Three Ring Circus Under The CPAC Tent

So many trial balloons and circus clowns demanding attention at CPAC last week that my mind sort of tuned out most of it.  The big name conservative mouthpieces and the GOP seem in disarray and so intent on finding the next “big star” for 2016 that they can’t even focus on big themes and issues.  The GOP constantly fixates on each articulate newcomer as “the next big one” who will be their star to pit against the Dem power players.  All it takes is a few good speeches and the speculation runs rampant, before they even really know who these newcomers are.  Remember the Scott Brown frenzy, which lasted until he got to the Senate and then acted like a typical Massachusetts politician (not a conservative).  Marco Rubio does give impressive speeches, but does that make him Presidential material?  Rand Paul stands up for what he believes and I applaud his filibuster, but he’s all over the board on so many issues and a relative unknown, that pinning him down on positions seems prudent.  Since the Clinton years, the GOP got entrenched in this polling craze, where it’s all about popularity over substance now.  We all want to vote as if it’s an American Idol episode rather than deciding on serious leadership qualities.  And the conservatives embrace this “star search” tactic too, where Sarah Palin reigns supreme as the conservative fashion adviser, giving thumbs up or down to this year’s conservative fashion debut.

Along with the conservative hype the mainstream media covered the CPAC event with a relentless effort to portray conservatives as out of touch and completely fractured, leaving the conservative punditry following along, gnawing off their own limbs, trying to prove their objectivity at being introspective about recent electoral losses.  So many panaceas and noxious “cures” aired that I’m still feeling faint from the dangerous fumes.   The groupthink position is they need to attract Hispanic voters, so each GOP hopeful rushes to get in front of the immigration issue.  Boom, they all have a speech for that topic now.  Peggy Noonan laments the groupthink position quells debate and makes many Republicans afraid to talk according to a GOP report titled “RNC Growth & Opportunity Project” (PDF file here).  We fall for this candidate selection by hot button issue positions rather than finding a man/woman of good character and a conservative viewpoint overall.  I’d rather vote for a candidate who is honest above all else, even if his/her policy position differs from mine on some issues.  Rarely do I agree with Peggy Noonan’s proscriptions for the GOP, but regarding this groupthink charge she hit the mark.   The GOP lacks much in the way of original ideas.  Hillary set the stage with her politically expedient video release – embracing same sex marriage.  Expect the media to begin hammering GOP hopefuls into the ground on this fringe issue.  Just like Obama played the women’s health scare tactics, Hillary will use gay marriage as an early wedge issue.

John McCain’s campaign high point probably was picking Sarah Palin, who initially breathed some life into a  very dull campaign.  She wasn’t really ready for the national stage and the Democrats sensing her star power determined quickly that they had to neutralize her and with the help of the mainstream media, the orchestrated attacks hit full force.  The McCain staff nor John McCain ever lifted a finger to fight back.  Instead  McCain doomed his campaign by the grandstanding stunt of suspending his campaign over the fiscal crisis, making him look inept and foolish.  He did in his own campaign truthfully.  Likewise, Mitt Romney never articulated a conservative message and he sounded more like Obama than unlike him, leaving many conservatives bewildered and dismayed.  Watching that foreign policy debate I found myself growing angry at his incessant pandering to Obama and basically agreeing with him on most foreign policy topics.  At the end of that debate, it was clear Obama won hands down and frankly, Romney showed more fighting spirit against his Republican opponents in the primary debates than he ever mustered against Obama.   Neither McCain nor Romney really is a conservative at heart and that’s the takeaway lesson I learned and maybe that’s where the GOP keeps going wrong.

The Democrats successfully run a lot of disparate candidates without the party being stigmatized by their oddball candidates, but each loon the GOP lets slip in becomes the face of the GOP.  After watching the mainstream media operate, the GOP should use more caution in the primary process and try to weed out the kooks.  The GOP needs to find better conservative candidates, which shouldn’t be so difficult considering how well Republicans are doing at state level politics.  Knowing how the mainstream media will set out to marginalize GOP candidates, should make it prudent to prepare for the biased reporting and gotcha antics, instead of whining that the media isn’t “fair”.

The GOP needs some real leaders with vision about how to revitalize America – we need big ideas, not all this hot button issue posturing.  Everyone likes to invoke Ronald Reagan, so okay let’s find some leaders who really do have a map leading to an America that is the “shining city on a hill”.  All these detailed speeches, on immigration and gay marriage, smelling of blatant political posturing,  aren’t going to unite conservatives or even inspire anyone – least of all prospective Hispanic voters.  The Clinton political machine is setting up these GOP hopefuls with these social issues.  If the best the RNC chairman, Reince Priebus, can offer is Mike Huckabee, the ever-friendly and smiling FOX news host as a “model”, then we are doomed   Yes, Priebus suggests  Huckabee the shameless  populist demagogue, who ingratiates himself to anyone to look “inclusive”, (PJ Media story here).  I’m packing up my political pup tent and setting up far away from the pundits and media types.  Still inching toward the “none of the above” political parties, as my disillusion grows.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, The Media

As the world churns, where does the US stand?

Just a few headlines to get some brain cells firing in our national security agencies…………hopefully.   Yesterday reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria hit the airwaves (here, here, here), so how will the US respond – or will we respond?  John Bolton appeared on Fox News this morning and he proposes a US effort to confiscate and remove chemical weapons’ stores from Syria, while simultaneously avoiding getting drawn into the civil war raging there or allowing these weapons to fall into the hands of radical rebel groups.  While this sounds like a prudent proposition, the logistics of carrying out this type of mission strike me as daunting, to say the least.  John Bolton, whom I admire greatly, frequently comes up with big-thinker type plans, that require broad stroke diplomatic efforts or complex, thinking outside the box action that seem unlikely to happen with our ditherer-in-chief.  The Bin Laden raid seems like the star in his crown of daring-do missions and even there reports indicate he procrastinated making that call too.  In Benghazi, well, he didn’t even bother to tune in the night of that raid, then tried to blame some lame video as the cause, deflecting attention from his administration’s complete abandonment of our ambassador under attack.  In typical Obama fashion, expect that “red line” to be merely a rhetorical device, not an actual point where action will back up the words.  It’s likely Mr. For It Before He Was Against It Kerry will pass this Syrian hot potato into the UN’s lap, where the world’s spuds can mash it about and proclaim – “We condemn this action in the strongest possible terms!” and do nothing, as usual.

North Korea rattles on with threats and overt hostilities, where South Korea raised the alarm that widespread cyber attacks that brought down three broadcast networks and some banks yesterday might be the work of North Korea (here).  The Sun, a British paper, posted a story that North Korea put a propaganda video online that shows the US Capitol being blown up by a missile strike and another one of the White House being targeted (here).  Last week, George Friedman, at Stratfor.com, wrote a piece, “Considering a Departure in North Korea’s Strategy”, where he explains their strategy as a combination of “ferocious, weak and crazy” that combined forms a coherent strategy for regime preservation, which he states is their primary strategic aim.  Friedman asserts that North Korea’s aggressive actions cause other nations to react with extreme caution.   In typical detailed Friedman style, he examines the possibility that North Korea might be moving away from it’s “careful manipulator” strategy to a “wild gambler” mode, which he doubts, but nevertheless assesses in detail (here).  The US in the meantime is conducting ramped up B-52 training exercises over South Korea to demonstrate American resolve to protect South Korea from North Korean aggression (here).

And today President Obama, in his signature “leading from behind” style, finally made it to Israel – only five years into his presidency…………  The New York Times describes the visit as “heavy on symbolism and short on any proposals to advance peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians” (here).  Just another day in the world of dwindling United States influence, where the President’s minions thought it was a good idea to send the President campaigning directly to the Israeli people rather than treating Netanyahu to the respectful treatment of a world leader.  Absent any real proposals or ideas, he’s in Israel merely as a symbolic gesture.

Wondering how we will weather these next four years adrift, abandoned and absolutely absent any hint of American leadership or resolve.  No life vest in sight from this vantage point and is there anyone left who will respond to dot, dot,dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot, dot?  Well, the geniuses in this White House would scratch their heads and ask, “dot, dash, huh, what’s that?”, so the short answer is –  probably not.  Anyway, they’re too busy figuring out how to use White House Tours and the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for sequestration propaganda purposes – no time left to ponder world problems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy

Boy with Gun – Oh My, How Scary….. (Not really)

A NJ family’s home was raided by police Saturday over a facebook birthday photo posting of the family’s 11 year-old son holding the .22  rifle he received for his birthday. (story here).  The father is a firearms instructor for the NRA, a NRA range safety officer and a NJ hunter education instructor, according to this story.  So, an anonymous call to some government child abuse hotline instigates a raid on a private citizen’s home over a facebook photo, because we’ve conditioned society to fear guns – especially a gun in the hands of an 11 year-old.  The child in question possesses a NJ hunting license and has passed the state’s hunter safety course.  So, this kid’s unsuspecting mom was at home when the police and Dept of Child and Families Services came knocking on the door.  They demanded to see all the guns in the family’s gun safe.  The story goes Mom called Dad, who rushed home and called his attorney.  The attorney told the father not to open his gun safe unless the police produced a warrant.  Thus far the police have not returned with a warrant.  All of this drama set in motion over a mass overreaction about a photo of a gun in the hands of an 11 year-old boy.

Considering we live in a country where adults can’t distinguish between real guns and a pastry,  whose shape vaguely resembles a gun, this raid should come as no surprise.  The shocking part is that the police tried to push their weight around without a warrant and that should cause more alarm than a kid holding a gun.  We’ve got a lot of government bureaucrats who deal with our children’s safety reacting in bizarre and alarmingly irrational ways all in the name of “zero tolerance”.   In light of the media induced gun hysteria, more of this type of government overreach seems likely.  George Will wrote an excellent piece, The Pop-Tart terrorist, (here) which explains our present culture of mass hysteria over rational thought – idiots run wild, beware!

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, Gun Control

Our Pacific Commander Prepares For Global Warming

Quick link to a Boston Globe piece  (here) on our top commander for the Pacific region, Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, who expressed his belief that the most serious long-term security threat to the Pacific region is “global warming” during a meeting with scholars from Harvard and Tufts universities Friday. So, it appears we’re wasting military readiness time on the vagaries of “global warming”, treating it as a concrete fact, when real people problems in the Pacific region (Chinese aggression, North Korean aggression, China’s internal political, social and economic challenges, the myriad of escalating territorial tensions, etc.) might reasonably be expected to top his list of long-term threats.  The long-term ramifications of China’s One Child policy on China”s internal stability, as China must cope with a young adult male population that vastly outnumbers the young adult female population seems to be a potential serious long-term threat to regional stability, to my way of thinking (certainly more of a concern than the vagaries of climatic change theories).    This article goes on to explain how he’s engaging other countries in planning to stockpile supplies in strategic areas and planning exercises in May with countries in the region to address the “what-ifs”.   I feel so much safer knowing he’s preparing our Pacific forces for global warming, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Military

Janet’s Ammo Stockpile

Often the vocal part of the pro-gun types gets relegated to some fringe stereotype, ridiculed by the mainstream media, liberal academics and many politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle.  The rumors of government run amok continuously circulate, so it’s very easy, after decades of far-flung theories of nebulous compounds, black helicopters, and the various tales of the government plotting to take away guns, to dismiss these stories out of hand as just more urban myths.   So when Forbes, runs a piece, 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security?  It’s Time For A National Conversation, (here), perhaps it’s time to stop automatically dismissing  these executive branch ammo stockpiling stories and demand some serious answers from this administration.  How many weapons does the DHS possess and why would they need to stockpile that many rounds?

Investors.com ran a commentary piece (here) by Andrew Malcolm at the end of February titled, Why are the feds loading up on so much ammo?, where he ponders the vast ammo stockpiling in the past year by this administration and the lack of real answers as to why these domestic agencies of the executive branch would need so much ammo.  Is it a devious plot to enforce gun control by making it nearly impossible for civilians to purchase ammo?  Is the administration gearing up for some sort of  civil strife that the rest of us remain oblivious about?  Are these agencies just trying to proactively keep us all safe?  Why would a group of far left ideologues, who want to see personal gun ownership severely restricted (many favoring  outright banning private gun ownership completely), embark on such a secretive ammo stockpiling effort?

The Obama administration refuses to answer these questions openly and honestly and so far Congress hasn’t exerted influence to demand answers. The Social Security Administration posted an answer last fall on  their website to quell rumors and insists their ammo purchases were strictly for training purposes and to arm their 589 agents who carry guns (here).  Is it time to start building that bunker in the backyard or acquiring a good survival guide ?  Well, I sure hope not, because for one I treasure my personal liberty , causing me to cringe at the very thought of retreating  to some dingy bunker and secondly, I enjoy my modern amenities too darned much to run away from a government run amok.  Personal liberty should not be taken for granted, it can be eroded by allowing corrupt people to gradually poison our well of freedom and before we know it our Republic sits poised to expire.  Reasonably, these large ammo acquisitions should propel us to demand that our Congress starts demanding some honest answers.    I sure don’t want to add a tin foil hat to my Spring fashion accessory list, but with this administration, the old Reagan  “trust, but verify” , saying seems quite appropriate and a prudent citizen response to this situation.

2 Comments

Filed under Gun Control, Politics

Mark Kelly Goes Gun Shopping

Breitbart.com (here) reports that Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut husband of former Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, purchased an AR-15 “assault rifle” the day after he testified before the Colorado legislature pushing for tighter gun control of this very weapon he purchased.  The story relates that witnesses in the store claim he also purchased a couple of high-capacity magazines and a semi-automatic pistol.  When the media caught wind of his gun purchases, Kelly came up with the story that he purchased the guns merely as a demonstration of how easy it is to buy guns and he claims he plans to turn them over to the Tucson police department (here).  If you believe this Arizona tall tale, then I’ll sing the George Strait chorus for you…….(here)

I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona
from my front porch you can see the sea
I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona
If you’ll buy that I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free
If you’ll buy that I’ll throw the Golden Gate in free

Leave a comment

Filed under Gun Control, Politics

Culture Demise: My Antique Home Remedy

Growing up in the feminist battleground era, by my teenage years, my views fell decidedly to the left on social issues and I even wrote a term paper in high school supporting the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.  My high school library carried numerous feminist-oriented books, which in retrospect seems odd for a rural school district.  I read  The Feminine Mystique along with numerous books on suffragists, like Susan B. Anthony and  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and also some off-the-wall books on female sexuality written from rabidly anti-male viewpoints, where all heterosexual relations ended up categorized as akin to rape.  I approached, what I thought was a well-reasoned position, based on my youthful and naive obsession with the left’s favorite canard: “fairness”.  Woe be it that anything should be unfair, so I aligned my views accordingly.

Of course in typical, contradictory female fashion, I adored old-fashioned male heroes and found these chivalrous perfect specimens with  the best of male traits – a gentleman, who lived by a strict code of honor, a protector of the weak, a romantic at heart, but tough enough to tackle any and all dastardly villains – yes, these ideal men lived on in popular historical romance novels.  Truly, based on the millions of women, of all ages, who devour these historical romance novels, my romantic vision ran counter to my rather dismal political view, where men and women spiritually exist on different planets, destined to always be misunderstood and circling in distant orbits.  What romantic heart wants a spouse who is not part of a united team?  Well, that is currently where the state of marriage resides far too often and despite all these media experts on relationships, divorce statistics bare out the dismal disconnected state of way too many couples.  The basic belief required for any successful endeavor, as part of any group, is believing you are part of a team and in marriage, if you don’t believe you’re part of a team, conflict, anger and disloyalty will doom any hope for a happy home.  Building trust gets short shrift to a lot of psychobabble that leaves many couple regurgitating catchy jargon rather than on building trust.  With trust, relationships and teams can navigate almost any adversity.

Fast forward to the present, thirty plus years later, and I’ve been reading these articles at PJ Media, written by this young man, John Hawkins, who presents his views on men, women and relationships often.  His piece titled: 5 Reasons Men Cheat, (here), where he began with a disclaimer that he wasn’t justifying cheating, then proceeded to do just that with reasons like “the woman let herself go”, “he’s stuck in a sexual desert” and “he’s bored”.  His views struck me as very ambivalent toward women and marriage, while still yearning for a worthy woman.

In fairness, he wrote a column on types of annoying men, but his, 7 Types of Chicks Who Annoy Everyone by their Very Existence, (here) had me laughing, while simultaneously picking out the types that might fit me to any degree.  Oh no, I might posses a good bit of the dreaded Detailerella, getting caught up in telling every last tiny detail and what if my personality has a smidgeon of the pathetic Pity Vampire or perhaps I sometimes add too much drama to my stories, let me vow to never utter a dramatic sigh ever again, lest the dreaded tag of No Drama Mama, gets added to my moral failings.  Throughout his columns, I noticed he sounds bitter about women and the quest for a meaningful relationship with a woman, but the larger issue that struck me is whether his is a majority male view in his age group or an anomaly.  The other serious issue is – are the majority of young women like these 7 types he presented?  If so, then the hope for stronger families, where committed marriages succeed seems decidedly on a downward spiral.  Many reports abound offering reasons why the average age of first marriages keeps climbing, with the level of college debt being offered as a prime culprit – Huffington Post 2012 article(here), but considering the alarming attitudes pop culture icons and relationship experts peddle, it seems likely that basic attitudes about the opposite sex play into this trend too.

Did unbridled politicization of our most private relationships lead to this wasteland of angry, hostile male/female interactions?  Is the concept of heterosexual marriage as a vital team and required anchor of civilization, out of date and obsolete?  Listening to the media experts and pop culture mouthpieces, it appears that this view could get one cast into the pit of narrow-minded hate-mongers, deserving of only scorn and isolated from civil society.    Judging by the dollars spent on romantic fiction, consumed almost exclusively by women, in the secret recesses of many a female hearts, beats the desire for these extinct gentlemen of days gone by.  And just how do these stories always end, well, the man of her dreams comes along and sweeps her off  her feet, professes  undying love and devotion, followed by a old-fashioned, happily-ever-after marriage.  They become a team, so once again, my belief in building the most basic team in civilization, lives on in the hearts of millions of women, judging by the number of romance novels sold ($1.4 Billion in 2010 – according to this former female political science professor, who takes a dim view of these novels- here).

An anecdote to pop culture views on the importance of being a lady or a gentleman came in the form of a book, Simple Social Graces, (available here), that I purchased years ago.  I imagined it would, be some frilly book on Victorian etiquette, when to my dismay it ranks as one of the most insightful  looks at our current cultural demise juxtaposed with a refreshing look at our Victorian ancestors views and remedies for most of society’s ills.  I’ve read this book many times and find it an important look at how setting societal ideals can guide us to a kinder, gentler society, where respect for other people reigns supreme in all our interactions, both public and private.  Until we return to a basic societal acceptance that the answers to our cultural morass can be fixed only by our own insistence that we agree upon and enforce a simple code of honor in society, where we insist on treating others with respect, insist that the strong protect the weak, and realize that civilization rests on whether we can rebuild that American team, I wax on about frequently.  If parents can only succeed at one thing, then most assuredly teaching them to respect others ranks as the most important lesson, providing a lifeline to our society poised to descend into a moral abyss.  These are my simple home remedies for what ails us and at least it’s less risky than some of my great-grandmother’s teas made from assorted weeds, which she sent me out into the nearby fields to gather.  To her credit she cooked up an excellent drawing salve made from the knots on pine trees, that she claimed worked for farm animals and people too, that I wish I had saved the recipe.  It healed cuts and scrapes faster than these modern anti-biotic creams and ointments, but could end up causing a visit from a social worker in this day and age, where the government regulates everything.  Respect is free and so far the government hasn’t regulated it:-)

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars

The Tea Party Lives

On Wednesday the junior Senator, Rand Paul, from Kentucky breathed life back into the Tea Party movement with his gutsy filibuster, while rankling the old goats of the GOP.  He showed the disenchanted Republicans throughout the country that one voice does matter and one citizen committed to the Constitution can force even hard-nosed political operators, like Eric Holder, to respond. Paul explains his motivations and beliefs in this Washington Post article (here).   So far, Holder deflected answering the Fast and Furious questions honestly, trying to change the message and hoping time will distance the demands for answers.  Considering Holder honed his political muscle in the corrupt and overreaching Reno Justice Department, Rand’s feat played out as one of those David and Goliath moments, where one man, taking a principled stand,  stood against the political powers that be in Washington and actually won.  Holder caved and responded to Paul’s demand for an answer on the limits on drone strikes (here) on American soil.  Even the reliably left-slanted Slate website carried a piece headlined, Rand Paul: Filibuster Shows “Americans Are  Looking for Someone to Really Stand Up, (here).  Ted Cruz, Texas’s newest  Senator,  jumped into the filibuster and let’s be hopeful that he continues speaking up and taking on the fight for responsible federal spending,  serious debt reduction, and championing  limited federal governance as our constitutional republic demands (he turned me into an admirer already).

Typically, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, rushed to the nearest microphones to deride Rand Paul’s filibuster, because these two windbags seem to be the self-appointed airwaves traffic controllers for the GOP, believing they direct the GOP media efforts and set the GOP agenda.   Paul’s shining moment angered these two , because for once Americans saw that there’s a new GOP wind blowing in Washington.  No one cares what John McCain says and while Eric Holder’s tenure as Attorney General causes one to shudder in horror, the specter of Lindsey Graham running the Justice Department offers not a bit more comfort.  Just like a McCain presidency most likely would offer little more coherence than Obama’s, considering McCain’s  murky, shifting positions on national security issues and his need to be popular rather than right on the issues.   Truth be told, their constant rush to get on every cable news outlet and hog the spotlight diminishes them to merely cartoon-like stature and considering how many times they flipped positions on national security issues, the Obama administration’s strong-arm tactics and just about every other important issue, do Republicans even care about what they say?   The left-leaning media elites keep shamelessly using these two useful idiots for the Democrats and even President Obama makes use of their preening need to get in front of any camera within a mile.  Does anyone think President Obama’s reach-across-the-aisle dinner came about for any reason other than to improve his sinking poll numbers over his overplayed hand on sequestration?  Only dupes like McCain and Graham could be that gullible. And how dare these GOP upstarts garner some national media attention, without first seeking their blessings, seems to sum up their angry reaction to Rand Paul’s  impressive filibuster.   This President doesn’t compromise as he relentlessly plods along with his transformation of America into a socialist mecca, where government of, by and for the people gets buried by executive fiat,  in favor of government “takes care” of the people – literally, if you don’t like it,  the government will most assuredly “take care”  of you, Chicago-style.  PJ Media writer, Michael Walsh, penned a scathing review of John McCain’s actual biography, hinting that the automatic hero-worship aura, may finally be approaching an end (here).  Hope springs eternal, in this season,  where mayhap some new conservative voices will burst into bloom and the old goats get put out to pasture to chew their cud (here).

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, The Constitution

Hillary’s Top Achievements

January 1, 2013, I posted a piece asking for anyone to list Hillary Clinton’s top diplomatic achievements and finally my query has been answered, by a loyal Democratic mouthpiece no less.  Bob Beckel moments ago appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor” and the discussion started out about the latest State Department embarrassment over a female Egyptian activist, Samira Ibrahim who was scheduled to receive an International Women of Courage Award tomorrow from our new Secretary of State, John Kerry.  Her award was postponed when her gleeful postings about terrorist attacks killing Israelis and other sundry postings praising Hitler and the 9/11 attack were found on her Twitter account. The Washington Post story is here.  One might think some careful vetting by the Hillary Clinton State Department would be standard operating procedure, but alas apparently not.  Most likely no one will ever whisper who suggested these women or who was responsible for vetting them, but it’s just one more symptom of a department adrift with no real leadership.

Bill O’Reilly asked Bob Beckel to list the top achievements of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and I’ve been waiting for someone………. anyone at all, to tackle that question.  Beckel listed that Hillary strengthened  NATO, she expanded women’s rights in China and she increased Poland’s security.  Prodded by O’Reilly to amplify on these stupendous achievements, Beckel mumbled idiotic supporting statements, like NATO is stronger, because she made other countries take on more responsibility.  Poland is safer because she denied Poland the US missile defense system that President Bush had promised them and her greatness speaking about women’s rights in China led to an actual increase in women’s rights in China (well not so much, but hey Beckel thinks it is so).  Sometimes less is more, but that usually refers to make-up advice and style advice, both areas that Hilliary’s feminist feathers would most assuredly be ruffled if she had to trifle with.  No, she deals with the important issues in the world where according to Beckel, she makes an institution stronger by less American leadership, she makes a country’s national security stronger by weakening it’s defenses and she expands women’s rights in a country merely by the power of her words.  What a woman.  It must be similar to the way she takes responsibility by not taking any responsibility and brazenly and with righteous indignation spouts, “What difference at this point does it make.”, to deflect questions about the cause of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi.  She preceded this with mentioning the lame video rationale or whether these people were just out for a walk and decide to attack and kill some Americans, but no where did she touch on the possibility that it might have been a premeditated, coordinated attack and after all, in her mind, “what difference does it make”.   And here I thought the touting her frequent flyer mileage as testament to her remarkable diplomatic achievements hit the low water mark on lame-brained sycophantic drivel from the left, but leave it to Bob Beckel to prove me wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

Soviet MIA Soldier Found Alive In Afghanistan

Scott Neuman posted a news story March 6, 2013 at NPR on a missing Soviet soldier who was found alive in Afghanistan after 33 years(story here).  He reports that Bakhretdin Khakimov, a soldier in a motorized rifle unit went missing after being severely injured in a battle against Afghan mujahadeen forces and was picked up by local Afghans.  The story goes on to relate that Khakimov converted to Islam, married an Afghan woman and works as a traditional healer in Herat province.  Even though it’s not one of our MIAs, it’s still heartwarming to know another case of a missing soldier moved to the found pile.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military