My Take on Intervention In Syria

Syria has undergone a civil war for the past two years where hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and two million have been forced into refuge with their families by fleeing Syria. Bashar Assad has used ruthless force against rebel troops, all while rebel troops with connections to regional terrorist organizations have shown their brutality with captured Syrian troops as well. The atrocities of war between these two forces have increased as time has passed and hit a peak when chemical weapons armed with the poison gas of sarin were used on civilians in a suburb of Damascus on August 21st.

It is said that nearly 1,400 men, women and children died on that day due to those weapons being used. The extent of disregard for lives and international law were demonstrated by this heinous attack and while very few people doubt these chemical attacks took place, the questions that sprout from these events taking place are numerous and essential to answer before committing American military weapons to be used against Bashar Assad's government troops in order to assist terrorist-linked rebel troops. My questions are these:

1. If Bashar Assad was gaining advantage over the rebels in the civil war, why then would he have authorized chemical weapons to be used? Which side REALLY stood to gain most from chemical weapons being used?

2. Why does Obama want to go to Congress for authorization to attack Syria if he still insists that he'll attack Syria anyway even without that authorization?

3. Looking back at the most recent military interventions of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan; why should the American people have ANY confidence that military strikes in Syria would do anything to help with America's national security or even the security of the Syrian people where they are at war with one another?

4. If Syrian forces were to shoot down an American plane or sink an American vessel in retaliation to American attacks, does Obama STILL rule out American troops on the ground?

5. If Obama's military team says this intervention is also to prevent "chemical weapons from going into the hands of terrorists", yet weapons have already been used against innocent civilians, who's to say military strikes would prevent that or even decrease the likelihood of it happening again?

6. Obama said his goal of military strikes isn't for "regime change", yet he insists Bashar Assad step down and is arming and training rebels while plotting out which sites in Syria are worth striking. Why not just say the truth and say his strikes aim is for "regime change"?

7. If the U.S. military strikes the chemical weapon sites, what would be the consequence of those poisons and toxic chemicals making it into the air among civilians?

8. U.S. attacks Syria, Hezbollah attacks American interests, Israel strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Lebanon spirals out of control due to the pressure of war and Syrian refugees, Iran supplies Hezbollah to attack Israel, then the region loses some of it's infrastructure and stability.... Should these series of events take place, then what?


I've missed out on several credible questions and scenarios, but I feel these are all questions worth exploring in the days to come. It is my utmost belief that what we're seeing manifest and unfold in Syria is part of a larger elaborate scheme on someone's part; an orchestrated set of events meant to evoke chaos and instability in order to gain an upper hand. I don't feel Syria threatens the livelihood of the United States or it's interests, I don't feel we've seen evidence Bashar Assad himself authorized these chemical attacks and I don't feel it is in the middle east or the international community's best interests to intervene militarily and help the already proven terrorist-linked Syrian Rebels into power. It does not make sense to me that we take a heinous secular dictator out of power and replace him with a heinous Islamist terrorist-backed group of rebels.

Obama and his backers say "History will judge us if we do not intervene"..

... but the truth is history has already judged us by our failed and flawed interventions. It's time we stop giving history books any more reason to look down on our nation and it's insatiable appetite for foreign intervention.

From me to the world,
- David.

Interesting Political Comics

Sometimes a picture with a caption can make for so much more conversation than an article,  and remember; I don't own ANY of these. Leave the lawyers at home, people. Enjoy.

To Imagery,
David.

America's Debt; MY take on it...

Recently, Congress decided to increase the debt limit the U.S. government is allowed to possess. At more then 14 trillion dollars, Congress increased the debt limit by more then 2 trillion dollars. In return, Congressional Republicans were guaranteed budget cuts by the trillions. Amongst the political wrangling and bickering, it seems though that we've forgotten the significant reasons for debating debt limits and debt limit increases.

While Congress was busy debating what should be cut from the budget, how much of an increase was necessary and what programs were hands on and off, the discussion shifted away from what I think was the biggest question: How do we avoid future debt limit increases in the future?

For anyone who's confused about this whole topic and why it's so important to our economy, politics and way of life, I'll be sure to explain all the complex details in short, comprehensible ways in a later post. In the meantime, What do some of you suggest we cut out of the budget?

Military funding?
Welfare?
College loan funding?
Obamacare?
Social security?
Medicare/Medicaid?



- Keeping discussion fresh,
David.

Good Point, Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, while not someone I always agree with, is someone I'm always impressed with. His ability to raise questions very few are willing to raise is a trait I believe more politicians should possess. Here are a set of questions he rhetorically asked to Congress on February 12th, 2009 that I believe we can all ask ourselves, as citizens and as students.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called "enhanced interrogation techniques," is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!

What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!

Back From My 2 Month Bloggin' Hiatus!

These past two months have been my catch-up months in my life from being away at school for so long; now that I'm home and got myself on solid ground with everything, I finally got time to do writing that I actually enjoy. I feel like I gotta change a few things with the blog and format it in a way that helps me write more frequent than before and make feedback a lot more easy for the viewers (you). Promise I'll keep posting on the topics, issues and subjects yall' wanna talk about.

- D.

By The Way; how many of you can relate to the random picture? Haha!

What We Need In Immigration Reform

When immigration reform happens (hopefully sooner than later), there are a set of things I feel we're going to need to make sure the reform sets policies in place that make immigration to the United States under control and sustainable while also respecting the immigrants and their families this reform stands to affect most. Unless you hate the fact that there are immigrants in this country that don't look like they came from Europe, I think we can all agree that we need to fix this broken immigration system and create one which reflects the 21st century society we live in today.

1. Accept reality

We can't deport all the undocumented residents in the United States. It's unfeasible, unrealistic, impossible and unintelligent. Displacing over 12 million people from one country will devastate local economies and communities; not to mention the actual families themselves. Last time that many people were kicked out from their homes and communities was during during the holocaust and uhh.. That didn't go too well. Even the most ardent anti-immigrant opponent must realize mass deportation is not an option. As soon as we have consensus about this in both society and Congress, we're already making headway and progress.

2. Secure the Borders

Like the way I put borderS and not just border? We've got the technology to detect movements over all sorts of terrain; let's put some of that to use in order to alleviate some of the pressures border patrol officers are facing. We've got a great amount of undocumented residents in the United States and in order to first implement something like a guest worker program or amnesty, we need to be able to adequately monitor who comes in and out of the country. I wonder if anybody's mad I think we should secure the border with Canada..

3. Create Guest worker/Path to citizenship program

The millions of undocumented workers in the United States are not here to spite the government; the majority of them are here to give their families and children a better life than the ones they would have in their country of origin. They did in fact violate American immigration laws and as a result, should be accountable for things like back taxes, citizenship process fees and a number of other expenses as a way to make things fair for all residents of the United States; legal and illegal. Undocumented immigrants with a violent criminal record who are hiding in the country should be deported immediately. After this is done, the program should allocate resources for these first generation immigrants to learn English and not naively think they can fluently learn to speak, read and write English by themselves within a short period of time.

There are always complications with programs like these and like we've seen in 1986; nothing in government bureaucracy works as it was designed to entirely do. That does not change the importance of what immigration reform has on so many communities found in the country. With no reform, families stand to be torn apart and social inequalities between immigrants and non-immigrants will continue to be the status quo. There are some in our nation that don't want to see immigration reform because it would threaten the status quo that works just fine for them. Some can't stand the idea of bilingual citizens with an embrace for their non-American culture. The idea of empowering disadvantaged minorities; especially undocumented ones, threatens their sense of security and power they find in their own societies. As a democratic nation of immigrants, it is vital we give this issue the attention and caution it deserves. Without immigration reform, we will be condoning the inequalities that exist in immigrant communities, hurt the American economy and not live up to the standards of the world's greatest nation of Immigrants.


You promised, Obama.

- David Solis

3 Reasons I'm reluctant about the Tea Party

Enter 2008... People are pissed off about George Bush, the economy, the wars and everything else. Out of this frustration, a political climate is set for atypical politicians that don't come off as average lawmakers and voila, Barack Obama is elected president based off his popularity and themes of change and hope. He supported large hundreds of billions of dollar in initiatives such as the bailout and the stimulus package. Upon his election, his first major domestic agenda he decided to work on was health care. Not too long after, a little something called the Tea Party Movement emerged due to the growing unpopularity and outrage against these matters Obama had passed and attempting to pass in health care reform; something that may or may not happen this weekend. While I share a few of the organization's political and fiscal statements, here's why I'm very reluctant to engage myself with the organization and its cause...

1. No room for moderates

It's no secret that Tea Party organization members despise anything that isn't completely conservative. There goes my support from the organization based on my views on immigration, education and climate change. Despite my pro-life stance, fiscal conservative views and small-government-works-best-mentality, I'm not sure they'd reconcile with me on my ideas of universal access to education and comprehensible amnesty or my belief that the Earth is warming from human carbon emissions.

2. Audience connection

I was in Washington D.C. for the September 12th Tea Party protests at the Capitol. No; really, I was there in the crowd with some of the interns I was staying in DC with. What a sight. I liked all the "don't tread on me" flags; I can connect to that message about telling the government to back off. I'll tell you this though, I stuck out like a sore thumb. I was a dark-skinned young moderate Hispanic man in an audience full of white middle-aged conservative men with their wives and infant children. There was little to no diversity found in this audience. The Tea Party movement makes frequent statements on why their views are best for the people of the country, yet the organization is hardly a snapshot of the very American people they claim to represent. I'd need to see more diversity within the organization before I can feel they are an embodiment of what is truly best for the country.

3. "Birthers"

I'm not a fan of Barack Obama and this administration, but for some people to question Barack Obama's religion, place of birth or national allegiance is pretty low; even to me. First, that's his business and if his policies are horrible, they're simply bad ideological stances; nothing more. I sense a hint of xenophobia in the Tea Party Movement as I'm sure many of us do as well. To question these things show a sense of insecurity in trusting someone based on what social groups they belong to. I'm  huge on Martin Luther King Jr's dream where he believed a man should be judged by his character; not his color. I don't have to disguise my dislike of the current administration behind claims of the president's background; I judge and criticize him by his character and his methodologies as President.

Again, I believe that small government works best. I believe government has become too big. I believe government should take far more responsibility in how it spends tax dollars. I believe that much of Obama's agenda are rooted in socialism. I also believe lobbying in government has led to forms of corporatism in our government system and economy. Do I believe the Tea Party Movement represents the American nation and its best interests? Ehh.. I'm not yet convinced.

Keeping it 100,
David Javier Solis

The thing(s) Obama is doing RIGHT

I know I give this administration a lot of criticism, I think it's only right that after all of it, I give credit where credit is due.

Addressing the need for Health Care Reform

Since 1994, we haven't seen a president so determined to reform health care in this country and make it more accessible for Americans. While I frequently criticize the Democratic party's plans to overhaul health care and put it in the hands of government bureaucrats who determine what is best for individual citizens, I applaud Obama's intentions on reforming health care. Taking over the health care industry is the worst possible scenario to fix the problem with insurance coverage among Americans and while Obama is unfortunately siding on the less-reasonable and credible option, (a "public option), he does in fact, mean well and it shows in his speeches and determination to pass some form of legislation. While it may be too early to decide if Obama has some hidden liberal agenda, his concern for the uninsured sounds genuine.

So yeah. That's basically it. Sorry for anyone who expected any more; its no secret I'm no fan of this administration's methodologies. Let me know what you like about this administration.

What went wrong?

Whatever happened to the days when people used to question anything in the same sentence of 'government programs'? This past election, it was said time and time again; "The people don't care about the size of the government; so long as it works." Of course, we'd all hope that any government we elect would be able to honor, protect and serve its citizens to its fullest extent. This does not mean however, that we should expect government to do for us what we can do for ourselves. Do we need health care reform? Absolutely. Do we need help from our lawmakers that help homeowners all around the country keep their homes? Without a doubt. There's little disagreement when these questions are posed but the proposals differ and unfortunately, the ideas are run to the ground. There's little to no bipartisanship on many of the major issues in the political arena.

Health care; or in my eyes, sick care, is one of them. Both parties agree not enough Americans possess this, yet when the time comes to around to propose new methods of making it more accessible to Americans, it goes from being a noble cause and turns into political bickering. We see it today. Democrats propose federally mandated health care plans that require every American family purchase a health care plan. The problem with this is that telling the sick to purchase a mandated health care plan makes as much sense as telling those in poverty to purchase food. All too often, being sick and being in poverty come hand in hand which only makes federally mandated health care plans that much more complicated and difficult. Coming into the election, I sided with Obama's idea that all children should be required by law to possess health care insurance. Unfortunately, his advisers sidetracked him into another mandate that will do much more harm than good once implemented. If we want to reform health care, let's take the issue to the health care providers themselves and force them to lower prices or risk litigation for price gauging (something that should have been done to the oil companies). We can lower the costs of health care and we can provide tax credits for American families to purchase them. However, the last thing this country needs to be doing is creating another entitlement government program. Look at medicare and social security.. We all know how well the government bureaucracy runs THESE programs..

In terms of homeowners and the prevaling threat of foreclosure among so many millions of them, the government must take action now not by bank bailouts, but by homeowner bailouts. I'm not suggesting the government pay off the debts of millions of Americans (although it'd make much more sense than paying off the debts of private banks), but I am saying that there should be government protection besides bankruptcy for these homeowners. There should be criminal probes being undertaken by the federal government on the banks who used predatory tactics to entice homeowners they knew could not afford the loans. Although I do believe many Americans had faults of their own for taking out an unaffordable home loan, the everyday threat of bankruptcy and foreclosure is far too excessive. I believe that hundreds of billions of dollars should have been better used in a homeowners bailout program that did policies such as a temporary moratorium on national home foreclosures (a proposal Hillary Clinton championed) or more effective government programs that deferred mortgage payments for substantial time periods while families got back on solid ground. There's no reason for the astronomical foreclosure rates going on around the country.

- David Solis

Is this Change?

Here we are, nearly 6 months into President Obama's presidency and while I told myself I would give our new president a few months to show what he can do, I am truthfully dissatisfied and upset with the policies he's chosen to undertake as a president who won on the premise of 'change'. I ask this: what change have we seen to our country since January 20th, 2009? In regard to the budget, it's become a matter of disregard to the administration. There are no plans to balance the budget and little to no indications that this is even a goal of Obama's cabinet. The administration and their economic 'experts' promised unemployment would not reach 10%; promise broken. They promised more regard towards prisoners of war and due process rights; promise broken. They promised a revival in the economy; promise broken. While Obama's predecessor is responsible for much of the condition of the country, we cannot allow ourselves to avoid pointing a finger at Obama's administration and keeping them unaccountable for their campaign promises. This is Obama's presidency and instead of having an administration which works for the American people, we've seen the ultra-wealthy and influential lobby groups take over. During his campaign, Obama demonizd these very people; now it seems they're in bed with them. Working in cahoots, can we confide in a president who takes our tax money towards companies "too big to fail"? Aren't we all too big to fail? Nevertheless, we have seen change in 6 months. We've seen the economy worsen; even AFTER the bailouts, the "stimulus package" and numerous other policies this adminstration promised would revive and give the economy a jolt. Instead of saving jobs, we've seen our country post historic unemployment numbers. Many of these many workers confided in Obama's promise that their jobs are in better hands under his administration and its policies. Now the administration openly admits there will be new, expensive taxes placed upon businesses; not including the new "health care reform" that the administration is coming up with. Makes me wonder.. When the economy is in bad shape, why spend money we don't have? Why bailout the banks who helped create this crisis in the first place? Why tread on the downtrodden?

THOUGHTS PLEASE, FOLKS.

- David Solis