Back in mid-August, it was reported that the Obama Administration was considering denying Taiwan’s request for new F-16C/D fighter jets out of political pressure from Communist China. At the time I pointed out that denying Taiwan’s request could be direct evidence of our national security coming under direct threat as a result of our dependence on China’s willingness to gobble-up U.S. debt.
Well, we don’t have to speak hypothetically anymore, as Bill Gertz of The Washington Times reports, “The president decided against selling Taiwan 66 advanced F-16 C/D model aircraft, despite several requests from Taipei and Congress.”
So why did Obama decide against selling these advanced fighter jets to Taiwan? Money, money, money… borrowed money that is.
Are you ready for some football!? The NFL season kicks off tonight on NBC with the defending Super Bowl champs, the Green Bay Packers, hosting the previous years’ Super Bowl champs, the New Orleans Saints. But while you’re settling in to enjoy pre-game festivities, eat hot wings, drink beer and celebrate the fact that there is even an NFL season to begin with, you’re going to be interrupted by President Barack Obama.
First of all, you’re probably wondering why the headline says "energy glut" when we’re so dependent on foreign sources of oil. Before I get there, the MSNBC/Politico debate had a few good moments on energy policy, specifically by Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry, on America’s energy policy. All three made the case for unleashing our own natural resources to spur job creation, promote economic growth and secure our country from oil cartels and despots.
The argument made this evening by the Republican Presidential contenders is sound (and now back to the “glut” headline). As former Governor George Allen recently said, “We are number one in the world when it comes to energy resources. You would never know it. The Russians are second; Saudi Arabia is number three.” Skeptical? Read PolitiFact’s “Truth-O-Meter” on the subject, which rated Allen’s comments “true.”
This evening, MSNBC/Politico put on quite a show at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library. With pointed questions seemingly designed to force Republican candidates for President of the United States to attack one another, specifically Texas Governor Rick Perry, one in particular on “science” seemed utterly bias.
Former Governor Jon Huntsman was asked about his chief strategist's comments regarding the Republican Party becoming the “anti-science party.” Huntsman demurred, sort of like former Governor Tim Pawlenty did when asked about his ObamneyCare comment in the first major debate. But the heart of the matter was to attack Perry and his stance on alleged climate change, or as it used to be called, “global warming.” What’s funny about the whole line of thinking is - from the perspective of liberal outlets like MSNBC - that climate change, global warming, or whatever, is as sure a thing as the sky is blue.
For the first time tonight, in what appears to be a settled field of Republican candidates for the nomination to run as the party’s standard bearer for President, many issues were debated. One of them was education.
A question was posed to Texas Governor Rick Perry about his record on education and recent budget cuts. Perry acquitted himself well, pointing to the fact that companies continue to come to his state to relocate their businesses because there is a strong, well-educated work force.
That is all well and good, but what struck me was the question itself. The implication was – from the pointed bias – that cutting money for education equates to diminished returns on education. Some may believe that America’s education ills are a matter of money. I suggest that it is not.
Turks and Caicos. Amazing water and fantastic beaches. ThinkFY has just returned from a much needed vacation and is ready to get back to work, blogging, tweeting, and playing frisbee with the dogs. Come back soon for new posts and video.