http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/25/age-and-kyl
The article is a lovely summary of why Jon Kyl simply cannot be allowed to fail to stand for re-election and disappear out of the Senate into the gloom of retirement or political obscurity. He may be the best candidate for VP. Gingrich is a gadfly who would be hampered by the title, and would serve the nation better without the harness of a title. Santorum would never fit into the Romney administration. The other candidates for the Republican nomination fell by the wayside a long time ago because they didn't fit.
The only possible challenger for VP is Rand Paul, and it seems so appropriate that he joined the Senate two years ago, and therefore has had enough time to figure out the system and make his dominance known... just in time to step into Sen. Kyl's shoes while Kyl takes that step into the Executive Branch...? It's far too early to let Rand Paul out of the Senate, where he can do so much good work, for a brief term as VP. There is no one clearly available to step into Sen. Paul's seat, either.
So let's push Kyl for VP, shall we?
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/09/farm-boy.html
The most politically significant paragraph in the entire article is this one:
"Africa was next on Borlaug's agenda, but by the 1980s he started to face intense opposition from Western environmental groups. Despite his record of success in averting starvation [in Mexico, India and Pakistan], they opposed his 'Green Revolution' scientific methods -- the use of cross breeding, hybridization, inorganic fertilizer -- as 'unnatural.' Some complained the intensive farming techniques he introduced were displacing traditional subsistence farming, as if starvation by native methods were somehow beautiful and noble. "
If this doesn't define the radical environmentalists, I can't think of three sentences that do a better job of it. They act as if the primitive farming methods still in use in the Third World are cultural imperatives, and must be preserved at all costs... and it is easy for them to say so, since the aforementioned costs are borne by the people, not the environmentalist, in for form of deaths by starvation, stunted children and the diseases of inadequate nutrition like rickets and scurvy.
Note that the First World recognized rickets and scurvy; we defeated those diseases centuries ago, by improving our agricultural practices with scientific development. Yet these people in the environmental movement don't apparently care how many children starve in the Third World; they should not be allowed to use hybridized, high-yield seeds or chemical fertilizers. It worked for us; are these people somehow unworthy? Do they not deserve to live better and longer now that the technology is available to make it possible for them? What makes them undeserving? Is it (whisper it: ) their skin color?
I wonder.
Do you?
The most politically significant paragraph in the entire article is this one:
"Africa was next on Borlaug's agenda, but by the 1980s he started to face intense opposition from Western environmental groups. Despite his record of success in averting starvation [in Mexico, India and Pakistan], they opposed his 'Green Revolution' scientific methods -- the use of cross breeding, hybridization, inorganic fertilizer -- as 'unnatural.' Some complained the intensive farming techniques he introduced were displacing traditional subsistence farming, as if starvation by native methods were somehow beautiful and noble. "
If this doesn't define the radical environmentalists, I can't think of three sentences that do a better job of it. They act as if the primitive farming methods still in use in the Third World are cultural imperatives, and must be preserved at all costs... and it is easy for them to say so, since the aforementioned costs are borne by the people, not the environmentalist, in for form of deaths by starvation, stunted children and the diseases of inadequate nutrition like rickets and scurvy.
Note that the First World recognized rickets and scurvy; we defeated those diseases centuries ago, by improving our agricultural practices with scientific development. Yet these people in the environmental movement don't apparently care how many children starve in the Third World; they should not be allowed to use hybridized, high-yield seeds or chemical fertilizers. It worked for us; are these people somehow unworthy? Do they not deserve to live better and longer now that the technology is available to make it possible for them? What makes them undeserving? Is it (whisper it: ) their skin color?
I wonder.
Do you?
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Rights are bestowed by God & stolen by governments
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/gingrich-to-the-nra-its-time-to-make-the-right-to-bear-arms-a-universal-human-right-at-the-un/
h/t Instapundit
The right to bear arms allows people to feel free; a person who is not allowed to defend himself is a slave, not a citizen. It works well for us, here in the USA, and it works for the Swiss. I'm unaware of any other country that freely allows or encourages firearm ownership... but I suspect more places in the world could come to the peace table if the concept of "disarming the population" was not on that table. And an armed populace would keep the government from reneging on agreements that the people feel strongly about. Of course, that is why the government doesn't want it.
The people need to instruct their government on what they want and what they will not tolerate.
h/t Instapundit
The right to bear arms allows people to feel free; a person who is not allowed to defend himself is a slave, not a citizen. It works well for us, here in the USA, and it works for the Swiss. I'm unaware of any other country that freely allows or encourages firearm ownership... but I suspect more places in the world could come to the peace table if the concept of "disarming the population" was not on that table. And an armed populace would keep the government from reneging on agreements that the people feel strongly about. Of course, that is why the government doesn't want it.
The people need to instruct their government on what they want and what they will not tolerate.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Obama's Cousin Speaks at the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/8/mitt-beat-rick-but-newt-beat-barack/
A great article, proving that Romney's ability to defeat Santorum is irrelevant: he does it by outspending him. Outspending Santorum isn't difficult: he's vastly under funded. The significant point is that there is NO WAY that Romney can outspend the sitting President. Newt Gingrich can't outspend Obama, either, but Gingrich has ideas that leave Obama shaking in his boots, and facts at hand that leave the President's TelePrompTer silent in awe. Neither Romney nor Santorum can do that, or they would have done so by now.
Listen to this half-hour video by Gingrich and see why all the Obama mouthpieces are insisting that the economy is booming, I tell you, booming! ::snicker::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOImnCrKPZ8&feature=relmfu
A great article, proving that Romney's ability to defeat Santorum is irrelevant: he does it by outspending him. Outspending Santorum isn't difficult: he's vastly under funded. The significant point is that there is NO WAY that Romney can outspend the sitting President. Newt Gingrich can't outspend Obama, either, but Gingrich has ideas that leave Obama shaking in his boots, and facts at hand that leave the President's TelePrompTer silent in awe. Neither Romney nor Santorum can do that, or they would have done so by now.
Listen to this half-hour video by Gingrich and see why all the Obama mouthpieces are insisting that the economy is booming, I tell you, booming! ::snicker::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOImnCrKPZ8&feature=relmfu
Thursday, March 1, 2012
RIP Andrew Breitbart
I never met him, but I heard him speak through the graciousness of many others who posted his speeches and interviews on the internet. I read his words eagerly, knowing they would always be sharp, to the point, not a word wasted or a comma added that wasn't absolutely necessary. AB was only 43 years old and died of natural causes in the early morning hours, today.
He was conservative politics on two feet, never resting, never pausing, never afraid to step up and take the shots. He was never afraid to call a spade, a spade, or a Quisling, a Quisling. Many writers today are calling him Conservatism's Happy Warrior, and it's a good epithet for him: he was joyful to take the fight to the enemy.
Best quotable quote, so far:
"You wish to honor the man? Very well, then: take up his sword, and fight as he did."
--Joshua Trevino, on Twitter
We must, you know. Andrew expects it of us.
Best tribute, with links to others:
http://marezilla.com/2012/03/a-great-american-hero-has-died/
He was conservative politics on two feet, never resting, never pausing, never afraid to step up and take the shots. He was never afraid to call a spade, a spade, or a Quisling, a Quisling. Many writers today are calling him Conservatism's Happy Warrior, and it's a good epithet for him: he was joyful to take the fight to the enemy.
Best quotable quote, so far:
"You wish to honor the man? Very well, then: take up his sword, and fight as he did."
--Joshua Trevino, on Twitter
We must, you know. Andrew expects it of us.
Best tribute, with links to others:
http://marezilla.com/2012/03/a-great-american-hero-has-died/
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Peak Oil is an obsolete concept
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/29/obama-loses-his-first-debate/1
And people wonder why I'm a Newt girl...!
Gingrich in 2012
And people wonder why I'm a Newt girl...!
Gingrich in 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)