Google “Islamist” and you’ll get more than 24 million hits. Google “jihadist” and you’ll get millions more. Yet I bet the average American could not tell you what it is that Islamists and jihadists believe. And those at the highest levels of the U.S. government refuse to do so.
An Internet search is inconclusive as to where the phrase "no skin in the game" originated. Some ascribe it to the late columnist William Safire; others to investor Warren Buffett. Politicians often use the phrase to justify policies to their liking. It can also be applied to the latest in a long list of their outrageous behaviors, as well as to those of President Obama.
President Barack Obama narrowly defeated Gov. Mitt Romney in the popular vote 51 percent to 48 percent. In the all-important Electoral College, the difference was larger, with Obama winning 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. Let's not think so much about the election's outcome but instead ask: What's so good about democracy and majority rule?
A more important, historically speaking, presidential election than America’s concluded last week … where Xi Jinping was entrusted with the leadership of China.
Americans just cast ballots for president, for the House, and for a third of the U.S. Senate, plus various local offices and referenda in our splendid Quadriennale. It is a moment for reflection … about our expectations of our elected officials. Our national political Narrative is fixated on the presidency while, Constitutionally, the House of Representatives is our key governing body. The presidency — as well as the campaign for that splendid star turn — turns out to be 90% theater and 10% substance.
Last month, a New York Times story noted "an extraordinary event" in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. President Mikheil Saakashvili, whose human rights record is not exactly the gold standard, "conceded defeat in parliamentary elections," saying gamely that "democracy works in this way."
No doubt there are thousands, possibly even millions of people like me who are glad that the election season is (more than likely, barring recounts) coming to an end.
If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: It's your civic duty to vote. Between now and Election Day – unless you're planning an extended session in a sensory-deprivation tank – you'll no doubt hear it again. And again.
A year before Mitt Romney picked him as a running mate, Paul Ryan gave a speech in which he discussed the promise and peril of the Arab Spring. More generally, Ryan said, "American policy should be tempered by a healthy humility about the extent of our power to control events in other regions."
There's a good chance that American voters will screw up the presidential election. "How could you say such a thing when in a democracy the people are, by definition, correct?" you ask.
Does voter fraud actually exist? If you ask members of the Obama administration, Democratic lawmakers or the left-leaning media, they often argue it's a myth concocted by Republicans to suppress Democratic turnout. Even U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has called voter fraud "a problem that does not really exist." But what you won't see in most of the nation's headlines is the series of explosive investigations by patriot James O'Keefe and his nonprofit, Project Veritas.
The Obama campaign has targeted women as a key part of his election with the main issues being abortion rights, pay equity, and health coverage for contraception. Breaking it down, two out of three major issues for women are tied to reproductive rights.
On October 28, 2012 Ukraine will hold their first democratic parliamentary elections since agreeing to new rules in November 2011, a significant achievement in reforming the electoral process.
The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.
Pick up any 40-year-old science textbook – on chemistry, biology, geology, physics, astronomy or medicine – and you’ll find a slew of “facts” and theories that have been proven wrong or are no longer the “consensus” view. Climatology is no exception.