According to the Washington Post, Dennis J. Kucinich, a high profile Ohio Democrat representative and two-time presidential candidate lost his House seat in yesterday's election. He was a major liberal icon, especially for the antiwar left. And that's what got me to thinking, because I simply don't understand their position.
While I'm certainly not a war-monger myself, and don't believe our nation should specifically create any kind of trouble, I'm nonetheless aware of what goes on in the world regarding international military action and threats. Consequently, I don't think it matters that there are people who don't want to get involved in any kind of warfare at all when it comes to other nations that do. Because appeasement, negotiation and sanctions simply aren't going to stop marauders and zealots whose goal is to do you, and/or your allies, in militarily, whatever the cost to them.
And far more basic than the preceding, is the fact that our nation was founded by warriors who won our freedom in the Revolution which gave us our start. And how would we feel, and what would our country look like, if we’d simply ignored World War's One and Two?
So, while trying to stay above it all and trying to remain pure and pristine sounds wonderful and wins the adoration of peace-loving folks who don’t wish to get involved, unfortunately in taking that approach, both logic and our own history say we’ll likely get overrun.
But far beyond any of that is the simple fact that one of the results, perhaps the most important one, of our prior military actions and our global strength at present, is that without them, those who are so strongly anti-war wouldn’t have the protections needed to so loudly voice those opinions in public at all.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
A headline this morning on Fox News' website, and a similar one on the Drudge Report, caused me to re-read both items several times to be sure I was clear on the subject matter -because it was such a shock. But now I’m convinced I haven’t lost my marbles.
What completely surprised me was that, according to Washington Post writers, Peter Finn and Sari Horowitz, Attorney General, Eric Holder, stated yesterday that "the U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured." And what that means to me is that the present administration may have finally done something that's in the best interests of the United States, which I find to be simply incredible, and to my knowledge -a first.
In a speech at Northwestern University law school in Chicago, Holder addressed some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding an individual represents an “imminent threat.” Including critical factors such as the “relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.” He also said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning -when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
As for me, I wanted to include Holder's remarks because I think it's the right thing to do considering how often I complain about nearly everything the administration's done for the last three years. So I think it's only fair to mention something they finally got right.
There was something else in the Fox posting though that really got me to thinking, however. Because it seems that civil libertarians object to the administration’s decision, believing that the Constitution's due process protections require the president to get permission from a federal court before taking lethal action.
And to that I have to ask, exactly who are these loony tunes and where do they come from? Beyond that, how much damage do terrorists have to do to our nation, how many of our folks do they have to kill, and how much peril do they have to put us in before we can retaliate in kind without giving these murdering SOB’s a day in court?
As for me again, I’d also like to find out exactly who these “libertarians” are and ask them where they think our nation goes wrong in trying to defend itself and its citizens from deadly harm, and why they hate the nation in which they live to the extent they do. My guess is there not libertarians at all but much more likely subversives on enemy’s payrolls, so while Holder’s finally chasing terrorists as he should, he ought to shoot them too.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Determining subject matter each day, I draw on multiple areas of information, hoping to find issues and things readers will find interesting and entertaining. Most often, the material comes from my own experience, items in broadcast news and scanning of many websites. And today, a caption on the Drudge Report caught my eye.
Although the article I read has to do with politics, specifically Rick Santorum's campaign, it wasn't the politics that interested me; my curiosity piqued from the headline "Rick Santorum accuses Drudge Report of being a Mitt Romney cheerleader."
In the article itself in, MailOnline, Bryan Blunt, a director of a cable television company from Mesa, Arizona waved a sign saying "Drudge Backs Mitt. AZ Picks Rick!!" right in front of the stage at a Santorum rally in Phoenix on February 21st. And way back in January, Fred Thompson, a Gingrich "surrogate," said on NBC's Meet The Press that the Romney campaign "has Drudge in their back pocket."
Mr. Blunt went on to say that both Drudge and Fox News had now joined the GOP establishment. "Drudge was not part of the establishment in my mind until this election cycle. Now he is absolutely part of the mainstream media. He's not the only one. Fox News is guilty of it. When Rick had his trifecta on February 7th, I was watching Fox News and it looked like they all stepped in poop."
My thought about all of this, however, comes from a different angle altogether. Because the reason I use Drudge for information is that there's no political slant at all. His website's a list of headlines and writers that link you to almost any subject you can think of. So, if you really want another slant on things, aside from Fox you can click on links to CNN, CNBC, or The New York Times among a slew of others.
And that brings me back to my original point, which is the question as to why these Santorum supporters think that because articles on Drudge mention Romney wins and Santorum gaffes, Drudge is therefore a Romney fan. Because in reality, all that's been done is a printing of facts as seen by various reporters.
Consequently, I don't think these Santorum fans have a problem with Drudge; their dilemma really rests with their candidate individually who often tends to bury himself without anyone else's help at all.
And whatever the truth is about Drudge's alleged support for Romney, Bryan Blunt turned out to be wrong about Arizona picking Santorum, because last Tuesday, Romney won there by 20 points. Beyond that, this week Drudge also linked to a Hot Air article, "Lazarus Rising Again" that pleased Gingrich so much he publicized it on his Facebook page. All of which, I think, helps me make my case regarding Drudge’s neutrality.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
While sitting at my keyboard this morning, doing some bookkeeping chores, my wife informed me that she'd just read yesterday’s blog entry. She then went on, in a rather loud stream of invective, letting me know beyond any shadow of doubt she thought I was a heartless, vindictive, chauvinistic SOB, having absolutely no regard for women. She was further shocked beyond belief that I'd use a particular defenseless woman's health care cost predicament to try to make a point about the upcoming presidential election.
When finally able to get a word in edgewise amidst her tirade, I tried to make her understand my theory which obviously didn't come through in yesterday's entry. Because although I'd clearly used the woman's plight to make my case, I was merely trying to demonstrate how Rush Limbaugh had gotten himself elevated to equal status with the president of the United States.
Because the situation as I saw it was that both the president and his press secretary made specific mention of Rush, and their disagreement with him, which to me said that they both thought him someone worth doing battle with. And therefore, if he's gotten himself to that level, Rush has arrived at the pinnacle of status in politicking.
So, to reiterate, I didn't mention yesterday's issue because it was about treatment of women, or to address their medical insurance plights, I chose it because of its meaning to Rush. And in fact, it wouldn't have mattered to me what the subject of discussion was that got the leader of the free world to take a verbal shot at a talk show host.
Therefore, as a result, all I know is that now Rush has become even more of a talking point for the public than he was. Because he's just been given considerable additional exposure and his words now merit presidential consideration, and it doesn't even really matter what he said.
Because my suspicion is that Rush is bright and clever enough to milk this situation for all its worth and then some. And since long before it happened he already had huge influence among twenty million voters, the presidential endorsement will likely add millions more.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I'm sure that by now everyone's heard or seen some of the flap about Rush Limbaugh's negative and insulting remarks about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University student who spoke to lawmakers about birth control. And as far as the subject itself goes, it's one that's been an issue for decades.
However, what interested me most was not simply the issue, or the words used in discussing the matter. I'm more focused on what I believe actually happened yesterday. Because although I think there's little doubt that Rush has had significant influence among Conservatives for about twenty years, or more, he's actually only a radio talk show host, not a government leader, politician, or elected official. Yet, nonetheless, he's now been formally elevated to a much more significant status than he's ever possessed.
For a guy like Rush, who pontificates from behind his golden microphone every weekday for three hours, what better endorsement as a recognized statesman could he receive than a personal attack from Jay Carney, the presidential press secretary? And better yet, an even stronger one from the incumbent himself.
Consequently, as I've been mentioning for quite a while now, for those campaigning against the current president, I truly think that it's best to just leave him alone and not get involved with him in debates or any other kind of discussion. Because left alone, and as each day goes by, he keeps digging deeper holes for himself through his own actions. And now he's made the hugest kind of mistake.
By elevating Rush to the level of someone who is seen by the president as someone who's worth personally attacking in a publicized phone call from the White House, he's validated Limbaugh's opinions beyond any measure that Rush could ever do by himself and added incredible value to Limbaugh's comments.
So, although I have no idea at the moment as to how much yesterday's presidential error in judgement will help Rush in the future, I do know is that it was one of those things that when added to every other mistake made to date, will be long remembered by the president as one of those potentially fatal.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I can't believe that a blurb I saw as I flipped past Neil Cavuto's news show on Fox Business channel last night wasn't headline news anywhere on the dial. Not only that, I didn't see it mentioned anywhere this morning. And worse yet, I not only had to Google for the information I wanted, but found that candidate Gingrich was the only one who'd commented on the subject.
But anyway, here's what practically blew me through my own ceiling. Apparently, according to Gingrich, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said yesterday that he had no intention of trying to get gasoline to be less expensive and his goal was to get the American people to go to alternatives "and wants American prices to be about the European level, which would be $9 or $10 a gallon.”
After I read through Chu's comments again, I had to sit back and wonder about exactly what it takes to make people realize that this isn't some kind of glitch or joke, but that lunatics have actually taken over the asylum. Because the current president and his cohorts are steadfastly determined to reduce our nation to third-world status.
And without-re-listing the examples I've typed about for quite time now, its obvious that step-by-step, and according to plan our economy's being ruined. Because you don't have to be an economist, you don't even have to understand much about math to grasp the fact that at present, THERE ARE NO MASS ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS AND THERE LIKELY WON'T BE FOR YEARS TO COME. Aside from that, from what's happened so far to the Solyndra's of the world, and many other's like them, there may never be a viable alternative to go to.
So then, I think folks have to ponder what the real situation is here. Because beyond what seems like blind-eyed ignorance and abject stupidity, I think it's highly unlikely anyone could be vapid enough to diligently look for ways to sink a nation's economy and keep trying to dampen the public's hopes for no reason at all. And I, for one, haven't a clue as to what their actual goal is. But what I do know is, if these insidious slimes aren't stopped soon, the American economy's over for good.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter, because frankly, her style gets on my nerves and I find her to be more of a screechy pest than a pundit, but there's no doubt she's pretty bright. That's why this morning I clicked on an article on her website from a link posted by Drudge, because the subject's one I frequently write about also -the demise of higher education in the U.S.
And it seems she has problems with Rick Santorum, because she believes he frequently fails to state his points clearly, or trips himself up by misstatements or mistakes in interviews and debates. She also apparently thinks he's often set up and prone to falling in traps designed by interviewers, because he doesn't always remember his own prior writings and statements.
However, what set her off regarding higher education was a comment Santorum made in response to the president's stating that "everyone should go to college." Upon hearing that, Santorum said, "What a snob!"
In this case, Coulter thinks Santorum's response was incorrect because he missed the point. Since, according to her, "It's not snobbery that compels liberals to promote college for all; it's a scam to manufacture more Democratic voters, much like their immigration policies." And that's where I agree with her absolutely and completely, because I keep making the very same point in many ways myself.
But the main reason I'm writing about her today is that she posted some examples of what a joke college curricula have become that I think are perfect but hadn't found myself. And here's how she put it:
"This isn't the '20s, when only the upper classes went to college. These days, every idiot who can scratch an "X" on his checkbook assumes hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to make himself less employable by taking college courses in - for example - "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" (University of South Carolina, Columbia), "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender and Identity" (University of Virginia), "Arguing With Judge Judy: Popular 'Logic' on TV Judge Shows" (University of California, Berkeley), "The Phallus" (Occidental College), "Zombies" (University of Baltimore), "Comics" (Oregon State University), "Harry Potter: Finding Your Patronus" (Oregon State University), and "Underwater Basket Weaving" (University of California at San Diego).
Now, although I 've reached my own conclusions about the devaluation of education, primarily in public institutions, and am convinced it's mainly due to the dumbing down of "teachers" protected by thuggish unions...today's illustrations take my argument one step further.
Because I've thought all along that the subject matter taught remained pretty much consistent, such as courses in grammar, sciences and math, however kept at minimal difficulty levels due to deteriorating skill levels of the instructors. But today, thanks to the homework of Ann Coulter, I've learned that today's "educators" are too dumb to even do that.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
