The Trouble with Libertarianism

I am the Secretary for my homeowners’ association.  Before you start pelting me with rotten tomatoes or yank my H&F contributor privileges, please hear me out.  We had our reasons for opting to live in this neighborhood but ultimately my reasons aren’t important and no one should have to justify what appeals to them about where they choose to live.  What matters is that no one unduly imposes their vision of happiness on anyone else, and as we all know HOAs have a reputation – sometimes deserved, sometimes not – for doing just that.  Here in Texas growing anti-HOA sentiment led to a mini revolt that culminated in an overhaul of the state’s laws governing HOAs in 2012.  Under the banner of “reform” and cries for liberty Texas adopted a number of changes, expanding the code that deals with HOAs to 47 pages containing nearly 13,000 words.  Texans are supposed to be thankful for this ‘release’ from tyranny.  Call me an ingrate if you will but I see things a bit differently.

The neighborhood where I live was planned as an HOA from its inception, which means this particular HOA wasn’t forced on anyone, and as I wade through page after page of regulations we now have to follow on top of our own by-laws I am left to wonder:  Whatever happened to freedom of association?  If a group of like-minded homeowners with a shared interest in creating a certain type of living environment want to form an association for that purpose, what gives others the right to say we can’t or to impose onerous rules and regulations that make it overly burdensome to do so?  Imagine if a group of ‘free-speech’ activists began targeting sites like Hardnox & Friends, demanding, in the name of liberty, that anyone be allowed to post articles and imposing a list of rules and regulations that, to their way of thinking, better protects the free speech rights and thus the liberty of other individuals.  Such crusades, I am finding, are often more about imposing one group’s preferences with respect to liberty at the expense of someone else’s notion of liberty.  Pushback against increasingly tyrannical HOAs seems to have been answered by another form of tyranny masquerading as preservation of liberty (BTW, why not simply have a law that prevents Associations from forcing pre-existing homeowners into HOAs or from amending their CCRs without a super-majority?  One simple sentence.).

Whether we like it or not the exercise of individual “rights” is in many respects a zero-sum game.  My “right” to drive my car as fast as I want must be balanced against your “right” to be reasonably safe on the road; my “right” to enjoy loud music late at night must be balanced against your “right” to sleep or just enjoy a bit of peace and quiet on your own property.  Outside of what is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, no one can always have 100% of what he wants without stepping on the “rights” of someone else, which is why libertarianism can be a tricky thing and why I’m troubled by what looks to me like a growing movement in that direction.  As we increasingly hear people proudly proclaim, “I’m a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian,” now seems like a good time to examine what that means.

What exactly is a libertarian?  Just like the term “conservative” the label tends to be co-opted by groups and individuals seeking to mold it around their own unique beliefs, and dictionary definitions seem to have little relationship to reality, not to mention that even those are all over the place.  Keeping in mind the oft invoked “social libertarian” phrase I would distinguish conservatism from libertarianism this way:

Conservatism advocates limited government and the inviolability of individual rights while at the same time also recognizing the importance of and giving great deference to the preservation of societal systems and mores.  It recognizes that neither the individual nor societies can exist without one another, in the same way that Siamese twins who share vital organs depend on each other’s good health.  A certain amount of harmony is essential within society in order for individuals to flourish and for the continuation of mankind to be ensured.  It is, in short, an adult’s ideology; it accepts reality and the need to sometimes sacrifice short term satisfaction for long term prosperity and security.

In contrast, libertarianism places much greater weight on the “rights” of the individual, to the point of sometimes dangerously ignoring what’s necessary to preserve and nurture society.   While it is immensely nobler in motive than liberalism, it shares two of liberalism’s more unfortunate traits, the first of which is arrogance.   Arrogance is when an unremarkable community organizer/politician presumes to “transform” a government founded by some of the best minds in American history, or when the wife of a president presumes to know more about feeding children than parents and schools that have been successfully feeding children for centuries.  Likewise, libertarians are known to be arrogantly dismissive when it comes to the lessons learned and imparted by past societies.  Like the new manager who fails to get to know a business before insisting on drastic changes, libertarians are unconcerned that past societies have universally rejected behaviors like prostitution and recreational drug use, or that they heretofore unanimously restricted marriage to opposite genders.  The adult stops, observes and asks, “Why?”  The child plows ahead without pausing to consider what potential dangers lay ahead, or perhaps assuming that any dangers won’t affect them.

The second trait libertarians share with liberals is an unrealistic view of human nature.  Just get government out of the way, they tell us in their quest to be freed from the limits society imposes on them.  People will behave themselves, you’ll see.  If that were true then there would have been no impetus for the laws we have.  If people didn’t drive recklessly we wouldn’t need speed limits.  If people didn’t litter, we’d need no laws against littering.  Didn’t we just have a nurse who had been exposed to Ebola ignore the risk to others so she could travel?  Does that episode support or disprove the notion that people can be trusted to think of others before they act?  The reality belies the spin and leads me to conclude that libertarianism isn’t so much about the principled quest for freedom for all but is instead about protecting the “right” to do whatever the hell one wants regardless of the impact on anybody else.  Conservatives fear government because all too often it places power in the hands of the wrong people.  Libertarians don’t like government even in the hands of the right people, which in theory is all of us.

Libertarianism sounds good.  Heck, who isn’t for liberty?  But the question is:  how does one define liberty?  If I’m legally forced to recognize same-sex marriages, is that liberty?  If my neighborhood is overrun by drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes whose “rights” I am commanded to respect, is that liberty?  If I and other like-minded individuals want to form our own community with mutually agreed-to rules but others say we can’t, is that liberty?  If my nation’s hands are tied against preemptive acts of self-defense, is that liberty?   These are the questions that make me discomfited by the “fiscal conservative, social libertarian.” 

~CW

Follow me and my fellow blogger friends at "Hardnox & Friends."  Thanks!

If It Walks Like a Duck….A Commentary on Conspiracy Theories

A perp walks into a bank and robs it.  The teller claims the perp was a duck.  When police look at the surveillance video, the image shows a small, feathered creature with webbed feet waddling up to the teller and quacking instructions to her through its bill.  The police logically conclude that the perp is indeed the one duck who resides in the town.  They get a warrant and search the duck’s nest and sure enough – there’s the money.  But wait!  Someone comes forward to say it can’t be the duck, because they’re sure they saw the duck on the other side of town at the time of the robbery. 

And so the conspiracy theories begin. 

Maybe the video tape was doctored by the bank because the bankers stole the money and planted it in the nest to frame the duck! 

Maybe the entire police department is lying because they stole the money and they’re trying to blame the duck!

Maybe, maybe, maybe…

Whether it’s the assassination of JFK, the “disappearance” of Elvis or the horrific events of 9-11, conspiracy theories seem to have burgeoned into their own cottage industry, and call me a party pooper if you want but I tend not to be a fan.  It’s not that I believe conspiracies never happen, I know they sometimes do; but this trend of translating any questionable or missing piece of evidence into an elaborate plot that ignores both the known facts and common sense is very disturbing for a host of reasons, starting with its potential to wrongly ensnare and tarnish innocent people.  Imagine being a member of the Bush administration following 9-11 when it was suggested by some that Bush and others orchestrated the events of that day.  Consider what such theories imply, not just about them but also about the people peripherally involved or those who painstakingly investigated the events of 9-11.  Were they abettors to this terrible crime?  Are they liars?  Were they grossly incompetent?  Those are damning accusations, yet you can’t accept the conspiracy theories and come to any other conclusion. 

Conspiracy theorists aren’t required to observe the standards of reasoning and proof that tend to naturally lead official investigations in the right direction.  In the duck scenario, for instance, it would be much harder to credibly point to other suspects if you were required to explain to a jury why you discounted the video evidence and the testimony of the teller who was robbed in favor of the testimony of someone who could easily have been mistaken about some incidental sighting of the duck.  Given what’s at stake for others it behooves us to engage in a little self-policing before jumping into the conspiracy boat.  The people who perpetuated the 9-11 conspiracy theories, largely a who’s-who list of Bush-hating leftists, were clearly not motivated by a quest for the truth but were instead, consciously or subconsciously, trying to turn any unresolved question from that day into a convenient indictment of the man they hated, and they didn’t care who was sacrificed in the process.  I’d like to think that conservatives are better than that but the signs don’t always point that way.

Yesterday I turned on the radio in my car and heard a few minutes of the Michael Savage show.  The discussion apparently centered on Obama’s announcement that he was sending 3,000 troops to Africa to help deal with the Ebola epidemic.  A woman caller seemed to suggest that she believed this was part of a broader scheme to bring Ebola to the U.S.  She also suggested it was possible that the epidemic had been intentionally manufactured and introduced in Africa to initiate the scheme.  To Savage’s credit he quickly dismissed that suggestion, but this was followed by a caller who believed this was a plot to undermine the military.  It was disturbing to hear such calls and to know that they will help form the impression listeners have of conservatives. 

Generally speaking, the simplest and most logical explanations lead to the truth of what’s going on.  No doubt there are valid criticisms as to the wisdom of sending U.S. troops into a country infested with Ebola and it might be fair to speculate, based upon his history, that Obama isn’t concerned about the risks this presents to our soldiers, but a diabolical plot intended to bring an Ebola epidemic to the U.S.?  Come on.  That is the stuff of James Bond villains, the stuff that we find greatly entertaining because it is so far removed from reality as we know it.

Complex Orwellian plots and multifarious conspiracies really aren’t necessary in order for the Left to achieve their objectives, and this is painfully demonstrated to us on a daily basis.  Why engage in a fiendish plot to bring Ebola to this country or to destroy the military when you can legally (for the most part) harness people’s own natural nanny-state inclinations to achieve the bulk of your goals pretty much out in the open?  It makes no sense. 

I am not suggesting that there isn’t a whole lot of lying, secrecy and nefarious dealings going on.  On the contrary, I understand as well as anyone that scheming and dishonesty pervade government, particularly leftwing administrations whose goal is to control and harness the earning power of some to buy the loyalty of others.  It requires a great deal of manipulation and orchestration to accomplish that.  There is, however, a not-so-fine line between being justifiably wary and watchful of government and letting your imagination go too far.  You can only cry wolf so many times before no one takes you seriously.  Already the words “conspiracy theory” elicit eye rolls and images of red-eyed bloggers furiously typing away in their mothers’ basements.  That’s a tragedy for the genuine conspiracies that will be uncovered and then perfunctorily dismissed, but it’s the price that comes with the loss of objectivity.  I’m sure I’ll win no popularity contests with this post, but sometimes when something walks and quacks like a duck it really is just a duck.

~CW

Why We Should Abolish the Minimum Wage

A free market economy depends upon the unhindered ability of all participants to pursue what they believe to be in their own best interests, hence the word “FREE.”  If I have something to sell that I think is worth $100 I don’t have to sell it to you for $50 and you cannot be forced to buy it from me for $100.  Each of us can decide how badly we want either the money or the goods when choosing whether or not to negotiate.  If we ultimately settle on a price of $75 with no one being physically or legally coerced into such a trade, then it can logically be assumed that each of us believes we have made a deal that maximized our trading power, because if we could have made a better deal elsewhere we would have done so. 

The mandate of a minimum wage undermines the free market by depriving people of the option to engage in a trade that could optimize their own best interest.  A person who lacks work experience or skills and would be willing to work for less than the market rate in order to obtain those skills may be prevented from doing so by a mandated minimum wage.  Likewise an employer who can’t afford or simply doesn’t want to pay the going rate and would be willing to relax his requirements in exchange for paying someone less than market rate has no such freedom with a mandated minimum wage.  All this begs the critical question: 

What gives the federal government the right to deprive people of the basic freedom to trade their labor for any price that they’re willing to take or the freedom to hire someone who would willingly accept their offered price? 

I would contend that our government has no such right, irrespective of the fact that it’s been using its might for some time now pretending as if it did.  The assertion of OUR rights to be free from government interference in commerce between willing participants should be the first line of defense for conservatives against the mandated minimum wage, because to take any other approach is to first make the fatal mistake of conceding the government’s right to establish a minimum wage, and then we’re simply arguing over how much, as is the case right now.  One person’s failure to obtain the skills, education or experience to earn a decent living shouldn’t entitle them to rob others of their freedom to pursue their own best interests in the free market, but that’s exactly what happens with a mandated minimum or “living” wage.

Unless it’s based on the free market, the amount of money that anyone thinks he deserves to earn is entirely arbitrary.  You are welcome to believe that your labor is worth, say, $50 an hour; but if nobody values your skills enough to pay you that amount then by definition, you’re not worth it, regardless of whether that’s the amount you need to support yourself or not.  Someone who washes windows for a living is not worth more pay because he’s trying to put himself through Harvard or because he’s supporting nine children, yet this is the type of argument that liberals always use to justify mandating and continually increasing the minimum wage.  “A family of four can’t live on minimum wage!” they cry.  If I shouldn’t have to pay the window washer an arbitrary $50 an hour so he can put himself through Harvard why should I have to pay the burger flipper an arbitrary $15 an hour because he has three kids?  A job is worth what a job is worth, whether it’s a 16-year old flipping burgers earning fun money or a 31-year old flipping burgers supporting a family.

Alas, liberals have already managed to convince enough Americans, Left and faux Right, that somewhere within the Constitution the government was given the power to deprive people of the right to engage in mutually agreeable commerce and they’ve established a completely arbitrary minimum wage.  I can only assume this was done in the name of the regularly abused “general welfare” language, but if that’s the case then this simply means that the policy fails on both a constitutional and a logical basis, because it’s easy to demonstrate how the minimum wage is harmful – not helpful – to the “general welfare.”

Some time ago I wrote a post about truisms (Truisms:  The Case against Liberalism), the inescapable and unchangeable rules of life that we ignore at our own peril and, much to our shame, to the peril of future generations.  Truisms are like gravity; you cannot avoid it simply by refusing to acknowledge that it exists, but it can be amusing to see people try.  What’s not amusing, though, is the predictable destruction brought upon this nation by democrats who ignorantly and/or willingly ignore basic truths when pursuing policies that affect us all.  The mandated minimum wage is a shining example of this.

Truism #1 – The more you reward certain behaviors, the more of them you’ll get.

As in my original post I challenge anyone to argue that this statement isn’t a fact, just like the law of gravity.  Now, what are you doing when you guarantee a minimum wage to someone who has made no effort to acquire the skills, experience or education to command a higher wage on their own merits?  That’s right – you reward them for remaining unskilled, uneducated and inexperienced.  That’s a great idea for the “general welfare,” isn’t it? 

Truism #6 –The law of natural consequences is necessary to a functional society.

The beauty of the free market is that it naturally rewards people who have or who acquire the talents, experience and skills we value, thereby encouraging more people to hone these valuable skills.  Given that no one owes you a living, this is unarguably a win-win for everyone.  It gives people the incentive and opportunity to make the most with what they have.  On the flip side, the free market has a way of discouraging behaviors that are personally and societally destructive.  In a truly free market (and without government assistance, which is a whole other topic) people are naturally forced to make smarter choices about careers and lifestyles that lead to greater personal responsibility and less risk to others that they will end up paying the price for your mistakes and failures.  This might be less enjoyable for the least responsible and ambitious amongst us, but certainly it is best for the “general welfare.”

Your average fifth grader can look at the images of angry fast-food workers marching around with signs demanding a higher minimum wage and compare that to people trying to achieve the same financial goal through education and job advancement and that fifth grader can tell you which way is better for the “general welfare.”  If only they could explain it to the average liberal.

~CW

How to Train Your Democrat

Dog trainers will tell you that the most important tool for training your dog is the tone of your voice.  By changing the volume and tone of your voice you can communicate a wide array of different messages to your dog and help to make him a better, more obedient pet.  So important are vocal tone and volume, in fact, that the actual words you speak are often irrelevant.  Except for a handful of commands to which the dog is trained to react, volume, tone and pitch will most likely dictate his response to your commands.

Recently I’ve noticed with great fascination that this works on democrats as well.  Their masters can tell them anything, and even if it is clearly untrue or defies basic logic, as long as the words are delivered with the proper technique democrats will respond as trained.   Tell them, for instance, that “You didn’t build that!” and as long as there is angry conviction in your voice it won’t matter that they DID build that.  They will respond on cue and bark along obediently.  Defiantly shriek, “What difference, at this point, does it make!” and they will howl in agreement despite the fact that the true story of the Benghazi attack and the tragic deaths of four Americans really does matter.

Just the other day Debbie Wasserman Schultz angrily told women democrats, “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.”  Really?  Walker, of course, was the one who freed Wisconsin women from the grip of the union thugs, but the obvious absurdity of her statement was ignored by the lefty ladies so well-trained to salivate at any gratuitous comparison of republicans to cavemen.
And who could ever forget Bill Clinton?  Apparently his raspy southern accent and “charm” (ahem) were enough to convince democrats that a man with a long and sordid history of mistreating women was sincerely compassionate about women’s causes.  Bill Clinton was, in the words of top dog democrat Barbara Streisand, “just swell,” and the old southern charm is still working today as evidenced by the abundance of puppy love that still surrounds the aging woman abuser.

The true master, though, has to be Barack Obama.  He is the ultimate democrat whisperer, and could probably convince them to hop up in the car and go to the vet to be neutered without pain meds just by doing his bobble-head walk and broad grin at the same time.  Professor Obama waggles his dainty finger, furrows his brow and invokes a scolding tone to inform the dogs – er, excuse me – democrats, that congress won’t act (translation:  they won’t do his bidding) on this or that , and right on cue they erupt in angry barking as if his indignant tone suggests he speaks the truth.  Then he sticks his nose in the air and declares with just the right mix of defiance and resignation that he must make the ultimate sacrifice and “act alone,” and they clap like trained seals while he shreds the Constitution, their Constitution.  Empty promises delivered in loud, flowery rhetoric are all that’s needed to make democrats sit up pretty and beg with their tongues hanging out.  Confidently delivered untruths about the economy, Obamacare or our withdrawal from violence around the globe are predictably met with drooling, panting and vigorous tail wagging.

Good dogs.

 ~CW

 

Progressives: Moving us “FORWARD” To the Dark Age

Until recently most of humankind throughout history has shared an ongoing, positive struggle to improve and elevate every aspect of human existence:  the human condition, the human spirit and the ways in which humans live and co-exist.  Most of the world has moved from caves and huts and a harsh existence to enjoy the luxury of comfortable shelters and ample food.  The instinctive, human quest for knowledge and progress has led to marvels in science and technology that have vastly extended the human lifespan and improved our quality of life.  The days of certain tyranny, when class, race, gender and geography deprived most people in the world of the freedom to enjoy much of what life has to offer, has largely yielded to the human drive for liberty and self-determination; and the knowledge that freedom and autonomy are possible has given rise to hope where tyranny still exists.  Through religion, the arts and the continual refining of our cultures humans have sought to elevate our existence to something far from and above an animal-like existence.  We have endeavored to lift the spirit and make the human experience something noble, precious and worthwhile.  We have learned, as in the lyrics made famous by Sammie Davis, Jr., to live, not to merely survive.

The purpose of recounting this ongoing and largely universal struggle is to contrast it with the repression and destructiveness that’s been increasingly inflicted upon us by some in the name of “progress.”  In the name of “progress” we are told that we must “celebrate our diversity,” and the remarkable strides we’d made towards becoming a genuinely color-blind society - where the differences between us on the outside were gradually being obscured by the uniting of our shared values – are being lost.  In their place we see the rise of resentment and hatred, fueled on by phony declarations of “war” being waged on this and that group.  We are told we must be “tolerant;” but only when tolerance ultimately undermines the societies we’ve worked and sacrificed for.  That’s true progress, we are told.

In the name of “progress” we are informed we must be liberated in our sexuality, and where once we aspired for sex to be regarded as a sacred and private expression of love between committed people, now many behave as little more than animals in heat.  Popular songs celebrate casual sex and misogyny.  Dirt bags in movies and television compete to see who can turn depravity into the biggest pile of dollars, and with each competition the moral standards for entertainment sink to a new low.  From Shakespeare to “Dating Naked.”  Thank God for progress.

The cherished state of marriage that promised security and greater prosperity to couples, children and communities has given way to an epidemic of fatherless children, as liberals proclaim the legal union to be of little importance, unless of course you are gay.  More and more of the hard-earned income of those holding fast to “old fashioned” values goes to support those who have been liberated from responsible behavior in the name of “progress.”  More Section 8 housing, rehab centers and prisons are continually being built to deal with the children of “progress.”

Where once art was defined by the awe-inspiring works of people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, now we are treated to bizarre creations made from human waste and live displays of masturbation to admire.  Check out the arts section of that ‘progressive’ pigsty, HuffingtonPost.com, for a sample of what constitutes “art” in the hands of “progressives.”  Aren’t you impressed with our progress?

Over the centuries people dreamed of a future where hard work, ingenuity and self-discipline could earn the rewards of comfort, pleasure and security in life, and people could aspire to a better existence than the average ant.  That dream had become a modern-day reality for many but alas, the “progressives ” have decided that our comfort, pleasure and security have become too great for their liking.  In the name of saving us from “climate change” and other boogey men they conspire to drive up the cost of energy so that more and more of our labor is spent earning the money just to drive to work or to stay warm.  You think you’re free?  You’re not free if you can’t afford the gas to travel anywhere.  In the name of progress they drive up the cost of food with their anti-fat and anti this and that regulations.  Forget about vacations and other luxuries.  Work, ant, work.

 

Keep thinking “progress.”

~CW

Liberalism, Killer of “Compassion”

The premise used to be quite simple:   Come here legally; be responsible for yourself and your family; assimilate; contribute to the economy; don’t cause any trouble.  In exchange you are welcome to share in the promise of the American dream. That was our standard, and it was working quite well for the country and for immigrants, which of course meant that the Left had to mess with it, because anything that is working well is a threat to liberals.  It makes them irrelevant, and we can’t have that.  Thus it was time to begin dismantling all of the natural disincentives for being in this country illegally.  Demonize the INS; fight against English as our official language; encourage the celebration of diversity and non-American heritage; insist on free schooling and welfare; misapply the 14^th Amendment; deprive police of the power to check for ID and arrest those here illegally; limit deportations; weaken the integrity of our elections.

 

And the results are in.  The population of illegal aliens in the U.S. has swelled to somewhere between 20 million and…who knows?  Our prisons are crowded with illegals costing U.S. taxpayers billions.  Americans have lost their lives and their property to illegals who commit more serious crimes.  Our schools struggle and divert resources away from our own children to educate those here illegally.  Our healthcare systems are overloaded.  American tax dollars find their way into the pockets of illegals via fraud and waste, and these dollars are sent “home” to other nations. 

Now, as tens of thousands of children and adults flood illegally into the U.S. from other countries, liberals are crying for “compassion.”  I’m sorry but there is no place for ordinary compassion in a completely irrational world.  When compassion is no longer defined as sympathy and help but instead means playing sucker to all those with the willingness and shrewdness to take unfair advantage, I say “No thanks” to being “compassionate.”  If that leaves some who truly are victims out in the cold, they can thank liberals for that, because liberals have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted with my compassion. 

Need another example?  Look at our bloated and corrupted welfare system, courtesy of the American liberal.  Each year billions and billions and more billions are being stolen from taxpayers to be given to freeloaders and scammers.  As the sister of a man with severe mental illness who can’t possibly support himself I watch with outrage, frustration and heartache as money that’s intended to help the truly needy is stolen by parasites, enabled by liberal politicians who want to buy their votes and pat themselves on their backs for their philanthropy.  I know firsthand that the need truly exists for some and yet I can’t blame anyone whose patience for “compassion” has been exhausted.  Thanks, liberals.  I hope you’re proud. 

The nature of liberalism is such that there is nothing worthwhile that it won’t seek to destroy, because it is in the destruction that they find their power.  It occurs both intentionally and as the unintentional result of the never-ending pursuit to gratify the liberal ego.  To those who are acting intentionally to place this nation in a state of chaos, I understand that your cries for “compassion” are nothing more than a scheme to bully this nation into caving in to the Left’s demands for the agenda they like to call “reform.”  To those who have fooled themselves into believing that they are acting for the public good and who can’t understand what’s happened to the compassion that Americans are known for, I say, “Look in the mirror and you will see the culprit staring back at you.”

~CW

An Irony to Beat All Ironies

“President Barack Obama exhorted Iraqi leaders to come up with a political solution to governing their nation because "if they don't, there won't be a military solution to the problem," he told CNN in an interview Friday.

Obama wants to see Iraq create a command structure that includes Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, which are the country's chief groups, he told CNN's Kate Bolduan.

"We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy," Obama said on the eve of U.S. military advisers arriving in Iraq to help the government besieged by militant extremists.”

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/politics/obama-iraq/

I have to marvel at the ability of the CNN reporter to keep a straight face as Barack the Usurper called for “inclusive” government in Iraq.  Mr.-I-have-a-pen-and-a-phone has done every imaginable thing within his power and beyond to exclude a chief group of citizens in this country from exercising their Constitutional rights to share power, so the irony of his lecturing Iraq is quite rich.   

Take a good long look in the mirror, Barack.  You have no business preaching to Mr. al-Maliki on anything, least of all the equitable sharing of power. 

"We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy," he says.  Where does he suppose we came up with such an idea?

~CW