While I can’t begin to understand why PennLive chose their second question, perhaps I inadvertantly stumbled on their logic. The other question, “Would you support downsizing the state House?” offers an important warning sign for Pennsylvania legislators. In the eyes of their constituents, they are expendable. There has been talk occasionally over the years about cutting back on the number of legislators in Harrisburg, and given the current economic climate, it could turn into more than just talk.

Ballot Boxes - Anthony Karanja (CC)

The Legislative branch must vote for such a thing, but the knee-jerk reaction that they would never vote themselves out of a job might be premature. With just two-year terms, members of the Pennsylvania House spend close to half their time in office trying to stay in office. If there was an effective grassroots movement started demanding that the House downsize, the members may have no real choice. Either vote to downsize and possibly lose one’s seat, or vote against it and face being voted out anyway. It is a huge “what if” situation, but given the apparent attitude of voters (at least amongst PennLive readers), it’s not out of the question.

President Obama issued a statement that it is time for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to step aside, and allow the Syrian people to move forward without him. Beyond stating his disapproval of the treatment of the Syrian citizens, and his solidarity with their cause, Obama also stated that he has issued an Executive Order forbidding any form of commerce with the Assad regime. This includes halting all petroleum and petroleum product purchases from Syria by the U.S. and its citizens. While acknowledging that it will be a rough road ahead for Syrian protesters, U.S. officials are of the belief that the days of the Assad regime are numbered.

Since Obama has put an end to petroleum trade between the U.S. and Syria, at least one petition has been started asking that the European Union nations do the same. While there is some concern that Obama’s actions now are simply a precursor to another war in the region, there is also the possibility that eventually economic sanctions will be enough to stop the Assad regime in its tracks.

But the reality on the ground for Syrians is pure chaos and fear. The video above is of protesters that had been arrested, and placed on a bus for transport to a detention facility. “With blood Soul sacrifice for Bashar,” and “Allah, Syria, and Bashar only,” are the chants that the soldiers are forcing their prisoners to say. Given the previous reports of severe abuse of prisoners by the Assad regime, the beatings that these people are receiving are only the beginning of what they will endure. Sadly, one could consider these people the lucky ones, since apparently the Assad regime has adopted a “shoot on sight” policy when it comes to protesters. At least the people on the bus have a chance of living, if they survive their incarceration. Seeing the protesters on that bus serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of attempting to remove Assad from leadership – something that gets lost too easily in the debates over what the rest of the world should do.

The video went viral overnight on Twitter thanks to users like @AmericanSyrians. That account represents a group of Americans that support the Syrians by offering the public information on the conflict in Syria from an American perspective. Grassroots support in the U.S. for Syrian citizens can also be found at the Syrian Coordination Committee (SCC.) The SCC unites ten existing Syrian American organizations for the purpose of supporting Syrian citizens in their struggle against the Assad regime.

Let’s not forget what happened to Google searches for Rick Santorum. Pick on her ideas, ideologies, legislation, and political activities all you like. But don’t lower yourself to their level, please!

Aaron Sorkin got it right, back in the mid-nineties. The quote from The American President (1995), “…I was so busy keeping my job that I forgot to do my job,” is an accurate statement about Obama today. Hollywood presidents are always bigger than life, but occasionally they reflect the reality of the situation. Unfortunately, that is the case right now, but instead of seeing the real President step up and take control like in the movie, we’re obviously heading into an early re-election campaign.

First, one must consider who is doing the talking now on behalf of Obama. Robert Gibbs is now an adviser for Obama’s re-election campaign. He is no longer working for the administration. Why he was the one chosen to deliver the message that the President is not primarily concerned with getting re-elected is difficult to comprehend. Gibbs’ job description no longer includes speaking on behalf of the President – he speaks on behalf of the Presidential candidate seeking re-election.

Second, there is the message itself. Suggesting that Congress focus on creating jobs is an inappropriate comment. Congress does not create jobs – at least not jobs that would actually improve the economy. Yes, Congress can create new jobs within the government, but that is merely shifting the money around. Instead of paying unemployment, it is paying wages. It decreases the number of people that are unemployed, but does nothing to decrease the debt – quite the opposite.

Third, beyond the quick mention of the payroll tax relief remaining intact, there is nothing substantial coming from the Administration or Obama’s re-election campaign staff about concrete changes to improve the economy. There have been many accusations made about this president being an ideologue, and unable to admit that what he has attempted so far simply isn’t working. Accusations that the Administration wants to continue on the same course of throwing money at the problem have gone unanswered in any meaningful way. Government spending should be viewed as an addictive action. “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results” – a variant of another well-known quotation on insanity is attributed to Narcotics Anonymous. Appropriate to see that organization pointing out the problem we are facing now when it comes to the “Beltway opiate.”

But the unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of Americans may very well forget this little message from Gibbs, the re-election campaign consultant. Worse, they may miss the irony. Washington was rife with double-speak and non-committal replies to important questions before this Administration, and will undoubtedly remain so. However, perhaps the historians of the future will pick up on the fact that this practice has been raised to an art form by Obama – beyond his utter failure to lead because it got in the way of his re-election campaign, he may go down in history as the master of the fine art of meaningless political oration.

sagriffin305 (CC)

And there it is – the evil Republicans saying that we need to cut back on paying for entitlement programs. Every dollar spent on government employees cuts into the amount of money businesses have to spend on what? Oh yeah, job creation. If we hire more people to work in the government, we increase the need for revenue, increase the probability that we will have to radically increase taxes, decrease funds available for private enterprises to employ workers, and stifle economic growth. And this is not about the top 10% of this country. It is about Main Street. It is about small business owners that are not expanding because they don’t want to get caught with their pants down later. They are not expanding business unless they have capital on hand to do it. Why? Because they are nervous about what those new employees will cost them down the road – thank you Democrats for Obamacare, and the next big entitlement program that S&P is eyeing cautiously as a potential radical increase in U.S. governmental spending. Small business owners also aren’t running out to borrow money because it is a bankers’ market right now. And large investors aren’t playing the market in a way that will help the situation either. If the state of the New York Stock Exchange isn’t a big enough indicator for you, how about taking a look at BNY Mellon deciding to charge fees for stowing away large sums of cash for investors.

This isn’t about “trickle down economics” anymore. It is about the entire financial and business structure of the U.S. sitting in a holding pattern out of fear. And they’re right to be afraid. Comparing the U.S. to Norway is cute, really it is. But it simply doesn’t work. Start with the size of the two nations being far too different, follow through to where each nation stands in the international market, and finish off with the fact that Norway has been taxing the hell out of its citizens for decades. If the U.S. attempted to switch to a similar tax structure at this point to pay for the government entitlement programs liberals want so badly, forget about this being a recession – single or double-dip. It will throw us into a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a little blip on the financial scale. Business would not improve, let alone thrive. It would literally plummet, then flat-line. Business pulls nations out of recessions, not government. Businesses create jobs, not politicians, period.

Sarah Ackerman (CC)

With all of the pledges going around, I started thinking, maybe there should be yet another one. Call it the “Promise to Prioritize”. It goes like this:

We the undersigned promise to not cater to religious organizations playing in politics, regardless of whether or not we happen to agree with them, before managing a few important problems our nation faces. We will engage in meaningful debate about social conservative ideals after our nation has managed to overcome our debt problem, high unemployment rate, and our dependence on natural resources from foreign nations. Defending moral principles through legislative action will be our top priority once we have enacted common sense reforms to the healthcare reform law, or have rescinded it entirely and successfully passed a truly affordable plan for our country. We will address the concerns of faith-based organizations seeking to legislate their principles once we have extricated our nation from all military actions abroad, with the exception of maintaining a peaceful presence on foreign soil. Once these issues of great importance have been addressed, we will faithfully toil to settle once and for all the true meaning of the separation of church and state, and use as our guiding principle the words of one of our Founders, Thomas Jefferson – “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”

We have far more important things to worry about than who is sleeping with whom and who wishes to be considered married. If your marriage loses value because of another couple, the problem isn’t that other couple – it is you. If you need the state to defend your belief system, it is not the fault of those that have different beliefs than you do. You are the problem, and your lack of faith is the problem. If one is a true believer in any religion, the actions of others that do not share that belief system are meaningless. Forcing one’s beliefs on the world at large is precisely what followers of Islam are accused of doing, especially when it involves acts of terrorism. Demanding legislative action in the name of one’s faith in this country is its own kind of terrorism – it is demanding that the beliefs of others be marginalized, and that those people do not deserve freedom. It is patently un-American. This country was started as a haven from persecution for people that wished to follow a religion that was despised in their homeland. We don’t need to come full circle, and become the ones that persecute, do we?

I am an atheist, and I am a conservative. Yes, we do exist. Normally, I’m all for stopping the public display of religious items on public property, or at the very least, am for being inclusive in such displays. Ground Zero is a noted exception.

Ground Zero Cross (CC)

When I saw that atheists were going to a judge to order the removal of the Ground Zero cross, I parted ways with my “brethren.” While this cross has been made into an icon for Christians, in itself, it still holds a secular meaning that the atheists are claiming it does not. It is not unlike the nonsensical claims we see from time to time that someone has seen the face of Jesus in their toast. Beams in buildings are set like crosses. The fact that one was found intact, and placed for workers to see at Ground Zero probably did have some religious purpose. However, it was, and still is, a symbol of a small level of order amid the chaos. It is part of a building that happened to withstand the destruction, and stand on its own.

Ground Zero Cross (CC)

The religious significance of that is debatable. For people of faith, it has stood as a symbol of their beliefs. They chose to consecrate it, and show some degree of respect to it because of that action. But, how to interpret the meaning of this piece of metal – if it has any meaning at all – boils down to the beliefs of the individual. Christians may choose to view it as a symbol of their faith. Atheists may choose to view it as an aberration because it wasn’t destroyed on 9/11. Interpretations of what it means may run the gamut in between. But, the bottom line remains that it is still a piece of metal that happened to survive the destruction of the towers.

The atheists suggested a secular monument in its place, such as a fireman pulling a victim from the rubble. While that would be a nice addition to the memorial, it does not speak as clearly about what happened that day as that cross does. It is not just a symbol of a particular faith, no matter how much the faithful may wish it so. It is a symbol that became a driving force for the people that worked at Ground Zero, regardless of faith. That little piece of order helped them wade through the chaos. Christians manufactured a religious significance for this item, like they might with the burn pattern on a piece of toast. That does not lessen or render irrelevant any secular interpretation of that piece of steel. It is what it is, or whatever anyone makes of it. Requesting its removal, or the addition of something obviously secular is overkill. Atheists regularly call out the religious for attempting to use the state to protect their faith. Do atheists now need the government to protect their lack of faith?