Reporting from Damascus, Syria, Alexandra Zavis of the Las Angeles Times, reports how some of the Syrian Christians are worried that if Bashar Assad’s regime does ever fall, then the proceeding civil war will result in revenge attacks against them.  These worries are coming from the knowledge of the sectarian attacks that have been reported coming out of Iraq and Egypt.

The uprising could end the security provided by President Bashar Assad’s autocratic but secular government.

This has to be a difficult situation for this minority groups inside Syria.  Like with most dictators, there is a level of stability involved with the regime. The power they project across all groups in the country they reside in sometimes does cause a level of security that is shattered when the regime is taken down. This happened in Iraq, where the U.S. security forces were caught in the middle.  Civil war usually follows when the dictator falls.

Repeated attempts to stop the violence have not been successful, and the time is likely coming near for outside military intervention.  The United Nations estimates that 7,500 people have been killed since the violence started.

Just last week it was reported that 62 people were killed in Syria and this happen just before a United Nations envoy arrived.  Mr. Annan, who is the former United Nations secretary general, was sent to Damascus by the United Nations and the Arab League to try to negotiate a cease-fire. Mr. Assad told him there would be no negotiations until the other side laid down their arms. Which is somewhat odd being that is the Syria regime that has been brutalizing them.  I see no reason for the rebels to lay down arms.

There have been increased calls for action in the United States from John McCain, who is a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  McCain contends that the U.S. should lead a military air assault on Syrian Ground forces, stating that President Obama’s attempts at peace through diplomacy have started to look more like hope than a real strategy to stop the killing.

If the world does take action, they are going to have to assure that the Christian Minority in the country remains safe.  This is something that has not been the focus in other situations like this in the Middle East.

Zavis reports that the Christians in Syria still back Assad because of fear revenge attacks against minorities will be the result for them. 

George, who is a 37-year-old dentist that refuses to use his last name, contends, “If the regime goes, you can forget about Christians in Syria,”  “Look what happened to the Christians of Iraq.  They had to flee everywhere, while most of the churches were attacked and bombed.”

Interesting enough, there are many senior members of the government and security force that are Christians, members rank all the way up to the defense minister.  The view is not shared across all Christians in Syria though. Some dissenting voices have spoken to reporters.  The Priest asked to keep his name out of the article, for fear of reprisal.

The priest said, “In my opinion, Assad did not protect minorities, he protected himself,” and “It’s a regime of family, friends and corruption.  And corruption does not have a religion.”

The dilemma the Christians face in the country is one of life and death for some of them, while others may just be driven from the country.  For the rest of the world, it makes no sense to come in and stop one set of killing, while allowing another.  Would the international community insure the safety of the Syrian Christians?

Christians in Syria trace their foundations to the beginnings of the faith when the apostle Paul converted to Christianity on the road to Damascus before he helped spread the faith across the Roman Empire.  It would be sad if they were driven off by the very people this Christian nation is trying to help. 

On the other hand, should we even get involved if there is, a chance that what is replaced in worse than what was there to begin with?  Would the president even be willing to protect Christians in another country?  Maybe if they agreed to pay for contraception for female employees.  

I suggest we make a deal to arm the rebels and proceed with air strikes, but only under insurance that the Christians would be protected once, the Assad government was taken out and the criminals caught.  We do this with the insurance that if they fail to meet their end of the deal, they will meet a similar fate as Assad, and back that up if indeed the new government does not protect the Christian minority.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Hoping this one escapes the scalpel of Redstate’s censors, I submit the following:

Harry Reid may be on a mad dash to bring the radical Liebmerman/Collins/Rockefeller cybersecurity bill, but a broad spectrum of Republicans continue to fight. Democrats may have toned down its Internet Kill Switch provisions, but still is a massive power grab online, and the new SECURE IT act is a much better idea.

What I absolutely love about SECURE it is that it hits all the key points: It strengthens criminal penalties for breaking into servers. It strengthens criminal penalties for breaking into servers (Yes, I said that twice on purpose because it’s that important). It creates private sector information sharing incentives without regulating the private sector at large. It turns inward and gets government to audit its own practices.

These are all the right ideas and none of the wrong ideas. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is speaking only the common-sense truth when he says “This bill recognizes that industry is at the center of any solution. It’s a sensible step forward that allows industry to invest in innovation and job creation rather than compliance. Imposing a costly and bureaucratic regulatory regime is the wrong approach to national security. New regulations will slow down innovation and investment while companies wait years for the government to introduce outdated standards. The regulatory process simply cannot keep up with the rapid pace of technology.”

It tells you just how basic and correct this bill is when it has co-sponsorship from such a broad spectrum of the caucus: Ron Johnson as mentioned, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chuck Grassley, Saxby Chambliss, Lisa Murkowski, Dan Coats, and Richard Burr.

Support Ron Johnson and the team. We want this bill passed. The common-sense alternative to the power grab cybersecurity bill.

Even extreme libertarians are cautious about the bill instead of strongly opposed, which I think we all can see is a big deal for a bill about strengthening national security. So it’s no wonder Harry Reid is promising to give the bill a fair chance. This could be the one that passes, especially if Greg Walden’s new House cybersecurity efforts make it clear that this is the one that can get through both chambers and to the President.

Criminal enforcement does matter. Why else would Anonymous online terrorists attack the Interpol webpage after an Interpol-led effort rolled up a 25-man Anonymous cell? When we arrest them and jail them, it hurts them. We need to do this more, and we need to make sure the penalties sting.

PATENT WARS: Well, again, this time it’s trademark wars. Apple is going after the EPAD in China after having won the iPad battle.

Why would we be in a rush to raise taxes on Facebook, an innovator and driver of job creation in this economy? Don’t believe me that they create jobs? Just look at Zynga and all the other companies around that exist because of Facebook and its popularity?

Should we have a whole FCC blackout regulation in place solely as a gift to major sports leagues that make billions of dollars? Probably not.

Kim Dotcom claims he’s as innocent as Saddam Hussein in defending his since-raided Megaupload operation. Look, the DMCA model of working with copyright holders is a reasonable one. If he wasn’t doing it, then he had it coming.

Thanks to George Soros, Public Knowledge, Gigi Sohn, and the rest of the anti-AT&T/T-Mobile team, AT&T is now having to stab we (as I’m one) unlimited data plan holders with throttling and caps. Lack of spectrum hurts, kids. And yet some of these people are going to complain that AT&T is doing what it has to after being the target of a team effort by Barack Obama and George Soros.

And they’re going to target AT&T’s next plan, too which is very simple one. AT&T would like to give wireless App developers he opportunity to subsidize data use by their apps, calling it the ’800 number model’ applied to mobile data. Some people are scared to death of this, because competition could force some data-heavy services to consider data costs when designing their apps. But it’s a great, innovative, market-based way to help people on metered data plans manage their use. Government shouldn’t interfere.

Some say we need a national sales tax compact to keep states from having to raise other taxes as the sales tax model breaks down. I’m not sure if it’s a bad thing to just have a smaller, simpler tax code, but it’s a fair point to consider. Some states may overreact, using the sales tax situation as cover for raising revenue.

Tech at Night continues to be on a shifted schedule this week thanks to my being detained last Friday and Monday.

Harry Reid may be on a mad dash to bring the radical Liebmerman/Collins/Rockefeller cybersecurity bill, but a broad spectrum of Republicans continue to fight. Democrats may have toned down its Internet Kill Switch provisions, but still is a massive power grab online, and the new SECURE IT act is a much better idea.

What I absolutely love about SECURE it is that it hits all the key points: It strengthens criminal penalties for breaking into servers. It strengthens criminal penalties for breaking into servers (Yes, I said that twice on purpose because it’s that important). It creates private sector information sharing incentives without regulating the private sector at large. It turns inward and gets government to audit its own practices.

These are all the right ideas and none of the wrong ideas. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is speaking only the common-sense truth when he says “This bill recognizes that industry is at the center of any solution. It’s a sensible step forward that allows industry to invest in innovation and job creation rather than compliance. Imposing a costly and bureaucratic regulatory regime is the wrong approach to national security. New regulations will slow down innovation and investment while companies wait years for the government to introduce outdated standards. The regulatory process simply cannot keep up with the rapid pace of technology.”

It tells you just how basic and correct this bill is when it has co-sponsorship from such a broad spectrum of the caucus: Ron Johnson as mentioned, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chuck Grassley, Saxby Chambliss, Lisa Murkowski, Dan Coats, and Richard Burr.

Support Ron Johnson and the team. We want this bill passed. The common-sense alternative to the power grab cybersecurity bill.

Even extreme libertarians are cautious about the bill instead of strongly opposed, which I think we all can see is a big deal for a bill about strengthening national security. So it’s no wonder Harry Reid is promising to give the bill a fair chance. This could be the one that passes, especially if Greg Walden’s new House cybersecurity efforts make it clear that this is the one that can get through both chambers and to the President.

Criminal enforcement does matter. Why else would Anonymous online terrorists attack the Interpol webpage after an Interpol-led effort rolled up a 25-man Anonymous cell? When we arrest them and jail them, it hurts them. We need to do this more, and we need to make sure the penalties sting.

PATENT WARS: Well, again, this time it’s trademark wars. Apple is going after the EPAD in China after having won the iPad battle.

Why would we be in a rush to raise taxes on Facebook, an innovator and driver of job creation in this economy? Don’t believe me that they create jobs? Just look at Zynga and all the other companies around that exist because of Facebook and its popularity?

Should we have a whole FCC blackout regulation in place solely as a gift to major sports leagues that make billions of dollars? Probably not.

Kim Dotcom claims he’s as innocent as Saddam Hussein in defending his since-raided Megaupload operation. Look, the DMCA model of working with copyright holders is a reasonable one. If he wasn’t doing it, then he had it coming.

Thanks to George Soros, Public Knowledge, Gigi Sohn, and the rest of the anti-AT&T/T-Mobile team, AT&T is now having to stab we (as I’m one) unlimited data plan holders with throttling and caps. Lack of spectrum hurts, kids. And yet some of these people are going to complain that AT&T is doing what it has to after being the target of a team effort by Barack Obama and George Soros.

And they’re going to target AT&T’s next plan, too which is very simple one. AT&T would like to give wireless App developers he opportunity to subsidize data use by their apps, calling it the ’800 number model’ applied to mobile data. Some people are scared to death of this, because competition could force some data-heavy services to consider data costs when designing their apps. But it’s a great, innovative, market-based way to help people on metered data plans manage their use. Government shouldn’t interfere.

Some say we need a national sales tax compact to keep states from having to raise other taxes as the sales tax model breaks down. I’m not sure if it’s a bad thing to just have a smaller, simpler tax code, but it’s a fair point to consider. Some states may overreact, using the sales tax situation as cover for raising revenue.

Tech at Night continues to be on a shifted schedule this week thanks to my being detained last Friday and Monday.

It always surprises me when Republicans I know and respect — smart people, I tell you — ask, “If Mitt Romney was acceptable in 2008, then why isn’t he tolerable to those same people now?”

The short answer is: we’re not in 2008 anymore, Toto.

Next in Line

It’s axiomatic that Republicans nominate whomever is “next in line.” Meaning, if someone fails in one election and works hard getting enough other people elected, then when the next election rolls around, it’s “his turn.”

This is all very orderly. McCain lost to George W. Bush in 2000, and after Bush’s two terms, 2008 rolled around. So at that time, it was McCain’s turn. The problem was, McCain, always praised in the MSM as a “maverick” was not a reliable conservative. He was a squishy moderate that did not excite the conservative base. In fact, he panicked it.

Romney: Acceptable in 2008

Picking up on this angst, a prominent Republican said this of McCain in 2008:

[Bob Dole] is probably the last person I would have wanted write a letter for me…I think there are a lot of folks who tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is a bit like Bob Dole’s race. That it’s the guy who’s next in line, the inevitable choice.

Who said that? Why, Mitt Romney!

Romney said this because he knew that the GOP was definitely not in love with McCain’s “maverick” (i.e.: “moderate”) past, and comparing McCain to 1996 moderate loser Dole was handing him an anvil.

Romney also provided conservatives in 2008 an acceptable alternative to McCain. Against Obama, one of the knocks on McCain is that he too was just a senator with no executive experience. Romney had executive experience up and down his arm’s length resume. Also against Obama, Mitt was polished, and Republicans sensed they needed someone slick to go up against the orator that made women in his crowds faint (of course, now we know that Obama’s entire 2008 campaign was a feint, but I digress). And McCain, who sometimes seemed confused and off-message, is not as slick of a presenter as Romney. Go Mitt!

So, with all of this going for him, Mitt is next in line, yet here in 2012, the conservative base is not fired up for Romney. Why not? What’s different? How could the man whose bandwagon people were jumping on in 2008 to bump McCain now be someone who spent most of 2011 in 2nd place to a rotating cast of characters, including even Donald Trump?

Because 2010 happened.

Right Man for the Time

We have a way of electing the right man for the right time. Each election presents a different issue, and a different set of circumstances. A man considered indispensable in 2008 could be quite dispensable in 2012, as tax cheat Tim Geithner has suddenly become. Democrats, at least, believed that Geithner was the right man for the economic collapse of 2008-09. Now, it seems Obama is practically shoving him out the door.

Another famous example in history is Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In 1940, after the weak accommodator Neville Chamberlain quit, Churchill rose to fight the Axis powers in World World Two, and defend England from Germany’s bombing campaigns. His steely leadership helped save the UK. Once WW2 ended, he was defeated in 1945. He was no longer the right man for the time. Just as Rudy Giuliani’s strong leadership after 9/11 made him a natural candidate to take the foreign policy baton from Bush in 2008, no one even considers Rudy today. Sorry Rudy, it’s not your time anymore. Foreign policy is not the main issue anymore.  The economy is. Jobs are.

[shameless plug: Republicans should be talking about nothing else except  jobs, the economy and energy policy. I wrote a popular diary on that here.]

The Impact of 2010

In 2010, Americans had just witnessed Obama and his Democrats dominate Congress for two years. What did they do? Grow government. Spend us deeper into debt at an unprecedented pace. And of course, the Obamacare monstrosity. All of it against the will of the people. All of it to disastrous results. Even Obama won’t brag about his signature “accomplishments” (from a liberal perspective) as his recent State of the Union address hardly said a word about them.

So, the Tea Party movement grew in the summer of 2010. An historic wave of Republicans took over the House of Representatives in November 2010. Exit polls confirmed that this was a sharp rebuke of the big government that Obama had given us, all the spending, and of course, his healthcare plan.

Romney: Conservative Kryptonite in 2012

Which brings us to 2012. It is through this lens that we evaluate Romney once again. The economy is the main issue, which you think would be in his wheelhouse, given how he’s been “Mr. Fix-it” with turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics and failing companies when he was with Bain Capital. America thought it had a turnaround expert with Obama, but all he did was blame his predecessor. America may be in the mood to hire a real turnaround expert now, and Romney has the resume for this, which may appeal to independents.

However, Romney’s signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts, Romneycare, gets much greater scrutiny now. Conservatives who just got done making a statement against big government and universal healthcare are now faced with a candidate who grew the government of his state with (wait for it) universal healthcare. From a solid place of principle, these conservatives don’t want anyone with the stench of healthcare reform even near the White House.

Further, from a tactical standpoint, Romney can’t really attack Obama on Obamacare since the president can just parry it with “we just copied what you did with MassCare.” Romney can try to split hairs all day long about federalism, state’s rights, 10th amendments, and “states as laboratories for democracy.” The average independent voter won’t pay attention to all this, and even if he did, probably wouldn’t understand it. All they’ll see is the headline: “President Obama thanks Romney for Obamacare blueprints.”

2012 is different than 2008

So, what’s different now is voter disgust with Obamacare. What’s different now is John McCain isn’t running.  What’s different now is we’ve seen what we conservatives can do about getting other conservatives in office, as we did in 2010.

These days, Bob Dole has endorsed Mitt Romney. Yes, that’s right, the same man Romney said is “the last person I would have wanted write a letter for me.” So this bit of optics doesn’t help, given Romney’s own doling out criticism. But also these days, more conservative candidates compare now “moderate” Romney to Bob Dole, so we’ve come full circle. Next in line, indeed.

Romney may still very well be the man for this time, as America can certainly use a turn-around expert right about now with 8.3% unemployment and $5.00/gallon gas prices. But first he needs to convince a skeptical conservative base that he’s the right man for our economically challenged time, like Churchill in 1940, and not a man we have to accept because he’s “next in line.” We saw how that worked for Bob Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008 and we don’t want be fed any more lines.

Follow me on Twitter.