Editor

Hope and Change Now Defined

May 17, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

President Obama ran on hope and change when he asked America to make him the president. On the day he took office gasoline prices were $1.79.

The average unemployment rate under George Bush was 5.2 percent, considered full employment for those seeking work.

Candidate Obama blasted the Bush administration for those “dismal numbers.”

Now gasoline prices are stuck near $4.00 a gallon with no relief in sight and the real unemployment and underemployment rate remains above 15 percent, and it is much worse for American minorities.

Even the government’s official unemployment numbers have the president’s unemployment rate above 8 percent for most of his administration, averaging 9.0 percent. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified Wednesday that he projects the official rate will remain between 8.2 and 8.5 percent for the remainder of 2012, and that takes into consideration all of the job seekers who just give up and fade away from government statistics.

You may recall President Obama’s famous interview with Matt Lauer on “Today” on February 1, 2009 (we’ve inserted the video below), just after taking office as he asked the congress for his first economic stimulus package—nearly $900 billion.

Lauer: At some point will you say ‘Wait a minute. We’ve spent this amount of money; we’re not seeing the results. We’ve got to change course dramatically.’

Obama: Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing I find about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years. A year from now people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years then there’s going to be a one term proposition.

Does this indicate that Obama will be voting for Romney in November, because despite increasing the national debt a full 50 percent from $10 trillion to $15 trillion in just 3 years, the economy is much worse than when he took the helm. Of course, the President’s re-election team has begun chanting the mantra that if unemployment dips below 8 percent or gasoline prices drop 10 cents, then that is evidence that the President’s leadership is superior. They’re wrong.

Voters are shaky with Obama’s track record, and a new Fox News Poll reveals that Americans aren’t giving him a lot of credit for effort. Here are the answers of those who were asked-

BEST THING PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DONE TO HELP THE ECONOMY:

15%      Stopped Job Loss/Recession
8%    Loans to Auto Industry
7%    Stimulus Bill
5%    New Health Care Law
43% Done Nothing to Help

The poll also asked the question that Ronald Reagan posed to voters: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Of course, as painful a memory as the Jimmy Carter economy was, you may be surprised to learn that the average unemployment rate during his administration was just 7.6 percent–a number that the current administration would claim to be a resounding success.

The Ethanol Boondoggle

May 17, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

With so many drivers looking to stretch their gas dollars many have discovered that avoiding fuel laced with ethanol can be cost effective. Ethanol, an alcohol derived from corn, is causing additional wear and tear on cars according to many owners, and is less efficient than pure gasoline.

Yet, ethanol producers are petitioning the EPA to augment their market share by increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent, a 50 percent increase. They cite the greenness of their product and how it decreases reliance on foreign oil imports as their rationale.

In fact, ethanol has been a liberal pipe dream from the beginning. The government enforced incorporation of ethanol into American gasoline supplies has diverted corn crops around the world, driving food prices up by more than 25 percent, and world starvation levels up by a like number.

But it is green, and efficient liberals tell us. Not so fast. Recent studies have blown the cover off yet another green scam. Studies show that every gallon of ethanol requires 1,500 gallons of water and nearly 2 gallons of gasoline to produce. The cost is prohibitive, but as with all green shams, consumer pricing seems somewhat reasonable due only to government (taxpayer) subsidies.

It is time for the government to get out of the way of energy producers. It has been nearly 40 years since the feds have allowed the oil industry to build a new refinery in the U.S., and they have tied up all of the leases on federal lands so that those sources have dried up. Offshore drilling and over-regulation have led to shortages and catastrophic spills. As we’ve heard so much lately, it’s time to Drill Baby, Drill.

Publius

Bringing Fairness to Taxes

May 17, 2012 By Editor 1 Comment

As the propaganda press stirs up the occupying proletariat in our nation, and our streets become filled with couch potatoes demanding their fair share of that which has been earned by others, the insanity and impossibility of the scene serves as ample proof that too much weed indeed dulls the human brain’s ability to reason.

The 99 percent demand that they be supported by the 1 percent. They demand that taxation be applied “fairly.”

Indeed, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%.

In fact, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Publius

Grisham’s “The Firm” Goes Soft

May 16, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

John Grisham’s “The Firm” has been made into a television series, starring Josh Lucas. The premise seemed odd because the 1991 book and 1993 movie concluded with Mitch McDeer and his wife walking away from the law firm that had created so much trouble for them. End of the story.

Undaunted by the passage of time and relevance, writer John Grisham and his fellow producers on the project landed a contract with NBC. The network had trouble finding a workable time slot for the series and ended up relegating it to the never coveted Saturday night time slot (the last move before cancellation).

Being a big fan of The Firm, the book and the movie, I anticipated the debut of the series with guarded excitement. However, the nagging feeling that it would be difficult for the producers to pin an entire multi-year series on a one incident storyline hung over me as I awaited the first episode, and became a full-blown quandary as the season dragged on.

It turns out that my instincts were better than Grisham’s or NBC’s. During the season the storyline has become labored and convoluted. For the past three installments the audience has been treated to a force-fed course of lessons in the grave evil of water boarding. When McDeere is told that something may have happened to his dear wife while in the hands of nefarious captors, he prays that it was nothing more than mere beating or rape. But when the truth is revealed . . . that the bad guys put a cloth and some bottled water over her face . . . McDeere’s pallor goes ashen white and his countenance contorts in horror in a way that only water boarding can evoke.

John Grisham–what happened to you man? You used to be cool. I exaggerate. Actually, Grisham has always been a liberal and his books have become increasingly preachy in their liberal messages.I haven’t even bothered reading the last few.

The public has similarly set aside Grisham’s The Firm, and the series has been canceled. Those who think that the viewing public wants to be overexposed to pet liberal peeves overestimates their own grasp on reality. Not every movie and TV show has to toe the liberal line. Hey Hollywood–give us something we can relate to. The American public actually likes the water boarding of terrorists to prevent the loss of additional American lives. It is the best humane way to get information out of our enemies. Get over it.

Publius

Global Warming, Climate Change, and Big Foot

May 16, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

In the 1970s we were told by the media, university professors, Hollywood stars, and NOAA that the earth was slipping into global cooling, the precursor to an imminent ice age. They assured us that it was our own fault – carbon emissions, etc.

When the data just didn’t add up they changed their minds, and stories, and against all logic and acceptable methods of scientific inquiry began to preach the gospel of Global Warming—a religious-like dogma of the left that required strict acceptance of the proposition, regardless of the lack of evidence.

The press, media, and politicos treated us to an incessant barrage of lectures and finger wagging for several years, insisting that global destruction was imminent, and that we had to immediately cut back on Western industrialization and go entirely green if we wanted to survive. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth became the bible of the left, and every social and political consideration came to be filtered through the lens it created. Gore even proffered a petition signed by thousands of “scientists” (most of whom turned out not to be scientists) bolstering his theory. International treaties intended to hand over American sovereignty to international bodies have been waved in our faces and entire economies have been destroyed by the adoption of “green jobs” policies.

Then came was Climategate, where it was discovered that climate “scientists” and government employees were actively falsifying data to prove that human activity is causing earth’s weather to change substantially. Why the need to falsify data if it’s true? That has become the trillion dollar question.

We who are impartially considering the data have been disparaged and derided by those who have drunk from the chalice of Climate Change dogma. It is interesting that no one ever asks what our opinion is. In fact, there is a current petition in circulation signed by more than 31,000 real scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph Ds (we know that because they must certify their degrees on the petition), which certifies:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Here is an inconvenient truth for the left. During the early Dark Ages global temperatures were reported to be higher than normal. Then there were the memorable “little ice age” conditions that inundated Europe and North America between 1600 and 1900 with lots of snow and ice. During those centuries witnesses reported that the Thames River in London would freeze so solidly that folks roasted oxen on the ice for months during the winters, and that iceboats could sail down the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. In fact, the famous December 25, 1776 raid on the British in New Jersey was impeded by a Delaware River choked with ice. (Refer to the famous painting)

When is the last time anyone saw the Delaware choked with ice, or the Thames frozen over? It was over 100 years ago that average temperatures rose to the point that those rivers no longer froze in the winter. Is that due to carbon emissions? Anyone who tells you it is, is just falsifying data.

Publius

True Champions of American Blacks

May 16, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Under the British system, a system where the king could do no wrong, and all subjects were essentially his private property, indentured servitude and slavery were common. It is how many young people escaped the class poverty of Europe, by indenturing themselves until the age of 18, or later, then receiving their freedom. Others were indentured to repay family debt. Many of these became successful free citizens under the system, while many never escaped the bonds of servitude. Europeans had developed quite a system of slave trading before the foundations of America, and under the British Empire slaves were tasked with working the vast agricultural holdings of the colonies, including those in the New World.

Most of the founders were very hostile to the system of servitude, and although they existed within it, they sought to extinguish it. When the founders declared our liberty from Great Britain, they did so with the intent of retaining the new nation’s faith and credit. Huge holdings were offered as guarantee of repayment of war loans, including vast agricultural empires, which included the slaves that worked them. The slavery question was hotly debated in the forming nation, and it is the one failing of the founders that they were unable to win the day against slavery—due mainly to the collateralization of debt issue—but could only “kick the can down the road,” as our current government does daily.

The intent of the founders was to phase out slavery, but agricultural interests in the southern states resisted all attempts. Finally, the Republican Party was formed and at the peril of national civil war, its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, ran on the platform that slavery must finally be abolished. Over a half million Americans lost their lives in the ensuing conflict, but the issue was officially, if not finally settled. In fact, hundreds of Republican whites and blacks were murdered in the South even after the Civil War, during “Reconstruction.”

Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to enforce voting and civil rights to the descendants of African slaves emancipated during the Civil War, but they were blocked by the Democrats and Southern state “Dixiecrats,” who blocked passage while they blocked black students from entering Southern universities. Who were these Democrats who filibustered and voted against civil rights and voting rights for blacks? John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Lyndon B. Johnson, George Wallace, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, otherwise known as the Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, to name a few.

It was when “progressives” adopted the charlatan policy that they “adopted” African Americans and other “minorities” as their charges. In the name of the oppressed, the disenfranchised and the downtrodden, most of whom were that way because of the old prejudices of the Southern Democrats or have become that way through the taxation and confiscatory policies of the expanded left leaning US government, “progressives” have created a fatherless and helpless nation of minorities in America. Once all left leaning politicians received the Memo that all things were possible in the name of the downtrodden, those very politicians who had so vehemently opposed voting and civil rights for American minorities suddenly became their “champions.”

The Republican voting and civil rights bills were immediately redubbed Democratic legislation, and were passed, with several new powers being given to the federal government in the deal. The “Great Society” was born and American blacks instantly went from struggling to get into the middle class to dropping directly into the abyss. American minorities are well on their way to becoming completely dependent on government handouts, and feel beholden to politicians who keep them on the public dole.

Does every American liberal or moderate set out with these leftist results as their goal? No. They are fooled by their leadership, who have their own secret agenda, as recently lamented by Bob Beckel, Liberal Commentator:

“We liberals made a terrible mistake, going back 30 years ago. We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing. We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments, and all that bred dependence.”

African-Americans would do well to return their support to those who have their collective well-being and personal liberty at heart.

Publius

So What’s the Problem with a $16 Trillion Debt?

May 16, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 3 years, around 40 percent of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just three short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of left-leaning presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican.

Today the national debt stands at $15.7 trillion, more than a 50 percent increase in so short a time. If the congress complies with the President’s demands for increased spending, the national debt will exceed $17.5 trillion by next year.

What’s the problem, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds.

The federal budget is up to $4 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 4 years ago. Those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer is to raise taxes. We challenge the left to demonstrate to the public when raising taxes has ever improved the economy. In fact, it has never happened. It is when taxes are slashed that money is freed up and businesses invest in new jobs, putting people to work and heating up the economy. President Kennedy proved this, as did Ronald Reagan.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked nearly $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

Publius

The Stem Cell War is Over

May 16, 2012 By Editor 1 Comment

Those who read George Bush’s Decision Points may have been interested to learn that up until the 9/11 attacks the most important issue facing his administration in his opinion was stem cell policy.

The stem cell problem is rooted in the abortion issue. Liberals support embryonic stem cell research because it bolsters their argument that abortion is socially desirable. President Bush echoed the conservative dilemma as he wrestled with the cost/benefits analysis of stem cell research—at what cost would stem cell benefits come?

President Bush wrote that he labored over the issue, holding out hope that adult stem cells (non-embryonic) would become available and the problems inherent in embryonic stem cells would become irrelevant.

According to Roger Nocera, M.D., that day has arrived. In his book Cells That Heal Us From Cradle To Grave: A Quantum Leap in Medical Science (Amazon ebook), Dr. Nocera reveals that useable adult stem cells were discovered in 2003 and have been used to treat serious diseases in clinics around the world since then.

Although Dr. Nocera is a self-described liberal Democrat who supports Roe v. Wade, and admits in the book that the Democrats have been backing the wrong horse on the stem cell issue, because of their misguided devotion to the abortion issue.

The completely naturally occurring adult stem cell discovered in 2003 has been utilized in treatments in offshore clinics—offshore, because stem cell treatment is currently banned by the FDA. This newly discovered adult stem cell is found stored in our own body fat or is left in umbilical cords and thrown out as bio waste.

Many incurable diseases, conditions and injuries are being cured with simple treatments. One of my favorite cases is a middle-aged doctor who needed a heart transplant and would die within a few more months, and was given a simple I.V. with these Healing Cells, and his heart is now as good as new.

This new technology completely vindicates conservatives, and it WILL LOWER HEALTH CARE costs dramatically . . . by cheaply healing serious conditions that currently drag on for years, requiring expensive drugs and medical care.

Publius

A Failure to Excommunicate

May 16, 2012 By Editor 6 Comments

It shouldn’t surprise many people that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormons, are politically conservative. Indeed, LDS Church members believe that the Constitution of the United States is a divinely inspired document, and that adherence to its original meaning constitutes living according to God’s will. Church members adhere to a strict code of morality, which includes not just matters of sex outside of marriage, but extends to personal areas such as how they dress in public, what they view, and even what they ingest into their bodies.

Much whispering behind the scenes has been accumulating because GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney is not only a high profile Mormon, but a very dedicated member and leader of the church. While Romney endures off-mic rumor and innuendo for his membership in the LDS Church, the arguably second most powerful politician in the nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, receives not an utterance about his lifelong membership in the same church.

What is the difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid? Politically speaking, the two couldn’t be further apart on almost every issue. On religious and moral issues, however, some might suggest they are kindred spirits—not most LDS Church members, but others might.

In fact, much of what Harry Reid espouses in his public life is repugnant to LDS-Christian doctrine. High taxes, exorbitant debt, burdensome governmental intrusion and regulation into the lives of citizens, socialistic schemes, anti-family policies, welfare dependence, the funding of anti-Christian arts, organizations and lifestyles are only the tip of a burgeoning and murky iceberg that is growing exponentially beneath the waters of American society under the leadership of Reid and his hard left associates.

So how does Harry Reid justify his political views and his divergence from the basic tenets of Mormonism? “I don’t believe in abortion,” is his explanation.

That’s it? He doesn’t support abortion in his political life?

I disagree that Harry Reid’s stated opposition to abortion is enough to save him (in a secular or religious way). Like congressmen who attach their pork barrel projects to bills they know will pass without their votes then quietly vote against them so they can claim fiscal responsibility while collecting campaign contributions for success at “bringing home the bacon,” Harry Reid is only fooling himself that he is a good LDS Church member.

There is a reason that most LDS Church members are conservative. It is a question of morality and personal liberty for them. Harry Reid has supported every anti-American, anti-family, anti-decency piece of legislation that has come down the pike. He is responsible for nearly every dollar of the $15.7 trillion debt—and in case he doesn’t understand it, debt robs liberty and creates poverty. Although he personally votes against direct abortion legislation, he supports candidates and elected officials whom he knows will support it—and that’s supporting it.

So what is the real difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid regarding their membership in the LDS Church? On the surface, anyway, the difference is that Romney reflects his religious values in his policies while Reid utterly tramples them in his.

For Harry Reid, and all of those who make a pretense of following Judeo-Christian principles while leading our nation, and indeed, the Western world down a path of fiscal and moral destruction, let me share a scripture that you might recognize, and find helpful in your future career.

“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16.

Publius

Obama Comes Out

May 15, 2012 By Editor Leave a Comment

Pundits scratched their heads at Vice President Joe Biden’s unexpected declaration of support for gay marriage. In the following days speculation grew that the White House was telegraphing a major policy shift announcement. For anyone who was paying attention or who cared to look at the record, President Obama has never been opposed to alternate lifestyle trends, and has specifically been a consistent supporter of gay “rights,” championing the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. military.

In fact, pressure has been building for some time in the President’s base as a result of his reluctance to come out of the closet on the gay marriage issue. On Wednesday, President Obama announced during an ABC television interview, that he now supports gay marriage. Newsweek magazine, which has featured Obama on several of its covers, this week added a rainbow halo, canonizing him with the epithet “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.”

Predictably, within days of making his position clear on the issue the President has received a deluge of campaign contributions from his hard left supporters—who were overtly withholding funding support pending his public announcement. Starting with the $40,000 per plate Hollywood bash hosted by George Clooney, the re-election campaign has garnered a quick $21 million resulting directly from the President’s change of public position on gay marriage.

The President insists that he has not flip-flopped on gay marriage, but has simply “evolved” his views. Regardless of the President’s assertions on his reasons for changing his stance, a CBS/New York Times poll reflects that American voters are ignoring contrived social issues coming out of the White House, and that 62 percent believe that the economy is the pivotal issue in this election—an issue that the President is apparently trying to obscure with a recent flurry of social issues discussions.

While the President is calling on the congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, GOP challenger Mitt Romney has confirmed his agreement with the American people that marriage is between a single man and a single woman. A full 67 percent of Americans believe the President’s revelation on his gay marriage views is politically motivated; a clear attempt to gather support and money. Over 25 percent of those polled say that the President’s announcement has caused them to reconsider their support of his re-election.

Will the President’s obvious pandering to the far left hurt his re-election chances? The CBS/New York Times poll shows Mitt Romney pulling ahead in what has been a close race. Why is the President’s campaign flailing? It could be that Christian African-Americans who are strongly opposed to gay lifestyles and other issues of morality are beginning to reassess their carte blanche endorsement of the man who promised them so much, and has delivered nothing but skyrocketing unemployment in their families and neighborhoods.

Publius

« Previous Page

Older Stories

Older Stories| 2

Older Stories | 3

Older Stories | 4

Older Stories | 5

Recent Comments