Now, do you have the freedom to go to university even if your parents didn’t manage to save up a six-figure sum? I do. Do you have the freedom to get any health care you like paid for by your insurance, whether your employer approves of it or not? I do. Do you have the freedom to change jobs, or set up your own business, without worrying about who’s going to pay when your kids get ill? I do.
“Californians know that if they did secede from (or get thrown out of) the Union, their State would rapidly degenerate to the sort of not-quite-anarchy that now prevails in, say, Liberia in Africa. Or Somalia.”
Hardly likely. California had the seventh largest economy in the world last time I checked.
“You forget that the productive people of California have left the State by now.”
That’s weird, because everyone I know there is “productive.” Scientists, engineers, financiers, retailers, technicians; these are all productive people, Terry. No, I don’t know any Californian lawyers and nor do I wish to.
Some of the services you name are the core functions of a government. They are everyone’s services. They are: police, military, and the courts.
Whether fire brigades are a necessary core function of a city is debatable.
Streets and highways might be better built and run privately.
Self-defense, with one’s own choice of weapon, is not available in any European city that I know of. (Possible exceptions: the cities of Switzerland.) Sadly, it is not available in many American cities, either. That’s something that my political allies are working on.
And I have never had my name stricken from an electoral roll. But I have certain, first-hand knowledge of the dead staying on the rolls, year after year. Their relatives would complain to me, in my post as an election inspector (that is, ranking minority-party member of an election district board), about getting sample ballots in their dead relatives’ names. I would mark them for the attention of the county clerk. To no avail. So I always ask myself how often someone might be voting in his dead relative’s name. (Not, I can confidently assert, on my watch. Or at least I never personally saw anyone voting twice. We ran a good, clean district while I was involved.)
The other “freedoms” you mention are not freedoms at all. They are handouts from the government. I would be ashamed ever to claim them.
And I suggest that you have not checked the economy of California nearly as carefully as you pretend. Everyone Stateside knows that California is broke. Did it dare secede and try to become the independent “Bear Flag Republic,” it would become defunct.
“Whether fire brigades are a necessary core function of a city is debatable.”
Oh please, Terry! You’d be happy living in a city that didn’t have a fire brigade? Nobody in London, Chicago, Hamburg, Rome or San Francisco would, that’s for sure. Why not? Because all of those cities have burnt down!
“Streets and highways might be better built and run privately.”
Been tried. Doesn’t work.
“Self-defense, with one’s own choice of weapon, is not available in any European city that I know of.”
In Germany, if there is a credible threat against your life you can get a carry permit. Google Waffenschein. That’s in any city. The only restriction is that you can’t carry a firearm at public events, for the obvious reason.
“And I have never had my name stricken from an electoral roll.”
Plenty of people in Florida have, simply because they share a name with someone who spent time in jail for having a spliff in 1968.
“The other “freedoms” you mention are not freedoms at all. They are handouts from the government. I would be ashamed ever to claim them.”
So you think that people whose parents were too poor/stupid/lazy/whatever to save up a college fund shouldn’t be able to do higher education? Isn’t that restricting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness a bit? I thought Americans were against hereditary privilege.
“Everyone Stateside knows that California is broke.”
So does everyone in California. It still has the seventh largest economy in the world though.
Why should you have to wait until you can document a credible threat from a specific quarter? You should be able to carry a weapon to defend yourself against a random stranger. Because that random stranger is going to be armed, law or no law.
Now about higher education: First, college costs too much precisely because so much financial aid is available. Subsidize a thing, and the providers will ratchet up the price.
Second, higher education doesn’t work out so well for everyone who gets it. The world is full of educated derelicts.
“Why should you have to wait until you can document a credible threat from a specific quarter? You should be able to carry a weapon to defend yourself against a random stranger. Because that random stranger is going to be armed, law or no law.”
Whose way is working better right now? The USA has 4.2 murders annually per 100,000 people. Germany has 0.8.
“First, college costs too much precisely because so much financial aid is available. Subsidize a thing, and the providers will ratchet up the price.”
So that’s why a semester at a top German university costs about $2,000?
“Second, higher education doesn’t work out so well for everyone who gets it.”
It works out even less well for those who don’t get it.
Once again, you don’t understand liberty. First of all, I am highly skeptical of your murder statistic. Second, a society that restricts liberty in any way, shape or form is not free.
Now about “higher education”: how does it work out for an art major who never, never gets a job even related to art, unless the art faculty approved him for some kind of instructor track?
[…] Original Post: link to cnav.news […]