Obama's "Red Line" Surpassed... Will He Blow His Engine, or Will Congress Shut Him Down?

President Obama said last year that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a "red line". It wasn’t one that he rushed to enforce, but that’s what he called it. Yesterday, President Obama made headlines by saying that the red line wasn’t really his, but the whole world’s, and that “Congress’s credibility is on the line” now that he has punted a decision to lawmakers.

The following is my analysis of Obama's situation:  On August 13, Obama declared that, "It is not in the national security interests of the United States to ignore clear violations of the international norm banning the use of chemical weapons."  This statement carries a veiled threat, after which more definitive threats of "cruise missile strikes" against the Syria's Bashar Assad regime.

There is virtually no international support for any direct action against Syria. The UN won't support it, our friends in the UK won't support. (Apparently they recognize a weak, spineless, wannabe dictator when they see one.) Why? Because there is some confusion over who is gassing whom, and because it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS! There's a political concept called a "false flag operation". Say that  person/party/country "A" is engaged in hostilities with  person/party/country "C".  Country "A" takes some (generally considered outrageously aggressive) action against "B". The key to the success of false flag operation is dependent upon country "A" being able to generate convincing evidence that indicates the action was taken by country "C", thereby causing "B" to redirect some of it's efforts towards the new "threat", and reducing the amount of effort "B" can focus upon "A". To simplify the concept, YOU did something bad to the neighbor on your left, and then convinced him that it wasn't you, but the neighbor across the street that did it.

There is the possibility that either Assad's government forces - or the al Queada-backed rebels - could have orchestrated a false flag attack. Until that is determined beyond a shadow of a doubt we should take no action. Once it has been determined... we should still TAKE NO ACTION! It's not of our concern! The countries of the middle east and Africa have been engaged in tribal and secular warfare since the beginning of recorded history. Any action that an outside country may take will result in a temporary lull in the hostilities at best. Why waste the manpower, the time and the expense of fighting a war simply to interrupt their demonstration of, what for them, is historically "normal behavior"?

The bottom line is this - Obama made a threat which he must either act upon or default upon. He has created - FOR HIMSELF - a lose-lose situation. He cannot blame Bush, or the Republicans, or the TEA Party! So what does he do? He tosses that hot-potato to Congress, in the hope that they will withhold their approval! That would give Obama the international face-saving "out" that he so desperately desires - "It's not my fault! Blame the U.S. Congress for not approving my request to attack Syria!" Isn't it odd that THIS is the FIRST time Obama has gone - hat in hand - to Congress asking them to approve anything (without the threat of invoking an Executive Order to do it anyway)?

 “Congress’s credibility is on the line”?? No, it is Obama's credibility that is on the line. He doesn't have much of that to begin with, and any loss will put him in the deficit column for credibility!

Our Education System Could SUCK Much Less!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of at-risk students could fall through the cracks as the Education Department gives states permission to ignore parts of No Child Left Behind, according to a study education advocates released Tuesday. From an article on "at risk" students "...students who are at the highest risk of dropping out — those from poor families, students whose native language is not English, those with learning disabilities and minority students — are often no longer tracked..."
______________________________________________________________________

The responsibility for satisfactorily completing the course of educational instruction is NOT the responsibility of the government, or the school district, or the teacher.

The federal government has no place in public education. Their unwanted participation shifts the goal from "general education" to one of political indoctrination. The system then becomes corrupt, and the end-product is equally corrupt. "Common Core" is an example of a confusing, ineffective collection of time-wasters.

The school district has the responsibility for establishing learning objectives, and providing the materials necessary to achieve those objectives. Textbook selection should be accomplished by a review panel composed of educators and parents. Basic course outlines should be provided by the district, but allow for some flexibility in the method of presentation in the teacher's lesson plan.

The teacher's job is to present the materials in a way that will facilitate the desired learning outcomes for a given course of instruction. There are many truly dedicated teachers in our country, but there is no shortage of those who see teaching as "just a job" (an unmotivated, unenthusiastic teacher will have unmotivated, unenthusiastic students). Those teachers who lack the ability or the desire to inspire their students should either be re-educated in the joys of their subject matter, or replaced by those who ARE inspiring. Students intuitively "know" if a teacher has enthusiasm for the subject matter, or really enjoys teaching. Lackluster presentations, the absence of visual aids, the indifferent attitude when questions are raised are all indicators of indifference - it's "just a job". The basic problem for teachers is to make demonstrating intelligence (the ability to learn) something desirable and popular with the majority of the students. There are students who are natural-born leaders in every class, win them over and successful education follows shortly thereafter.

The responsibility for learning, however, falls squarely upon the shoulders of the students, for one cannot "teach" those who are unwilling (or unable) to learn. Being "a brain" in the public school system is to become a pariah. In a great part, school is about being "popular" for the kids. Peer acceptance is crucial for most grade school children, and by the time they reach middle-school/junior high school their social status has virtually been decided and "carved in stone" by the other students. The basic problem then, is to create a learning environment where demonstrating intelligence (the ability to learn) is something desirable and popular with the majority of the students. Again... if the natural student leader(s) buy it, the educational process WILL be successful within that particular class. The opening lines of Alexander Pope's well-known poem, "A Little Learning" state:
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring
This is probably MOST true in Chemistry classes! (The reference to "Pierian spring", is that in ancient Greece, the Pierian Spring of Macedonia was believed to be the metaphorical source of knowledge of art and science - the seat of all learning.

Now we have the question of, "Where does NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND fit into this?" Honestly... IT DOESN'T. The inconvenient truth is, that there are some children who cannot keep up with their peers, and NEED to be left behind for their own educational well-being. No Child Left Behind is simply an attempt to make ALL children feel good, feel successful, and feel all warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately, when they enter the real world workplace, nobody gives a rat's if they feel warm and fuzzy. They aren't going to be PAID to feel warm and fuzzy. Warm Fuzzies should come from their friends and families... for free. No Child Left Behind is WELFARE FOR THE MIND!
Using the Wechsler Scale, the mean average IQ of American high school students is 100 (within a range of 80 [low low average] to 130+ [very superior]). A student with an IQ of 90 or above should have little difficulty satisfying educational course requirements... IF PROPERLY MOTIVATED. A student with an IQ in the 80s will probably have some academic difficulties, and an IQ of below 80 will usually suffer frustration and embarrassment in the mainstream public education system. Permitting a student to progress from grade-to-grade simply for the sake of his/her feeling warm and fuzzy is an injustice of great magnitude. There are those students who are intellectually unprepared to achieve "normal" progression in school. There are also those students who lack sufficient motivation to keep pace with their contemporaries. There are other reasons as well, but they are too many to cover each individually... let's call them socioeconomic reasons.

Students should be promoted or held back based upon their mastery (or lack thereof) of the course materials. A "D" grade average should NOT be sufficient to move ahead, while a straight "A" student may be ready for AP classes early in the school year. If a student has not satisfied the academic requirements of the current grade, advancement to the next grade level is doing him/her a tremendous disservice, and LOWERING THE STANDARDS so everybody can move ahead is an even greater disservice.

Our literacy rate has been dropping for over 10 years now, and continues to do so. American students world rankings: 6th in 4th grade reading, 11th in 4th grade math, 9th in 8th grade math and 10th in 8th grade science. This is appalling! Parents have a responsibility to insure their children are properly prepared to ENTER school, insure their children DO their homework assignments, and to stress to their children to, "Always strive for excellence, in ALL things."

Is THIS  what you want for YOUR CHILD?

I HADN'T INTENDED A TRILOGY REGARDING RACIAL TENSIONS...

But... here's number three (in-a-row). I don't consider myself a racist, but I do consider myself to be informed. I've been following a website called World Net Daily (WND.com) for several years now, because they seem to keep us aware of subjects which the mainstream media apparently wants the general public to remain ignorant. Of course for the last 15 months, the BIG continuing news story has been the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

For those of you who may have been off the planet during that time, here's the story in a nutshell -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin, a 17 year old black youth, was walking back from a store inside a gated community in Sanford, Florida. The gated community utilizes the "Neighborhood Watch" style of security, as opposed to the services of a professional security company.

A member of the NW, a man named George Zimmerman, was driving around the area when he spotted Martin walking through the community, up close to the houses. Martin was not known to Zimmerman as a resident thereof, so he observed Martin's progress into the community, and called 911 (there had been 8 burglaries there in the preceding 14 months, and Zimmerman thought that Martin's proximity to the houses was "suspicious"). After speaking with a police dispatcher, Zimmerman thought it prudent to exit his vehicle and follow Martin on foot, even though the dispatcher had said, "We don't need you to do that."(Understand that a dispatcher is not a sworn police officer, and  as such has no authority to do anything but advise, suggest, and recommend to people calling in.)

At some point during the "following", there was a physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin, during which Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, the state had weak-to-no facts to support their prosecution for murder or even manslaughter, and he was declared not guilty by "a jury of his peers". Significant portions of the black American community from coast-to-coast and border-to-border were upset by the verdict, and their emotions ran from disappointed to violent, law-breaking outrage (from acts of vandalism, to assaulting "white people", to invading and pillaging a WalMart in Oakland CA). The feeling seemed to be that a black man still can't get "justice" in the southern United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, back to the subject of  "racial tensions", and how WND.com figures into that subject. Recently I have noticed that WND has -  almost daily - reported articles on "The Knockout Game" (where roving gangs of blacks assault random whites for no reason and beat them senseless), other forms of black-on-white violence, black mobs taking over shopping malls, etc. This raised the question in my mind, "Is WND simply reporting that which the mainstream media chooses not to release to the public, or are they actually promoting and surreptitiously supporting and encouraging racial tensions?" The fact that it even raised that question for me, is an indication that WND seems to have an agenda - the problem is determining exactly what that "agenda" is. Is it accurate and honest reportage, or attempting to incite racial separation?

We know that the mainstream media either glosses over - or totally ignores - stories that have a racial undercurrent, using phrases like "Eight Youths Attack Elderly Woman" while ignoring racial identification of the either party. This is (ostensibly) designed to minimize the identification of non-whites and whites, as perpetrator or victim in an attempt to smooth over whatever existing rift may exist between the races. On one hand, that's admirable... but, on the other hand, it is not informing people that one race may have valid reasons for distrusting those of a different race. Regardless of their reasoning, I see such reporting as inarguable media bias. Manipulating the news in order to support a political viewpoint is biased reporting.

The Zimmerman-Martin case is an excellent example of what happens when the people involved are identified by race. A (white) Hispanic man kills a black teenager, is tried in and declared guilty by the media, but found not guilty by the court, and there is rioting. A black man (or group of blacks) kills a white person, and - unless that white person is a member of Congress or among the super rich - it goes on page 8 of the Podunk Times, and is never even considered for national media coverage. Why is this? Could it be because black-on-white crime is so commonplace that it isn't considered newsworthy, or is it someone's idea of supporting improved race relations... by simultaneously violating the people's right to know?

I'd like to get comments from whoever visits this blog regarding their personal take on this situation. Go the the WND website ( www.wnd.com ), once or twice a day for several days and follow their race-based reporting, then let me know how you interpret their "style". Do they seem to be even slightly racist... or is it just that they are willing to maintain a higher degree of honesty in their reporting? Somebody please let me know their thoughts, so that perhaps I can consider adjusting my own one way or the other.

Time Magazine Says "It's Racist For Cops to Prepare For Riots After Zimmerman Verdict"

For the benefit of those of you who have been off the planet for the last year or so, the "Zimmerman" is George Zimmerman (a "white-hispanc"), who is being (feebly) prosecuted for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin (a black teen). There have been rumblings - from somewhere - that if Zimmerman is not convicted there will be racial unrest in Sanford, Florida - if not the entire universe.

Although their decision to prepare IS "race-based" it IS NOT "racist". Black Americans have a long history of "playing the race card" based upon their "victim" status. In the past - prior to 1960 - some of it was fully-justified. That deck of "race cards" has long-since been exhausted.

However, preparations in and around Sanford, Florida to quell rioting is not solely race-based - it is also based upon the historically documented reactions of black Americans to any action taken against any member of the "black community". In their eyes, blacks can do no wrong. If they DO commit a crime it is "whitey's fault" for having something they wanted. If Trayvon Martin had killed George Zimmerman, there would be a black mob outside the court, demanding Trayvon's release. He would have been justified in killing Z for having the audacity to question his presence in a gated community of which he was not a resident. What a racist thing for Z to do!

OJ Simpson murdered two people in cold blood, but he was not found INNOCENT. He was found "not guilty". Why? Because LA did not want an re-enactment of the Rodney King incident, or the LA riots of the mid-1960s, it was a political decision rather than a legal one. Black Americans (especially when a high-profile case is being tried in a large metropolitan area) are - perhaps naturally - inclined to side with the black person - whether victim or perpetrator. That inclination may also be based upon the history of blacks with our system of justice, inasmuch as they were not always fairly tried - especially in our southern states.

Regardless of the reasons, black Americans have a HISTORY of violent reactions when things don't go their way. It would be foolish for law enforcement to ignore that fact. It is that history which necessitates the expectation of - and preparations for - race-based violence, if Z IS NOT convicted. Such preparations are based upon history. If the Chinese, Mexican, Arab or Caucasians had such a history, there would be the VARY SAME preparations being made! Are the people at Time Magazine too stupid to understand that? Do they not see the potential for their remarks to FUEL such an incident... or is that their PLAN? Violence in the streets makes GREAT news, and sells lots of magazines!

The good news? I'm not certain that there is any - other than the fact that Sanford FL is NOT a "large metropolitan area", and unless agitators come from outside the community, the chances of rioting by the black population fail to appear realistic to me. Most blacks are as law-abiding as any other racial group - but THEY aren't the one's that get the national publicity! THEY aren't the one's getting arrested and filling our prisons! THEY also aren't the one's that will get involved in a riot of any kind... unless the facts surrounding the riot are "beyond a shadow of a doubt"! That's my 2¢ worth.

Racism - Preserved And Fed By Government And Media For Political Profit!

The "legal" separation of the races that compose the USA, technically ended in 1968. Unfortunately, some folks couldn't reject a concept that their daddies, and their daddies daddies (etc, etc), had held onto as the single social indicator that they themselves were not on the bottom rung of the ladder of success. That personal philosophy justified individual racism... int their minds. However, without "racism" - real or imagined - the minorities in our country would no longer be able to complain about their role as "victim". There has been social discrimination since the beginning of the human race, and it will continue to exist through at least a couple of more generations. It is the humanized version of the old saw - "birds of a feather...". There are weak personalities (and minds), black, white, brown, etc., that cannot let go of their personal prejudices, whether they have any basis in reality or not.

The evil and dreaded "N" word is no longer PC... but NOTHING has been said about the derisive terms "honky, whitey, ofay, cracker, etc." Apparently, racism is a single-edged sword that only cuts one way, and MUST be wielded only by the Caucasians of our country. The Black Panthers and the "Nation of Islam" LOVE whitey... don't they? (<-- p="" sarcasm="">
Blacks are not genetically designed in such a way that they are prejudice free, but they have overworked the "racial victim" role, and they have done so with the full support of our government. OPEN-ENDED WELFARE is our government's design to keep blacks (and "po' white trash") dependent upon the government. If the government can keep people dependent upon them for supplying their basic (and MANY more-than-basic) needs, then the recipients will sacrifice their freedoms to maintain the continuous flow of those freebies. Welfare does NOT give the recipient a "hand up"... it is a foot on the back of the recipients neck - a tool of oppression and compliance. We have 5th and 6th generation welfare families in this country - they have turned welfare into THE FAMILY BUSINESS! Welfare should only be a "bridge" between dependence and independence, between consumption and productivity, and between indolence and industriousness.

I was raised with a work ethic - which, simply stated was, "If you don't work, you don't eat!" I still recall the lesson of Aesop's fable, "The Grasshopper and the Ant", and today Americans are almost 50% GRASSHOPPERS, and unemployment grows daily. What will happen when there are more people living off the labors of others than there are people actively laboring? There are only so many Congressional Seats (seats of PRIVILEGE, who vote their own raises, and can exempt themselves from any law that is deemed detrimental to them - like Obamacare).

My attitude is that "What's fair for one, should be fair for ALL". My attitude DOES NOT entitle our elected officials to vote on their own pay raises, or to exclude themselves from any law that applies to the public at large. Pay raises and benefit packages should be by public referendum, and the laws that effect one MUST have the same effect upon ALL! That's my 2¢ worth...

THIRD PARTY POLITICS - is it finally TIME? The Government Serves the People...

Some people see the citizen-government relationship as it SHOULD BE (the government is the servant of the people) not as it really is (the government is the servant of big business and big money). And, if the Demoncrap socialists are successful in the 2014 Senatorial mid-terms, and succeed once again in 2016, we are totally effed. We need a conservative voter uprising! No Black Panthers with clubs at the polling places. Politically-balanced voting machine certification, politically balanced vote counters, and NO SEIU INVOLVEMENT, NO UNION POLL WATCHERS, and NO DEAD, COMIC BOOK/CARTOON CHARACTERS, or NON-CITIZEN voters casting ballots.

A VIABLE Third Party is the only way to give voters a real choice, since Demoncraps and Republicants are no longer opposite sides of the same coin - they are both on the edge of the political coin. There has been no distinguishable difference between their platforms in almost three decades. Yet, in order to be viable, a 3P candidate must have a NATIONALLY RECOGNIZABLE name (in a positive sense). There are only a handful who meet that standard. Allen West and Sarah Palin are two names that immediately come to mind, with Utah Senator Mike Lee coming in at a close third. (Senator Lee has shown the courage to vociferously - and publicly - speak out against several of Obama's UN-American - engineered for the continued failure of our country - schemes.)

There will be many who refuse to give up their "straight party ticket", and vote as they have done all their adult lives, without regard for what is best for the continued survival and successful growth of our nation. There will still be the "What's in it for me?" voter, the single-issue voter, and the low-to-no-information (politically unconscious) voter swayed by "pie-in-the-sky" promises. These conditions will be difficult to overcome, and I'm not sure We the People are quite ready for a Third Party... but we damn-well SHOULD BE!

Edward Snowden - American Hero or American Traitor?

Edward Snowden, as a result of his own actions, is at present living the Tom Hanks movie "The Terminal", in Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport. If he has provided anyone outside the USA with classified information regarding techniques and technology, he is indeed a TRAITOR. If he has only disclosed the fact of US spying - which is an activity engaged in by ALL countries, and ALL countries are aware that it is a global practice - then he is not a traitor - just something less than a "hero". His status right now is a bit muddy in my mind. My initial impression when he leaked the story in the USA was, "Hero!", because I believe that We the People have the right to know when our OWN government is spying upon us. Our government is the servant, not the master! For the Obama administration, it adds just one more "end-run" to the never-ending succession of circumventions of our Constitution! But, I digress from my topic...

However, Snowden then began his World Tour of Countries Which Are Not Amicably Disposed Toward The United States of America. Undoubtedly, these countries were well-aware that they were being spied upon by each other and the rest of the world, which made me wonder if he was giving away information that would be SEVERELY damaging to the international and intelligence efforts or the USA.

"Embarrassing information" is not a BFD - embarrassment is basically a "no foul-no harm" condition. Our biggest embarrassment is Barack Obama and the merry band of Commies he appointed to powerful agency offices and his cabinet. It demonstrates OUR inability to make good, sound decisions. However, his inability (or is it disinterest?) to perform his Constitutional duties as POTUS - to the benefit of the We the People - is MUCH more dangerous. Obama and his co-conspirators are working to the DETRIMENT of our nation. Why is there such a hue and cry for Snowden's head, when those in government who are calling for Snowden's punishment are EQUALLY GUILTY of treasonous acts against the interests of the United State of America? Perhaps a few politicians in D.C. had plans of making some "political hay" by releasing similar information themselves during the 2014 Senate race, and Edward Snowden spoiled that opportunity for them. Regardless of any future plans for the information, the "leakage" did create a distraction from the scandals plaguing the Obama administration (Benghazi, Patient Affordable Care Act [aka: Obamacare], IRS, Fast and Furious, drones, etc... Our nation was established on less than 20 sheets of paper - Obamacare alone is now at more than 20,000 pages, including associated regulations, weighs about 24 pounds, and is a stack of paper 7'3" high). What's wrong with THAT picture?

By comparison, Edward Snowden is a relative minnow when compared to the Moby-Dick whale composing the inner-circle of the Obama administration! Punishing ONE traitor(?), should necessitate punishing ALL traitors!

EX-BORDER PATROL AGENTS GET AT LEAST 30 YEARS

Thus read the headline on the Yahoo News AP article by Julie Watson this morning, and here's the deal...
"Two brothers who worked as Border Patrol agents were sentenced to at least 30 years in prison each for smuggling hundreds of immigrants into the United States, crimes that the judge termed a threat to national security." "...Judge Houston said he gave the severe sentences to deter other agents who have been entrusted by the American people to protect the border. The judge called their smuggling operation "disgusting."

How about we sentence Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder and His Highness Barack I to the same prison terms? THEY permit such actions by NOT ENFORCING our immigration laws, and by discouraging BP Agents from doing so. THEY are complicit in the "crimes that the judge termed a threat to national security", and THEY are the primary "agents who have been entrusted by the American people to protect the border." THEY are the ones who want not only to PERMIT illegal aliens to remain in the country, but the ones who wish to REWARD them for violating our laws.

Why is our "National Guard" being dispatched to the middle east, when the NATION is here? Shouldn't the "National Guard" be directly involved in guarding the nation, as the name implies? And it seems to me that the Border Patrol Agents in general, must be a bit confused. Seven years ago two BP Agents were imprisoned for DOING their job (the Compean and Ramos injustice), and now two more imprisoned for doing what the administration now claims is the right thing to do! Talk about a "mixed message". And now - according to the latest version of the "Immigration Bill" - the government wants to hire 20,000 more BP Agents to do exactly WHAT? Ignore people entering the country illegally?

Obama, Holder and Napolitano are the BIGGEST threats to national security, if one considers that We the People are those who COMPOSE "the nation", and each day the administration nibbles away a bit more of the Bill of Rights... while Congress sits quietly doing nothing to stop them.

IMPEACH THEM ALL!

"Major" Nidal Hasan asks for a further 3 month delay in his trial for premeditated murder at Fort Hood, TX!

His trial was set to begin last month when Hasan, 42, requested to go to trial acting as his own attorney. He initially told the court he would be able to proceed with no delay, but he asked for a three-month delay just minutes after presiding judge Col. Tara Osborn granted his request.
Hasan has since told the court he targeted soldiers who were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan.

Hasan has said he will attempt to justify the killing of 13 people on post in 2009 with a “defense of others” strategy. Those "others" are the Taliban!

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "The ally of my enemy is my enemy." Hasan murdered - in cold blood - 13 unarmed American soldiers, and wounded 32 others! His "defense of others" claim makes him also guilty of treason, by taking arms against the U.S. protect an enemy. As Ben Franklin once said regarding legal proceedings, "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client."

This particular fool has already had 3½ YEARS of delays, and is being allowed to make a mockery of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which he will - someday perhaps - be tried. My attitude is quite basic - TRY HIM AND FRY HIM! If you think that's barbaric, so be it, but the facts are quite simple - 
1. Civilian police responded to a call (maybe the MP's didn't know what to do) at the Fort Hood Army Installation.
2. When they arrived at the scene, they were fired upon by the only person in the vicinity with firearms.
3. Police returned fire, seriously injuring their attacker.
4. When the opportunity presented itself, they surveyed the room and found 45 people shot, 13 of whom were dead.
5. The person firing upon the police was "Major" Nidal Hasan. Inasmuch as there was no other person in the immediate area holding weapons or firing upon police, Hasan was arrested.  He was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 32 counts of attempted murder... MORE THAN 43 MONTHS AGO!
6. He apparently has not denied the charges, but his "defense of others" is nothing less than an admission of guilt. Basically, he is saying, "I did it, but I should be forgiven because I did it in the defense of others." How many Taliban were under attack in that room on 9 November 2009? Oh.. none? Using Hasan's reasoning, we should now kill ALL Muslims, wherever we find them, because the Taliban are Muslims, and the Taliban kill Americans. How monumentally STUPID is that line of reasoning? Yet the Army is entertaining Hasan's request. Proof positive that, "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client."

While incarcerated awaiting trial, Hasan has violated Army regulations by growing a beard. He could be tried under the UCMJ for that, while his other trial date is pending resolution. He should have been reduced in rank to that of E-1, and all pay and allowances forfeited. Was he? No. Instead, Hasan has accumulated over $248,000 in pay and allowances during that period! This is TAXPAYER MONEY - and IT CONTINUES TO ACCRUE IN HIS ACCOUNT TODAY!

Maybe Obama will make him a "Senior Adviser on Islamic Protective Affairs", so he can invoke "Executive Privilege", and not be tried at all. God save us from our own stupidity and the insanity of Political Correctness!

Media Personalities Hackneying Phrases and Creating Previously Non-existent Words

I listen to quite a bit of radio when out driving in the car, or even sitting at my keyboard as I am now. The first part of my title for this post is something of which most of us are painfully aware, although we may not all be familiar with the term "hackney/hackneyed/hackneying". Quite simply put, when a phrase becomes "hackneyed" it has been made trite or banal though overuse. In other words, we have tired of hearing it! One of my most unfavorite (if they can create words, so can I) of these is the wearying overuse of the phrase "At the end of the day..." - which I just heard "America's National Treasure" use on the radio. At the end of the day, I could just scream, "Are you talking heads incapable of turning a phrase?" Just for a change of pace, why not try throwing out an occasional,  "When all is said and done...", or "When the dust settles...", or "As the sun begins to set on...", or tell us how "The bottom line is..."? Better yet, how about just a simple "As I see it...", or "The outcome of this situation will/may/should be...". I am fully aware that most of those recommended phrases have themselves become hackneyed, but if they all would be frequently interspersed by broadcast personalities, they would not be nearly as noticeable.

Fox News Radio is particularly bad for hackney and creation. The personalities on Fox are apparently lexicographers (by network acclamation), and are therefore permitted to create new, non-existent words for the English language. Recently the popular non-word seems to be "political strategerist". THERE'S NO SUCH WORD AS "STRATEGERIST"! What was wrong with using the dictionary defined word of "strategist"? Did it sound too mundane? Were there not enough letters in it to emphasize the importance of this critical occupation (sarcasm)? Does a "strategerist" do something other than analyze, recommend and implement strategy... as does a strategist?

Call it one of my (many) "pet peeves" if you like, but there is something inherently wrong about anyone who uses the English language as the means of earning a living, using that language incorrectly. To me, it's virtually impossible to ignore. It's like seeing a Volkswagen Minibus attempting to navigate the slalom course at a Sports Car Club of America rally. For the most part, our beloved "Talking Heads" are not uneducated people., so why are they so cavalier in their use of the English language?