Witch’s Will For A Morning In March
I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.
This “Cheesehead” is tired of winter and tired of looking at snow. So here ya go…
My Pick of the Litter Today
Intellectuals and Race
There are so many fallacies about race that it would be hard to say which is the most ridiculous. However, one fallacy behind many other fallacies is the notion that there is something unusual about different races being unequally represented in various institutions, careers or at different income or achievement levels.
A hundred years ago, the fact that people from different racial backgrounds had very different rates of success in education, in the economy and in other endeavors, was taken as proof that some races were genetically superior to others.
Some races were considered to be so genetically inferior that eugenics was proposed to reduce their reproduction, and Francis Galton urged “the gradual extinction of an inferior race.”
It was not a bunch of fringe cranks who said things like this. Many held Ph.D.s from the leading universities, taught at the leading universities and were internationally renowned.
Presidents of Stanford University and of MIT were among the many academic advocates of theories of racial inferiority — applied mostly to people from Eastern and Southern Europe, since it was just blithely assumed in passing that blacks were inferior.
This was not a left-right issue. The leading crusaders for theories of genetic superiority and inferiority were iconic figures on the left, on both sides of the Atlantic.
John Maynard Keynes helped create the Cambridge Eugenics Society. Fabian socialist intellectuals H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were among many other leftist supporters of eugenics.
It was much the same story on this side of the Atlantic. President Woodrow Wilson, like many other Progressives, was solidly behind notions of racial superiority and inferiority. He showed the movie “Birth of a Nation,” glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, at the White House, and invited various dignitaries to view it with him.
Such views dominated the first two decades of the 20th century. Now fast forward to the last few decades of the 20th century. The political left of this era was now on the opposite end of the spectrum on racial issues. Yet they too regarded differences in outcomes among racial and ethnic groups as something unusual, calling for some single, sweeping explanation.
Now, instead of genes being the overriding reason for differences in outcomes, racism became the one-size-fits-all explanation. But the dogmatism was the same. Those who dared to disagree, or even to question the prevailing dogma in either era were dismissed — as “sentimentalists” in the Progressive era and as “racists” in the multicultural era.
BREAKING: Judge Slaps Down Bloomberg Big Gulp Ban
Nanny state- 0
Liberty – 1
Great news New Yorkers! You can still order that large soda with your pizza. New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling has struck down New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “big gulp” ban on large sugary drinks. According to Fox News, the judge called Bloomberg’s ban “arbitrary and capricious.” The arbitrary and capricious regulations were supposed to go into effect tomorrow.
New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling commented that NYC is “enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations,” according to the WSJ. “The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole…the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule,” he continued.
Milton was elected by New York County constituents, not appointed by Mayor Bloomberg.
Raw Numbers Expose Extreme Media Bias Against Koch Brothers
Mark Tapscott, executive editor of The Washington Examiner, did an interesting spot-check yesterday. Using the search engines of a few high-profile news outlets, he documented the number of references each made to conservative political activists, “the Koch Brothers,” as compared to left-wing political activists, “The Tides Foundation.”
According to IRS documents available to Tapscott, Tides spreads around almost six times as much money as the Kochs, and yet Tapscott’s research shows that two major newspapers and Common Cause (4,560 versus 1) — “the dean of campaign finance reform advocacy organizations” — are much more obsessed with reporting on, exposing, and tracking the Kochs.
I did my own spot-check at Politico and found what Tapscott found at The New York Times (1130 versus 64) and The Washington Post (277 versus 1). Politico references to Tides: 105; Politico references to the Koch Brothers: 488. Good heavens, Politico is so out of control on this issue that they handed the “Koch Beat” to Ken Vogel, a “reporter” who once worked for the George Soros-funded Center for Public integrity.
Those numbers help to backfill a point I’ve been trying to make since the ObamaMedia went insane over the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision which gave corporations the right to free speech: The media doesn’t care about outside corporate money influencing politics, as long as it is the right kind of outside money.
Media companies are corporations, and in many cases, they are nothing more than cogs in the wheel of huge multi-nationals. The media, however, have no problem with media corporations influencing politics. In other words, there is no higher form of hypocrisy than media corporations going after other corporations. Why is it moral for Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times to influence politics, but not the Koch Brothers?
Bolling, Hannity, Trump Battle for ‘#Open Our WH’
By Jeffrey Lord
Carney doesn’t reveal White House is a museum funded by private contributions.
Can you say “White House Historical Association”?
Or Donald Trump?
And just what is the Obama White House hiding in this business of stopping White House tours?
Let’s begin with a Twitter or two:
That would be Fox’s Eric Bolling, who gets immense credit for stepping up to the plate and getting the ball rolling on paying for White House tours. The Twitter hash tag is part of his drive to get the Obama administration to resume White House tours halted, according to White House press secretary Jay Carney, because of the sequester.
Appearingon Fox and Friends yesterday morning, Bolling held up a sign with “#OpenOurWH@ericbolling” and said “I think we’re gonna get ’em open.…They’re hurting the kids to make a cheap political stunt…”.
It is a cheap stunt. Cheaper than you know, more of which in a moment.
In addition to Sean Hannity joining the fight — Hannity had quickly tweeted his support (“@seanhannity.@ericbolling great idea! Count me in, I will pay for a week also!”) while Bolling was still on the air of his show The Five where Bolling made his original announcement — Donald Trump has now signed up. Suggested by Newt Gingrich, once Trump became aware of what was happening the billionaire mogul said: “Why not?”
What’s involved here? Reports CNN:
The U.S. Secret Service told CNN Thursday that the plan will help the agency save $74,000 per week — or $2 million in the next seven months. That’s how much it costs to pay 37 uniformed officers $50 an hour for 40 hours a week to secure the tour’s route through the East Wing.
The response from the White House? Reported CNN about the White House answer as to whether Bolling, Hannity, and Trump could fund the tours?
Asked if the White House could accept private donations to fund the tours, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday “I don’t know if it’s technically possible.”
“My guess is that it’s not,” he said in the daily briefing. “The reason for that is that the sequester mandates across the board, non-strategic, indiscriminate, cuts to the budget. It allows very little, if any, flexibility.’”
The White House has just made another mistake — well aside from closing the tours in the first place.
Mistake? What mistake?
How about not exactly telling the truth here.
What is it one sees when one takes the White House tour? What is it you are really eyeballing when you walk through the White House to look at the famous old portraits and all that fine antique furniture?
But the White House?
No. You are not seeing “the White House.”
What the Obama administration is not telling Americans being denied these tours — hey, why be helpful to folks when you can both ignore Eric Bolling Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump while scoring some cheap political points at the expense of the kids? —is this:
The White House isn’t just “the White House”…..itis by law a privately funded museum.
And for an administration that loved to boast of its ties to the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the Obama administration should know better. And surely does.
But here’s the facts for the rest of America.
When Jacqueline Kennedy became First Lady in 1961, she was appalled at the condition of the White House. Finding it filled with what her friend and JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger called“mediocre reproductions,” she was so appalled “she resolved on the spot to establish the President’s residence thereafter as unequivocally the nation’s house and transform it into a house of which the nation could be thoroughly proud.”
How did Jackie Kennedy do that?
Very interesting and informative piece. Unlike a Jay Carney press conference.
Charm has its limits
by Dana Milbank
“Happy Monday!” began Carney, wearing a festive yellow tie and striking a casual pose. “Good afternoon. Thanks for being here for your White House briefing. Spring is here early.”
But it was not long before the White House press secretary was back in his winter of discontent. The first questioner, the Associated Press’s Jim Kuhnhenn, asked Carney to square President Obama’s “charm offensive” with his decision to speak this week to the highly partisan Organizing for Action group.
“I think you’re misrepresenting the group,” Carney informed Kuhnhenn.
NPR’s Mara Liasson asked him a question about Obama’s yet-to-be-released budget. “Mara, the way you phrase that question, you know, makes me think that you’re still working on a typewriter or something,” Carney told the 57-year-old radio correspondent.
He further informed ABC News’s Ann Compton that she had a mistaken understanding of the president’s meetings this week with lawmakers. And when CBS’s Bill Plante pressed him on when Obama would release a budget (it was supposed to have been done last month), Carney leaned forward to argue.
Rand Paul gave a 13-hour filibuster asking whether Obama can order drone strikes on American soil. I guess the answer is “no”, since the Senate building is still standing.
What’s Up With the Democrats?
Democrat Budget and other fantasies…
Senate Democrats say they will soon pass their first budget in four years, but it is proving a test.
Disputes over tax cuts, spending reductions and entitlement reform all present challenges to Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
The Democrats’ narrow 12-10 majority on the panel means one defection would mean failure, if Republicans stick together as expected…
They have signaled that their budget will do more to raise revenue than to cut spending and that it will not end deficits. In a memo, Murray adumbrated the justification for this by noting that Congress has already approved $1.8 trillion in spending cuts since 2010 but only $600 billion in new taxes.
President Obama is unlikely to balance the budget when he releases his budget blueprint next month.
White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday said Obama’s budget will seek to put the U.S. on a “fiscally sustainable path” that brings the deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product.
He said Obama’s proposal would not attempt to hit an arbitrary target, however, and that it will only project over the next decade…
“It should not be deficit reduction for deficit reduction’s sake. The goal here should be economic growth and job creation,” Carney said.
If Carney said it, it should be taken with not a grain of salt but with a whole shaker.
What Up With Republicans?
How Republicans got their groove back
Just two months ago, everything was coming up roses for President Obama in Washington. Nearly 60 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing as president, Republicans looked hopelessly divided, and he had just managed to raise taxes on the American people by $600 billion over the next 10 years.
One senior White House aide called Obama’s tax hike “one of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple of decades.”
It’s been downhill for Obama ever since.
None of his second term agenda items (amnesty, gun control or climate change) has advanced in either chamber of Congress. He has failed to win the “grand bargain” he so desperately wants on tax hikes and spending cuts, and his approval rating, at 45 percent, is not just below 50 but also below his disapproval (46 percent) in the latest Quinnipiac poll.
SOMETHING TO BRING A SMILE …
Obama Resists Simple Fixes for Sequestration Cuts
The little secret of sequestration is that the Obama administration could fix much of the problem pretty quickly. But it doesn’t want to.
Congress tells executive branch agencies how much money they can spend and how they should spend it. Sometimes the instructions are broad, and sometimes they are quite detailed. Cabinet secretaries and lower-downs are bound to work within those congressional directives.
But if Cabinet officers want to spend the money differently, there is a long-established process for doing so: They ask Congress for permission. It happens all the time, with lawmakers routinely giving the executive branch the OK to spend money in different ways than originally planned.
That could be happening now. All those Obama administration officials complaining about across-the-board cuts dictated by sequestration could come up with plans to make the same amount of cuts in ways that would create fewer problems for federal workers and services. Then they could ask Congress for permission to do so. Lawmakers would say yes, and things would be fine.
But it’s not happening. And the fault is not with Congress.
In recent weeks, House Republicans have been virtually begging administration officials to ask for permission to move money around. If one program could be more easily cut than others, those Republicans say, just ask us, and we’ll let you do it.
“We sent out on Feb. 28 a letter to every Cabinet officer asking them what changes they’d like to have — pluses, subtractions and so on — to give them an opportunity to show us at least one program they would like to have cut, which would then save on sequestration,” Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in an interview recently. “We did not receive a single answer.”
Issa explained that Congress can allow Cabinet officials to “reprogram” money to ease the burden of sequestration. For example, the sequester requires the Department of Transportation to cut $2 billion from its budget.
“If they were to come up with, for example, $500 million in cuts, their remaining sequestration would drop by 25 percent,” Issa said. “If they were able to come up with $2 billion worth of things they wanted to drop altogether or reduce, then they would have no sequestration.”
In other words, Obama Cabinet officials, if they chose, could have an enormous amount of flexibility in making the required budget cuts. They just don’t want to. “We’ve had zero answers,” repeated Issa.
I usually like Byron York’s columns. This is no exception. He isn’t a “flame-thrower” like many righty folks but his measured, calm columns often are far more informative and useful than the flame-throwing.
Although I confess I am one who loves a good flame-throwing if it’s
aimed at Obama’s skinny ass. My bad.
Who Speaks Now for the GOP?
Last Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul rose on the Senate floor to declare a filibuster and pledge he would not sit down until either he could speak no longer or got an answer to his question about Barack Obama’s war powers.
Does the president, Paul demanded to know, in the absence of an imminent threat, have the right to order U.S. citizens killed by drone strike on U.S. soil?
By the time he sat down, 13 hours later, Paul had advanced to the front rank of candidates for 2016, and established himself as a foreign policy leader whose views must be consulted equally with those of John McCain.
How did he pull this off?
First, Attorney General Eric Holder arrogantly refused to rule out the possibility that President Obama could order execution by drone-strike of U.S. citizens, even here in the United States.
When Rand demanded to know what Holder was talking about, all across America people tuned in.
Here was a deadly serious issue: Had we, in our determination to prosecute the war on terror ferociously, begun to sacrifice our constitutionalist rights?
Libertarians, conservatives and liberals have all grown alarmed at the steady expansion of drone attacks from the Af-Pak to Yemen and Somalia and Lord knows where else, and from bin Laden jihadists in Afghanistan to Islamist propagandists like Anwar al Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, both U.S. citizens, in Yemen.
Whom do we have a right to kill? Americans are asking. What are the borders of the battlefield upon which we may designate an individual an enemy and kill him without warning?
Has America become part of that battlefield? Paul asked.
After hours of speaking, Paul had attracted a vast audience on C-SPAN and Twitter. Soon, colleagues who do not share all of his libertarian views — Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas — came down to the floor to speak for Rand and give him time to rest on his feet.
To see these new Republicans standing by Rand Paul presented the image of a band of brothers standing up for principle. Rarely has this Republican Party looked better than it did on Wednesday.
Then to the well of the Senate marched Rand’s Kentucky colleague, the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to bestow his benediction. It was “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Schmaltzy, perhaps, but in a cynical age, inspiriting.
What made Rand’s presentation so appealing was that he began it alone, inviting the mockery of the media. Second, it was done with simplicity and dignity, without histrionics or demagoguery.
Government Advertises for Nearly 2,600 New Jobs Since Sequestration
With Office of Management and Budget fact sheets in hand, President Obama warned of dire cutbacks and consequences should sequestration go into effect March 1.
The cuts happened, White House tours have been halted, and the administration swears it’s not overreacting to the bare-bones budget directive.
But in the days since the hammer of sequestration fell, the federal government is hiring anew.
A search tonight of the USA Jobs federal employment website, filtered to positions in the United States and posted over the past 10 days, yielded 2,596 results.
This includes 107 positions at the Department of Homeland Security, which has claimed cutbacks have resulted in everything from a more taxing security line at airports to the need to free illegal immigrant detainees.
Jobs included transportation security officers in rural areas, a library technician in Baltimore, a recreational boating safety specialist in Cleveland, natural hazards program specialists in Denton, Texas, and various program analyst positions in the D.C. area. Various six-figure supervisory jobs are also open.
Seventeen magazine pushing sex as a drug to 12-year-olds
by Dr. Keith Ablow
Ashley Benson, 23, knows what sells to America’s 12-year-old girls: sex, including threesomes. Together with Seventeen magazine, the actress is promoting her new movie “Spring Breakers” on the magazine’s cover, despite the fact that the movie is being hyped elsewhere for its steamy sex scene between Benson, actress Vanessa Hudgens, 24, and actor James Franco. The movie is rated R for strong sexual content, language, nudity, drug use and violence. Seventeen targets an audience of females, aged 12 to 19.
There is a psychological sea change occurring in American culture, wherein girls shy of their teenage years are now exposed to erotic imagery and storylines, routinely.
The sexualization of children is a runaway train—and they are being brought aboard.
Just think about Abercrombie & Fitch marketing padded bikini tops to 8-year-olds and Vogue magazine’s sexually provocative photo shoot with Thylane Blondeau, then just 10-years-old.
Consider that Hugh Heffner made an offer to then-15-year-old Miley Cyrus to pose naked in his magazine when she turned 18.
This is a predictable event in a culture being sterilized by technology and by the contention that gender roles are irrelevant: People find ways to remind themselves they are alive and passionate males and females. And if social forces attempt to neuter them, they will—with all the risk entailed—assert themselves sexually.
Sex and violence are now one of the only ways humans seem able to evidence that they are human. And so, as Facebook takes away our real faces, as drones take away hand-to-hand combat, and email takes away handwritten notes, we see bloody, extreme MMA fighting replacing boxing, and Ashley Benson replacing Elizabeth Taylor.
Genital contact (along with brawling) is now America’s reflex antidote to losing contact. And the antidote is being peddled indiscriminately to kids, who are being dragged right out of childhood by a vicious undertow of eroticism fueled by tides of primal fear that we are not really living life at all, nor are we male, nor are we female, nor need we be troubled (just take Prozac), nor need we be distracted (just take Adderall), nor need we be anxious or bored (just take medical marijuana), nor are we responsible for ourselves (just apply for government entitlements).
The toll of using sex as a drug is, of course, the same as using any drug. You get high and temporarily avoid struggling to face what troubles you and pursue the dreams that motivate you and choose the values that will guide you.
Obama Tax Hike on Wealthy An Actual Tax Hike, Ed Schultz Finally Admits
Two months after President Obama whacked the wealthy with higher taxes, Ed Schultz is flip-flopping on his previous denial that this occurred.
Back in late February, Schultz resorted to accounting gimmickry to bolster his insistent claim that Obama had not increased taxes on well-heeled Americans.
Better late than never doesn’t work for me when it’s about someone “deliberately” telling a falsehood. Or when, in Schultz’s case, lying is a chronic condition.
His approval rating has dropped to the lowest level in more than a year, with more voters now turning thumbs down on his performance than thumbs up, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll. The measure of how much people like him also has dropped.
He’s still vastly more popular than Congress, particularly congressional Republicans. But in the biggest political clash of the year – over the federal budget and how to curb deficits – voters split 44 percent to 42 percent between preferring Congress or Obama.
At least some of the president’s fall to Earth lies in the fact that voters no longer see him in the context of an election. He has to stand alone in the eyes of voters again and doesn’t benefit from the comparison with Republican rival Mitt Romney.
“You remove the electoral context and post-election celebration, and some of the numbers are returning to the dissatisfaction people had,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the poll.
“Any glow from his re-election is starting to fade,” he said.
The national survey, conducted four months after Obama was re-elected with 51 percent of the popular vote, found 45 percent of voters approving of the way he’s handling his job and 48 percent disapproving.
In First Overseas Trip, Hagel Offers a Terse Review: ‘It’s Complicated’
In his first overseas trip as defense secretary, Mr. Hagel skipped the usual ancillary stops at allied or friendly nations to focus on the war in Afghanistan. He was confronted by bloody insurgent attacks so near that a suicide bombing rattled the windows and ceiling tiles of the military compound where he was attending briefings.
However, the new defense secretary avoided being drawn into a public dispute with Mr. Karzai, maintaining his reserve throughout, in particular during public events surrounding his closed-door meetings with Mr. Karzai and the security ministers.
“It’s complicated,” Mr. Hagel said when asked about the comments from the Afghan president. Mr. Hagel used the “it’s complicated” construction so often that it became a kind of unofficial mantra on the road.
Erin Burnett to Laura Bush: Should America Accept Anti-Semitism To Affect Change In Middle East?
CNN’s Erin Burnett on Monday asked former first lady Laura Bush a truly disgusting question.
In a segment about the George W. Bush Institute’s Women’s Initiative Fellowship Program and its involvement with a group of Egyptian women, Burnett asked Mrs. Bush if the United States needs to “accept” anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism “when we want to make change”
ERIN BURNETT, HOST: An Egyptian woman, her name’s Samir Ibraham, and she’s done a lot of things, courageous things. She’s also been criticized for sending tweets that are anti-Semitic, anti-American. Does the U.S. need to accept that when we want to make change. You have to support people that do those things - financially in term of awards, in terms of all these things – because it pays off in the end? Is that a trade-off we have to make?
Those not watching the video should be advised that when Mrs. Bush answered, there was a bit of a startled laugh when she said “No”.
Detroit: An American Autopsy
WASHINGTON — “Go ahead and laugh at Detroit,” Charlie LeDuff sneers defiantly as the once-great metropolis teeters on the brink of collapse. “Because you are laughing at yourself.”
So begins LeDuff’s haunting, angry and deeply personal account of what is left of his hometown. The city was once heralded as “Paris of the Midwest” for its cosmopolitan luxuries, broad boulevards and sweeping views of the Detroit River. Yet it was quintessentially American because of its unstinting work ethic and tireless inventiveness.
Detroit gave birth to mass production, the automobile, the cement road, the refrigerator, frozen peas, high paying blue-collar jobs, home ownership and credit on a mass scale, LeDuff reminds us. “America’s way of life was built here.” It was also the last arsenal of Democracy on the planet fast enough, strong enough, rich enough and determined enough to stand up to fascism and stop its march across the globe.
Detroit: An American Autopsy captures the city today, sitting on the edge of modern civilization, slipping inexorably back into total chaos. Neglected streets have given way to craters and makeshift memorials to victims of murder. Entire blocks of homes have crumbled in upon themselves. Whole neighborhoods are engulfed in weeds and errant trees that now give cover to deer, wild chickens and wolves. Pheasants can be seen gliding between the high windows of once-grand skyscrapers downtown.
Pretend-gun Fingers and Plop-Tarts
Republican state Senator J. B. Jennings of Maryland is proposing a bill to protect Pop-Tart gun-makers and students who emulate President Obama, a man notorious for flashing around his pretend-gun finger, from being suspended from school. The goal of the bill is to keep children in class who are caught on school grounds aiming, chomping or sketching anything that even remotely resembles a gun.
Jennings feels that if a student points in a style that resembles the shape of a gun, or quite by accident bites a bologna sandwich in a way that causes the lunch lady to panic in fear for her life, before administering the harsh sentence of suspension the situation should be evaluated as to whether the sandwich-eating was done in a manner that suggests “intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.”
In the state of Maryland, second-grader Joshua Welch and 6-year-old Rodney Lynch were both reprimanded for gun facsimile-related misconduct. Joshua was ousted after he haphazardly gnawed his Pop-Tart into a shape that his teacher felt resembled a gun, and first-time offender Rodney Lynch, who lost his head and positioned his thumb and index finger into the shape of an ‘L,’ got snagged too, which resulted in a two-day suspension for both of the pint-sized miscreants.
Senator Jennings says that it is not his intent for his bill to become “part of the growing gun debate in Maryland,” but hopes it will bring some “commonsense discipline to state schools.” Wait! Jennings wants to introduce common sense to politically-correct public school educators? Is that even possible?
As Senator J.B. points out, “These kids are 6 or 7-years-old. They don’t understand what they’re doing.” The larger question here, Mr. Senator, is this: Did Joshua and Rodney’s accusers know what they were doing when they all but ran screaming from the building over a half-eaten Pop-Tart and two fingers positioned at a 90-degree angle?
Nonetheless, the bill the Maryland senator is proposing aims to halt the preposterous practice of hyper-vigilant school administrators suspending first- and second-graders willy-nilly for making anything out of anything that even remotely resembles a handgun.
According to the senator, “If it’s done in a violent manner, then yes, we can take it to the next level. We can look at suspension.” Just out of curiosity, what would be considered violent Pop-Tart eating? Telling the kids on the schoolyard that you slurped the strawberry filling out from the center, like Hannibal Lecter telling Clarice Starling that he ate the liver of a census taker with some fava beans and “a nice Chianti?”
Worth a Read:
Deepwater Horizon — Another Holder Coverup?
SEC Finding on Illinois Pension Cover-Up: a Warning to Other States
Krauthammer: The Problem Isn’t Obama Golfing, “The Problem Is He Is Not Interested In Cutting”
Soda Ban and the Government Leviathan
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~ Winston Churchill