More Questions About Syria

I have a feeling Syria is going to dominate our discussions for the next several weeks, perhaps even months, as the government tries to decide what to do. Personally, I think Congress will vote to allow missile strikes. What that will lead to is anybody's guess, either an escalation that will involve ground troops, or, hopefully, nothing at all. But as we approach another 9/11 anniversary, I am concerned with what I read about who is funding and/or supporting the rebels.

When conservative pundits started throwing around statements that al-Qeada was behind the rebel groups, I, at first, shook it off as more right-wing paranoia. When they kept saying it, I decided it was time for a little research, because it is a troubling thought to think that we may be supporting the enemy.

Here is a Business Week article which mentions the terrorist connection in the first couple of paragraphs.

Here is a report from Breitbart.Com that mentions the same thing.

The proof is out there. We indeed may be assisting al-Qeada by bombing Syria. Why is this not being talked about more? Am I not watching the right news outlets, or is the media, in its unwavering support for Obama, ignoring these apparent facts?

We won't get any help from elected Republicans, apparently.

That blithering, good-for-nothing, geriatric gasbag John McCain, who served in Vietnam, is too busy playing video poker during the Syria hearings to bother mentioning the connection, yet he says we need to support military action. John Boner--I mean, Boehner--is for a bombing. Surprisingly, he didn't burst into tears while saying so.

So we can't count on Republicans to ask the questions; we can't count on the media, either; what are we to do?

Proponents say we need to smack down Assad because he's done something terrible; personally, I think we need to assist him in this fight. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? If al-Qeada is trying to establish a home base in Syria, with its own government, we need to stop that. They failed to establish a base in Egypt, from all accounts; we kicked them out of Iraq and Afghanistan (though Iraq is still to-be-decided), why not do whatever we can to keep them on the run? We're blowing up their leaders every chance we get; why change the strategy now?

Proponents add that if Assad uses chemical weapons in his own country, he may fire them at Israel. True enough, but, at this moment, that is mere supposition. Iran may fire nukes into Israel, too, but nobody seems upset about that idea.

Assisting Middle East leaders against a common enemy is nothing new. We helped Saddam Hussein fight Iran when it was in our interest, and later used the intelligence gained in that assistance to wipe him off the face of the earth when the time came. We aided the Afghans against the Soviets, and later bombed the daylights out of them when they let bin Laden and his gang stay rent-free.

Assad is no hero. He certainly deserves a smack, but it has to be done right. If this situation weren't so cloudy, I'd probably be writing a different column and supporting John Boner--I mean, Boehner, darn it--and John McCain in their support of Obama, God help me.

Whatever happens, it won't be pretty. If Congress blocks the play, Obama will shoot off some missiles, anyway. Because he has to. He's already gone struttin', drawing his red line, even though he claims there isn't a red line. We can't win here.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Republicans Want to Kill Kitty Cats

Why is it that the Republican party cannot, for some reason, let loose a candidate who doesn't make himself look like a horses's ass whenever he opens his mouth? Here's what happened:

In New York City last Thursday, a pair of kittens wandered onto subway tracks. Enjoy the cute photo. The transit authority stopped train service for about half an hour while officers rescued the kittens. Some New Yorkers, showing how the city seems to be populated by one funny-talking sourpuss after another, got upset over the delay, mostly because they missed Jeopardy! The consensus among the angry was that the kitties should have been left to die. Nice going, New York. This is why terrorists blow you up.

The most offending part of this story, however, concerns comments made by Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota. When asked if he would have stopped the trains to save the kitties, this Tony Soprano wannabe said, "We don't stop trains fer kittens, fuhgeddaboutit!" Then, realizing he had made an ass of himself, added that such a decision wouldn't be made by the mayor anyway, but it was too little too late. His comment ranks as one of the most asinine quotes ever uttered by a Republican, probably worse than Todd Akin's rape remarks. Is this the best the GOP can do? Does the party expect to win elections with these nimrods? Fuhbeddaboutit! The Democrats just won New York City.

On a side note, we can't help but notice that one of the kittens is black, but President Obama has yet to weigh on on the matter. Perhaps, if Obama had cats, the black cat might be his.

The rescued kittens were taken to a shelter where hopefully they will be adopted by somebody who is not a jerk, but since New York City has a population of almost nine million people, it's going to be a long wait.

One wonders what the reaction would have been had puppies wandered onto the subway tracks, but it's also moot point. As Joe Lhota might say, "Neva happen!" Dogs are smarter than cats. They know better.



BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Adventures in Syria

If there is any indication that Obama's lack of leadership has hurt the US, it is the current situation with Syria. 

He is unable to build a coalition the way Bush did. He may have had British PM David Cameron convinced action needs to be taken in the wake of Assad's chemical attacks against his enemies (ie, his own people), but Parliament told him no. This is the first time in a long time where a PM has been told no by Parliament regarding usage of the military. You can chalk this up to two reasons:

One: Bush and Iraq. Apparently the Brits are still upset that Bush fabricated intelligence from MI6 to justify action in Iraq. (Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice....um....well....you're not going to fool me again.)

Two: The Brits know Obama won't do anything except shake his fist before he says, "Oh, never mind," and returns to the golf course.

It's likely a combination of both, but with more emphasis on the second. Do they really think Obama means what he says, or can pull it off? Probably not, so why waste the time and money?

In the wake of the British vote, the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, made a speech where he praised France, our "oldest ally", for (verbally) supporting military action. Yeah, France helped us beat Britain 237 years ago, and have been surrendering ever since, but I suppose the "oldest" title still applies. I'm sure the British are stunned by the remark, and they may have even stopped laughing by the time you read this.

So, instead, Obama, as he searches the golf course for a solution, is tossing around the idea that the U.S. will go it alone on this one. 'Merica, heck yeah! Get 'er done!

Obviously this "no confidence" vote does not sit well with the administration, nor does it make us look good. There was a time, not so long ago, when this wouldn't have happened.

There is a third reason, I suppose, and it's certainly an unspoken one. 

Is it really a crisis when Arabs kill Arabs? Are we really worse off because there are now less Arabs in the world? The CIA says just over 1400 people were killed in the chemical attack. That means there are 1400 less Arabs to fly planes into buildings. The media and the politicos are trying to make a case that we need to do something, but I'm not sure the public cares. Maybe we're all still upset about Iraq.

It's a disaster all around. But Obama drew a red line, said, "Don't y'all cross this, I mean it," and now he has to follow through.

Ultimately the president is going to launch a missile off the deck of a ship, hit a camel in the butt, and declare victory. He'll go on a national speaking tour and tell us how he, alone, gave Syria the what-for just like when he killed bin Laden and the rest of the world better remember not to mess with the U.S. See how that rhymed?

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor.

Oprah Explains it All

Who are we, the little people, to argue with somebody as smart as Oprah Winfrey?

During an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN on which she promoted her new film The Butler, Oprah uttered the quote to end all quotes: "A lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves.....and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist."

In the fairness of context, Oprah was referring to the Trayvon Martin case, and doesn't understand how people can't see that, no matter what angle you approach it from, race was for sure a factor in the original incident and the trial that followed.

Her attitude is pure Barbara Streisand. I'm not going to rehash the whole Zimmerman situation because the truth is out there, but to suggest that, within White America, that there is an underlying current of racism is absolutely misguided. But blacks, almost like some Jews, depend on the "we are victims" storyline in order to get what they want, whatever that may be, though I think, if pressed, they couldn't articulate what they want. They have to rely on the transgressions of the past to construct some kind of future, but because they continue to soak in the past, they cannot form their future.

To suggest even at the slightest that whites are racist just because is wrong, but you can't win with people like Oprah. Back in the '50s we saw Commies under every bed; I suppose Oprah sees racists everywhere she does, and especially in Switzerland. It must be tough living in her head.

What's funny is that, at another point in the interview, Oprah, the smartest woman in America, defeats her own argument. She says her movie shows a lynching in the first scene, but ends with a black man walking into the Oval Office of the first black president.

America has come a long way, and one has to really stretch to argue otherwise. And Oprah also forgets her own journey which led her to the role in the film.

In other words, America is so racist, that we made Oprah a billionaire who talks out of her ass, and made Obama the president who spends all day covering his.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

But it was Free Speech When Bush was the Clown

These articles are hard to write. I do not by that mean I cannot put the words together (oh, please, hold you laughter for at least ten seconds) but there is such an overabundance of topics to write about that it is often tough to determine which one I should pay attention to. If I were writing every day, this would not be a problem, but I can barely manage once a week.

However, today, the Commentary Gods have handed me something on a silver platter.

Perhaps you were fortunate enough to see the video of a rodeo in Missouri where a clown put on an Obama mask and somebody asked the crowd if they wanted to see Obama run over by a bull.

Well, would you? Of course you would, so here is the video. You're welcome. Come back after you've watched it ten times.

Welcome back.

Can you hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the left? This is outrageously offensive, they say, and, as one knucklehead pointed out, "we are better than this." Bollocks, I say, this is political satire in its purest form. It's a live caricature of our Supreme Leader (Bless His Holy Name) and, the last time I checked, we are allowed to lampoon our government. Examples? Any sketch on Saturday Night Live (pre-Obama, of course) and various newspaper cartoons where The Leader is drawn with an exaggerated chin.

The left sure loved lampooning Bush! Portraying him as Hitler was a master stroke; the caricature of Dick Cheney as Darth Vader wasn't as imaginative. I guess we weren't "better than this" when it came to Bush and Cheney. Of course not. Bush likes to pull the wings off flies and Cheney eats newborn babies, everybody knows that.

It's a hoot to watch the left get in a tizzy when their own garbage is thrown back at them.

There is no free speech when it comes to Obama, either because the left starts throwing the racist term or because the IRS and NSA are listening. What we're left is David Letterman attempting intercourse with Obama on the set of his show. (You used to be funny, Dave. I liked it when you'd throw watermelons off the roof of an office building. Wait, was that racist?)

I can't wait until Hilary gets elected so all criticism of her can be called sexist. You know it's coming!

"The Republicans hate Hilary because....she's a woman."

"Would the GOP attack Hilary if she had a penis?"

"It was really inappropriate for John Boehner to make that menopause joke, Wolf. We're better than this."

Oh, the humanity.


BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Liberal Woman are the Best!

I need to find a nice liberal girl to marry. That way, when I cheat (because I'm nailin' anything on two feet and in wheel chairs or on crutches!) she'll smile coyly and still stand to the left and slightly behind me like a good wife should.

Heck, it works for Anthony and Huma, right?

I don't understand liberal women. Why they are so willing to stay with philandering husbands goes beyond any social comprehension I have attained in my 37 years. From Jackie to Hilary to Huma and beyond, liberal women keep a stiff upper lip while their husbands screw around.

Can you imagine if Todd cheated on Sarah? I have a feeling Mr. Palin would become the unfortunate victim of a snow machine accident.

In my social circle, if you ask a women what she would do if her husband/boyfriend/miscellaneous were to cheat, you will get a diatribe full of violent descriptions of decapitations, mutilations, and other forms of bloody mayhem. However, based on what we see on TV, and knowing way too many lefties, I have a feeling that the sharpened knives will remain in their drawers and unused for any of the described mutilations. These women, while claiming they will defend their honor, will slink back into their corner because that's, apparently, what women do. For the kids, of course. Because he's going to be better, right?

And I don't understand that.

I guess the difference between Jackie, Hilary, and Huma and the average woman is that they have something to lose. If they string up their husbands (except in Jackie's case.....oh, never mind) they miss out on whatever political fortunes they are compiling. At least that's what the common wisdom is, and perhaps it is correct. Certainly in Hilary's case it is. A woman divorced from the president wouldn't go as far--I think. I suppose. But I'm really not sure. I think the women in these cases are weak and unable to stand up and/or take care of themselves, thus defeating the alleged purpose of modern feminism. In other words, back in the '60s they made a bunch of noise and burned a ton of bras just so they could bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and stand by and smile while their man humiliates them on national television.

You've come a long way, baby!


ABOUT: Brian Drake is a California conservative and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, now available in paperback from Amazon.com.

What if they Called for a Riot and Nobody Came?

Personally I thought George Zimmerman was toast. When I heard that the jury was exclusively made up of women, I thought emotions, not facts, would carry the day. I thought the influence of the media, the Department of Justice, the threat of riots, etc., would doom the man.

Boy was I surprised.

Have you been as fascinated as I have about the aftermath? Why do you think the black community hasn't burned down the entire country over the Zimmerman verdict? Seriously, Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles and parts of Detroit should be on fire right now.

There have been violent flare ups, certainly. But nothing on a large scale. Nothing organized. even Al Sharpton has to keep up the rallying cry. Nobody is listening.

My grand conspiracy theory is that Obama seriously wanted national rioting. There was no reason for him to deal himself into the matter when he said Trayvon Martin could have been his son. No reason at all. The only reason I can sense is that he wanted to be able to have a say once the chaos began, and impose some sort of martial law allowing Homeland Security to start using their billions and billions of bullets.

It might sound far fetched, but it's the only thing that adds up (to me). The only other answer is that everything is about Obama so of course he had to comment.

There's something about this case that made the left think they had a spark with which to ignite rage in the black community, but it's not working. That's the other mystery. It's ready-made. Why isn't it working?

Is it the economy? Nobody has time to riot because they're too busy looking for work?

Or, maybe, have we finally caught on to the manipulation that the media and the ruling regime like to use against us?

All I know is that, as of now, the DOJ is continuing the witch hunt. They're going to put Zimmerman away even if they have to pass a law against littering to do so. That's justice.

Because, when you think about it, Trayvon Martin was the only son Obama might have had.


ABOUT: Brian Drake is a California conservative and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, now available in paperback from Amazon.com.