I have been a longtime listener of your nationally syndicated radio talk show. You are, without question, among the most talented, entertaining, and intelligent of hosts. Many a day, in spite of what disagreements I may have had with you, I have been provoked by, and delighted in, your exchanges with guests and callers. Although I obviously do not know you personally, you also strike me as a genuinely decent human being, a loving husband, devoted father, and a good citizen who really does have his country’s best interests at heart.
Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas has written a “Grieving at Christmas” meditation on the pain and suffering of those who have lost loved ones in one or more of the wars our nation has been fighting over the past decade. The sense of loss weighs most heavily at Christmas time, he notes, when an empty chair at a family gathering might be a grim reminder of one who is not there because his life was cut short by a bullet or a bomb in a city or on a battlefield half a world away. It may be “the most wonderful time of the year” for many, perhaps most of us, “but for those whose fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers or children have died in Iraq and Afghanistan there is a void this Christmas, and Christmases to come, that can never be filled,” Thomas wrote. “It is the same in every war.”
Ron Paul has elaborated on his views in his books, in speeches, and in interviews. During the debates, however, when he has a national audience, he doesn’t always present his views as persuasively as he could. In my last article, I suggested ways in which he could respond to challenges regarding his views on foreign policy and national security. In this article, it is to criticisms concerning his position on drugs and the recently resurrected charge that Paul is a "racist."
Ten years after 9/11, we are finally getting the truth about how our expensive, bureaucratic security services totally bungled their investigations into Islamic terrorism so that 19 Islamic terrorists could hijack four airliners, fly two of them into the twin World Trade Center towers in Manhattan, and fly one into the Pentagon, while one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. While the Bush administration had been warned in August that a terrorist attack was in the making, the warning gave no specifics. Meanwhile, the FBI and the CIA were working at cross-purposes to get the specifics, but were incapable of putting two and two together.
You might assume that revolution brews here in the “Homeland,” given Our Rulers’ paranoia: both the House and Senate have passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA); the bill requires only Obummer’s signature by December 26 to destroy the venerable, infinitely precious right of habeas corpus. Thereafter, the president may declare American citizens “terrorists” with no evidence whatsoever and imprison them indefinitely.
Republicans and Democrats, liberals as well as conservatives, have bought into anti-Chinese trade demagoguery. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that tariffs against China are a "key part of our 'Make It in America' agenda." During his 2010 campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called his tea party-backed Republican challenger, Sharron Angle, "a foreign worker's best friend." In a recent news conference, President Barack Obama gave his support to the anti-China campaign, declaring that China "has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage," adding that "we can and should take action against countries that are keeping their currencies undervalued ... (and) that, above all, means China."
The pro-Gingrich New Hampshire Union Leader/Sunday News published an editorial attack on Ron Paul Sunday, calling “Renegade Ron” a “gadfly, not a contender” in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Perhaps it's a sign the editorial board is worried that the Texas congressman, who has moved into first place in the latest Iowa poll, may overtake Gingrich in New Hampshire as well.
Millions of economic transactions take place every hour in the United States, too many for any central committee in Washington to handle or even Understand, even if they all graduated with honors from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
In writing this piece, I’m reminded of a little exchange between the late William F. Buckley and friend and fellow National Review writer Florence King. Buckley had just penned some less-than-flattering words about a recently deceased person of prominence whose name escapes me, and King chided him, saying something to the effect that he had broken ground in journalism: the “attack-obit.” Buckley’s response was, “Wait till you see the obituary I have planned for you!”
The most listened-to talk radio show host in the country, Rush Limbaugh, is often (though not often enough) critical of what he refers to as the Republican Party establishment. His friends and colleagues, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, are no different in this respect: Each portrays himself as a voice for the rank and file of the Republican Party against the establishment with which it finds itself increasingly at odds.