If We Aren’t the World’s Policeman, We Need Not Be Its Refuge

Syrian refugees and the so called Skittles meme have been in the news of late, owing to a renewed line of attack against Donald Trump by the Democrat media and a retweeting by his son, Donald Trump Jr. The meme is an asinine reduction, as most memes are, questioning if 3 or 10% or some other low number of the Skittles in a bowl were poisoned, would you take a handful. It has been used for refugees by the so called “Alt-Right” (more accurately labeled the White-Left, as they are an authoritarian big government faction), and for rape culture by the Feminist Left, proving that everyone in the political spectrum understands the meme’s central thesis.

[Surely, anyone who has posted the meme in either instance must cede to the other’s argument? Where are the Feminist’s demanding not to admit Syrian refugees on these grounds? Certainly, as we have seen in Germany and Sweden, these refugees bring their own rape culture with them- coming from societies where marital rape is legal, where refusing sex authorizes husbands to “lightly” beat their wives, where to convict a man of rape requires three or more male witnesses to the act itself, and where speaking out about rape without providing three male witnesses results in the rape victim being beaten or in some instances killed. How can Feminists, who clearly understand the meme, having originated it, not make common cause with the Alt-Right/White-Lefters?]

That ridiculousness aside, the fact remains- we have no moral imperative to serve as the refuge or the safe space for countries where we have determined not to serve as a police force for.

We’ve heard the refrain for seemingly decades, “The US is not the world’s police force!” Or it shouldn’t be. We’ve heard how all the wars the US has engaged in are merely ventures designed to profit oil companies, or the military industrial complex, or whichever conservative group is the current boogey man for leftist ire.

So, while in the process of withdrawal from Iraq, a country that had been stabilized and that somehow through a decade of US involved warfare had not elicited a refugee crisis, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton chose not to intervene in the Syrian Civil War as it was beginning.

Let us be very clear on this—had we intervened we could have enshrined whichever faction we desired into power in the matter of weeks. The Civil War itself could have been ended almost before it started. The US has the military capability to do so.

Now, I have always contended that a moral case for non-intervention can be made- could we have intervened early on and ended the Syrian Civil War before there was a refugee crisis? Unequivocally yes. Should we have done so? The answer is not so clear.

However, to build a case that is was not our responsibility to intervene we must argue that the humanitarian issues arising from the war are not our responsibility and that we have no moral obligation to the people of Syria.

If we have a moral obligation to the people of Syria, then how can we justify allowing 500,000 of them to die and several millions to be displaced when we could have ended the war almost before it began?

Surely we could have spent a few hundred American lives, killed a few thousand Syrian belligerents along with Assad, and stabilized the country. We chose not to. We must assume that the reason we chose not to intervene was built upon an intellectual foundation- that is that it was morally right to not intervene. If the choice against intervention was made on base self-serving political reasons then we should certainly demand the immediate resignation of President Obama and the immediate withdrawal from the Presidential race of his Secretary of State at the time Ms. Clinton- certainly the death of 500,000 and the displacement of several million whom we had a moral obligation to help for political gains is unconscionable?

But seeing as Ms. Clinton continues to run, and President Obama continues to serve we must assume that the choice of non-intervention in Syria was a morally defensible case.

What then, obligations do we have for those affected by the same Syrian Civil War now, after it has dragged on for half a decade?


If we had a moral obligation to save them, that obligation did not exist only upon their becoming refugees- it existed prior to that fact. The world should not count upon the US being a place of refuge when they fail to police the conflicts that emerge- they have asked for the US to not act unilaterally, to not intervene, we have acquiesced and in doing so washed our hands of the situation.

A police force has obligations to the citizens living under its protection. A US which is the policeman of the world has some obligations to the people living in the world. A US who “is not the world’s policeman” has no obligations.

Indeed, taking Syrian refugees sends a self-fulfilling prophecy to the world- it declares to them, to the UN, to the EU, to the Arab states, to OPEC that they need not bother controlling disputes, because the US will be here with open arms to clean up the mess after the fact.

Surely, if we are not the world’s policeman we need not be its maid?

(This article was originally published on 9/20/2016 on https://wordpress.com/post/lovesthoughts.wordpress.com)

President Obama Muses on Supreme Court

On Tuesday President Obama tipped his hand on his newest plan to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. He said in a guest post on liberal hype site US Uncut that he planned to “Cut these class warring Republicans off at the knees”, and suggested that he would “Make sure all those one percenters got marched straight to the guillotine” after his nominee had successfully removed “that pesky Constitution”.

When pressed for some ideas of whom he might nominate, President Obama talked candidly about some of the candidates. On the potential of nominating Hillary Clinton he stated, “She already knows how to ignore the law, so putting her in a position to do just that with impunity would be a natural fit.” Besides, the President posited, “Then she couldn’t win the White House”.

On the possibility of nominating a so called RINO (Republican in Name Only) whom the Senate could not help but confirm Obama suggested that he thought a Senator like John McCain or Speaker of the House Paul Ryan who “have done so much for the cause of liberalism” could “make a lot of sense”.

President Obama mused briefly on squaring off with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by simply nominating Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel to the High Court. “Let’s see him try to worm his way out of that one,” he added suggesting that the Republicans would have to consent to such a nomination. He went on to talk about legacy, about how such a move would prove his credentials to future generations as someone who was willing to work with the other side, “When I came into office I nominated a Republican Secretary of transportation (Ray LaHood); if when I leave I nominate a Republican Supreme Court Justice—man, no one could ever say I didn’t try to compromise!”

When members of his own party raised concerns about the disaster that such a cross aisle nomination would create, entreating President Obama to think about the country’s future over his own legacy concerns, Obama countered, “I didn’t spend one spare thought on what was good for the country for the first seven years, why should I start now?”

He also tossed around the idea of going off script and nominating someone with no credentials, “If the Republicans think they could guess what a Supreme Court Justice like Kanye West would do, they are straight out lying—I think Mr. West could lead our country forward in an exciting new way.” He also noted that, “Nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest sanity is a requirement for the office.”

A more controversial path, to which President Obama would not close the door involved nominating himself as Justice Scalia’s successor, then issuing an Executive Actions stripping the Senate the right to object, then following up by dissolving Congress and the office of the Presidency. “I was a Constitutional law scholar, so I know just how to destroy it best.” He went on speaking of similar ploys in other countries, “I think what Putin has done in Russia is particularly prescient—he’s been able to move from President to Prime Minister and back, always changing whatever seat he is in to be the most powerful in the country. Once I’m a Supreme Court Justice, since the posting is for life, we won’t need any other government officials—this is the kind of change and hope I promised when the American people elected me dictator, I mean President 8 years ago.”

Political Absurdism is a satirical and absurdest blog; the news presented even when loosely based on true events bears no resemblance to or grounding in reality  (we can only hope). The quotes and beliefs expressed and attributed are not held by any human being on the planet, certainly not those public figures to whom they are so attributed (we can only hope). This is a humor blog, not a news source (we can only hope.)

(This article was originally published on 2/25/2016 at https://politicalabsurdism.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/president-obama-muses-on-supreme-couty/)