From Powerline. They also have this great comment, "say what you will about Hitler, he never ate his pets". My only comment is that Obama seems not to like man's best friend or America's best allies:
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
So Much for Obama Being a Brilliant Orator
Watch Obama recycle the same speech one year later. He even stumbles at the same point:
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
White House Press Secretary Doing His Best Not to Admit Obama's Mistake
This is pretty hilarious to watch. Jay Carney just can't admit that the President was wrong when he essentially said that the Supreme Court overturning a law would be unprecedented. Watch the video, I also have the transcript below:
Q Quick question on health care. Yesterday, you mentioned a couple times the President is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe and he now says, in his words, the President “obviously misspoke earlier this week. He didn’t say what he meant, and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”
So I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly, did not misspeak. What do you make of the President’s former law professor saying he did?
MR. CARNEY: Well, you can choose words however you like. What Professor Tribe said is that the President clarified, and he did, and he expanded on his remarks of Monday when he took a question on Tuesday.
The premise of your question suggests that the President of the United States, in the comments he made Monday, did not believe that the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise, and I know you don’t believe that. So what I accept --
Q Well, except this is from Professor Tribe, who knows a lot more than you or I about constitutional law.
MR. CARNEY: What I accept and what I think I acknowledged yesterday --
Q This is a former --
MR. CARNEY: -- is that in speaking on Monday, the President was not clearly understood by some people. Because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. CARNEY: He referred to things like -- well, what Laurence Tribe said is that he did not say what he meant, because Laurence Tribe clearly knows that the President understands judicial precedent -- he has a little experience with it -- and the importance of judicial review.
The President spoke on Monday. The President expanded and clarified his comments on Tuesday. His whole point is that he is pretty conversant with judicial precedent, and the judicial precedent here is clear: That on matters of national economic significance -- and let’s not forget that health care is, what, 15 percent of our economy -- that the precedent is overwhelmingly on the side of upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, there is no debate between the plaintiff or the defendant on the issue of whether or not health care is something -- is a matter of national economic significance. This is not -- that’s not even an issue in the case that appeared before the Supreme Court.
So the President’s unremarkable observation is that since the New Deal era, the Lochner era that preceded the New Deal and the change in approach by the Court, there has been a longstanding precedent set where the Court defers to Congress and to congressional authority in passing legislation to deal with and regulate matters of national economic significance. That’s all.
Q Last thing. On the point of critics claiming the President was attacking the Court, your colleagues have correctly noted that when the President said that the justices are unelected he was quoting conservative commentators who have said that for years. However, are you then suggesting that if you were to lose in this case, the President will not attack the Court? Does he consider them fair game in this process to attack them?
MR. CARNEY: The President believes that the Supreme Court has a final word on matters of judicial review, on the constitutionality of legislation. He would, having been a professor of law. The fact of the matter is that, going back again to the comments the President made on Monday and on Tuesday, he believes that because of the overwhelming precedent here in this case, that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. That was the point he was making all along, both Monday and Tuesday.
Q What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment, because he talked about the Court not being in a position to overturn acts of Congress.
MR. CARNEY: The President -- look, Bill --
Q You're standing there saying --
MR. CARNEY: As your colleague --
Q -- because he made a mistake, and you can't admit it.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging -- you're sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleague --
Q I'm just noting your --
MR. CARNEY: The President spoke, in answer to a question, relatively briefly, and in the context of this case, made the statement that there is no judicial precedent -- that there is longstanding judicial precedent which would argue that the Court should not overturn this law. I grant to you -- I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the Commerce Clause; he did not refer to the full context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks, notably people sitting in that chair and others, missed that and --
Q It's our fault.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, look, others -- look, others --
Q It surely is. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I'm just saying that there's a lot of -- it's kind of ridiculous to believe that the President wasn't talking about the context of the case. But I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, asked again on Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely.
Q Were his comments Monday messy?
MR. CARNEY: You guys -- it's your job to come up with clichés like "game on" and things like that. But I'm not going to engage in that.
Q Quick question on health care. Yesterday, you mentioned a couple times the President is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe and he now says, in his words, the President “obviously misspoke earlier this week. He didn’t say what he meant, and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”
So I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly, did not misspeak. What do you make of the President’s former law professor saying he did?
MR. CARNEY: Well, you can choose words however you like. What Professor Tribe said is that the President clarified, and he did, and he expanded on his remarks of Monday when he took a question on Tuesday.
The premise of your question suggests that the President of the United States, in the comments he made Monday, did not believe that the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise, and I know you don’t believe that. So what I accept --
Q Well, except this is from Professor Tribe, who knows a lot more than you or I about constitutional law.
MR. CARNEY: What I accept and what I think I acknowledged yesterday --
Q This is a former --
MR. CARNEY: -- is that in speaking on Monday, the President was not clearly understood by some people. Because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. CARNEY: He referred to things like -- well, what Laurence Tribe said is that he did not say what he meant, because Laurence Tribe clearly knows that the President understands judicial precedent -- he has a little experience with it -- and the importance of judicial review.
The President spoke on Monday. The President expanded and clarified his comments on Tuesday. His whole point is that he is pretty conversant with judicial precedent, and the judicial precedent here is clear: That on matters of national economic significance -- and let’s not forget that health care is, what, 15 percent of our economy -- that the precedent is overwhelmingly on the side of upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, there is no debate between the plaintiff or the defendant on the issue of whether or not health care is something -- is a matter of national economic significance. This is not -- that’s not even an issue in the case that appeared before the Supreme Court.
So the President’s unremarkable observation is that since the New Deal era, the Lochner era that preceded the New Deal and the change in approach by the Court, there has been a longstanding precedent set where the Court defers to Congress and to congressional authority in passing legislation to deal with and regulate matters of national economic significance. That’s all.
Q Last thing. On the point of critics claiming the President was attacking the Court, your colleagues have correctly noted that when the President said that the justices are unelected he was quoting conservative commentators who have said that for years. However, are you then suggesting that if you were to lose in this case, the President will not attack the Court? Does he consider them fair game in this process to attack them?
MR. CARNEY: The President believes that the Supreme Court has a final word on matters of judicial review, on the constitutionality of legislation. He would, having been a professor of law. The fact of the matter is that, going back again to the comments the President made on Monday and on Tuesday, he believes that because of the overwhelming precedent here in this case, that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. That was the point he was making all along, both Monday and Tuesday.
Q What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment, because he talked about the Court not being in a position to overturn acts of Congress.
MR. CARNEY: The President -- look, Bill --
Q You're standing there saying --
MR. CARNEY: As your colleague --
Q -- because he made a mistake, and you can't admit it.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging -- you're sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleague --
Q I'm just noting your --
MR. CARNEY: The President spoke, in answer to a question, relatively briefly, and in the context of this case, made the statement that there is no judicial precedent -- that there is longstanding judicial precedent which would argue that the Court should not overturn this law. I grant to you -- I totally grant to you that he did not refer to the Commerce Clause; he did not refer to the full context. I think he believed that that was understood. Clearly, some folks, notably people sitting in that chair and others, missed that and --
Q It's our fault.
MR. CARNEY: No, no, look, others -- look, others --
Q It surely is. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: I'm just saying that there's a lot of -- it's kind of ridiculous to believe that the President wasn't talking about the context of the case. But I completely concede that he did not describe the context when he took the question and answered it on Monday. He then, asked again on Tuesday, provided the full context. And so, did he clarify his comments? Absolutely. Did he expand on them? Absolutely.
Q Were his comments Monday messy?
MR. CARNEY: You guys -- it's your job to come up with clichés like "game on" and things like that. But I'm not going to engage in that.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Even a Broken Obama Makes a Good Point Occassionally (Even If It Wasn't the Point He Was Trying to Make)
No, I didn't drop acid this morning and it is a few days past April fools. I was reading the speech Obama gave yesterday and I noticed that he actually made a valid point about the Ryan budget, in his own way. Now, I definitely didn't like it when he said:
Talk about over the top. Who attacks a budget for social darwinism (side note, does this attack mean he is a social creationist?)? Most of the speech is the usual class warfare kind of claptrap which tries to make the case that the poor people will starve and children will end up like Oliver Twist if you enact this deficit reduction legislation. But what I actually thought was a relatively good point was when he said:
The reason I think this is all a valid point is simple. In order to reduce the deficit on the back of domestic discretionary spending, you will have to cut a lot of popular programs. The math is unavoidable. The worst part is that domestic discretionary spending is actually not what is killing our finances. As I wrote before, its the entitlements that are killing us, domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP has actually been trending down over the decades:
Now I might question the need for scientific grants from the Federal government but based on my Federal Tax Receipt, I spent about $50 last year on that. Conversely, I spent several thousand dollars on social security and medicare payments to the elderly and thousands more on entitlements to a smattering of other people. Should we privatize the national weather service? Sure, it's probably a good idea (I don't remember weather forecasting being in the constitution) but at the end of the day, that won't make much of a difference to our well-being. Put another way, in 2012, even if we give up our entire military and shut down almost every federal agency (other than the IRS, CMS and SSA), we will just be meeting our obligations, we won't even be running a surplus.
The fatal flaw in the Ryan budget is that it leaves the entitlements alone for the foreseeable future. He doesn't touch Social Security at all and his medicare reform plan only starts helping after Medicare's scheduled point of bankruptcy (some help). And don't even get me started on his tax plan.
It seems that the GOP's Ryan worship has yoked them with a politically unpopular plan that doesn't even seriously tackle the main threats to our well-being as a nation.
This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class.
Talk about over the top. Who attacks a budget for social darwinism (side note, does this attack mean he is a social creationist?)? Most of the speech is the usual class warfare kind of claptrap which tries to make the case that the poor people will starve and children will end up like Oliver Twist if you enact this deficit reduction legislation. But what I actually thought was a relatively good point was when he said:
The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.
If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.
The reason I think this is all a valid point is simple. In order to reduce the deficit on the back of domestic discretionary spending, you will have to cut a lot of popular programs. The math is unavoidable. The worst part is that domestic discretionary spending is actually not what is killing our finances. As I wrote before, its the entitlements that are killing us, domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP has actually been trending down over the decades:
Now I might question the need for scientific grants from the Federal government but based on my Federal Tax Receipt, I spent about $50 last year on that. Conversely, I spent several thousand dollars on social security and medicare payments to the elderly and thousands more on entitlements to a smattering of other people. Should we privatize the national weather service? Sure, it's probably a good idea (I don't remember weather forecasting being in the constitution) but at the end of the day, that won't make much of a difference to our well-being. Put another way, in 2012, even if we give up our entire military and shut down almost every federal agency (other than the IRS, CMS and SSA), we will just be meeting our obligations, we won't even be running a surplus.
The fatal flaw in the Ryan budget is that it leaves the entitlements alone for the foreseeable future. He doesn't touch Social Security at all and his medicare reform plan only starts helping after Medicare's scheduled point of bankruptcy (some help). And don't even get me started on his tax plan.
It seems that the GOP's Ryan worship has yoked them with a politically unpopular plan that doesn't even seriously tackle the main threats to our well-being as a nation.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Obama is an Existential Threat to Israel
A former Marine Strike Planner made some interesting points on the Mark Levin show (h/t Doug Ross):
The beauty of Baku is that the Caspian Sea is right at the end of the runway. It's a straight shot, maybe 300 miles, from that base to Tehran. A good radar altimeter will get an F-4, F-16, F-15 strike fighter maybe 25 feet off the water. Going in at that altitude, you're not going to be picked up by radar.
But there's something even more important here. The Iranians are not expecting an attack from the north. Now, with the revelation of this relationship, they are. And that has a lot of implications beyond the tactical.
Think of it this way. Prior to this revelation, the Iranians -- although they noticed some connections between Israel and Azerbaijan -- didn't know how deep that connection was.
Now the Iranians can start bullying the Azerbaijanis. They can send a diplomat up to Baku and say, basically, 'if any Israeli plane hits us from the north, when we get our nuke, we are going to test it on Baku. Of course that will all happen behind the scenes, but the threat will be made.
Now, I want you to consider this: there are many ways to attack Iran. You can go for the nuke sites. Or you can go for a decapitation strike. A decapitation strike is a much easier operation if you're coming from Azerbaijan.
Think of it this way: every once in a while, the Iranians have a little get-together. They bring all of the Mullahs together in one place... Why not? They'd be doing us and the world a tremendous favor if they did that.
And it's not going to happen now.
I can guarantee that all of those new Soviet anti-aircraft missiles that the Iranians bought are all going up north now, pointed and waiting for something there. In fact, they'll probably put radars on the Caspian from the mountaintops there, just to see if there's anything come up off the water.
Strategic, tactical surprise: gone.
You have to ask for the motivation behind the leak. I mean, if the Israelis can do this operation, it's to our benefit! From a diplomatic standpoint, if you wanted to tell the Iranians that the Israelis did this, it's without our permission. And then try to butter up the Iranians after the strike, so they don't close the Strait of Hormuz, that's one thing.
But giving away all of the secrets of an ally? When you're doing that, you have to ask whether we still have Israel as an ally. We are not acting like an ally. In fact, if you ask me, based on the amount of time I expect the Israelis put in this relationship with Azerbaijan, I would start viewing this administration as an existential threat to Israel.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Obama's Only Negative Is That There Are Too Many Positives?
Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker Davis Guggenheim made a fool of himself last night on Piers Morgan when talking about the documentary of Obama he just made (h/t Weekly Standard):
Here is the video:
Piers Morgan: "Most documentary makers balance these movies with the negative as well as the positive. What are the negatives in your movie about Barack Obama?
Davis Guggenheim: "Well, I mean the negative for me was, there were too many accomplishments. I had 17 minutes to put them all in there."
Piers Morgan: "Oh, come off it! You can't say that with a straight face. Come on."
Davis Guggenheim: "I'm looking at you right now with a straight face."
Piers Morgan: "The only negativity about Barack Obama is there are too many positives?"
Davis Guggenheim: "That was the negative -- excuse me, that was the negative for me."
Piers Morgan: "Oh."
...
Piers Morgan: "But where do you find fault in him, personally?"
Davis Guggenheim: "I -- you know, I don't. I don't, frankly."
Piers Morgan: "He's a perfect human being?"
Davis Guggenheim: "Well, no. but I'm really quite in awe of him, as a leader, and the choices he's made."
Piers Morgan: "I mean, I'm only asking because you are a well-known documentary maker, and this would be the first movie, I guess, you've made where it's all completely positive. And even you personally don't see any negative at all in the guy. Do you think you were the right guy to make this? I mean, are you dispassionate enough to make a Barack Obama video?"
Davis Guggenheim: "But, Piers, you haven't seen the movie. You've only seen the trailer."
Piers Morgan: "Well, I've asked you to list all the negatives and you said the only negative was you couldn't put enough positives in."
Davis Guggenheim: "Well, that's true. That's true."
Here is the video:
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Obama Volt
Truly awesome satire, that is both funny and completely true:
(h/t ZeroHedge)
Chevy Volt - Building a Better Tomorrow from Ben Howe on Vimeo.
(h/t ZeroHedge)
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Obama Hates Israel
Watch this video from the Emergency Committee for Israel which extensively catalogs Obama's war on Israel:
(h/t Legal Insurrection)
(h/t Legal Insurrection)
Friday, February 3, 2012
How Fraudulent Was the January Unemployment Number? Unemployment Actually Went UP last month, Not Down
I've written about this quite a few times before (most recently here). Essentially, the unemployment number reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is complete fiction as millions of workers have been thrown out of the labor force, artificially lowering the unemployment rate. If you look at the labor force participation rate, it is now at multi-decade lows:
As you can see, the labor force participation rate is now down over 2% since Obama has taken office. Some would argue that this is due to demographics, as baby boomers leave the labor force as they reach retirement. The problem with this argument is that if you look at the participation rate for those 55 and up, it is slightly up since Obama has taken office. All the decline in due to those who would be considered to be in their peak working years. If you keep the rate at 66%, where it was at right before Obama was elected it appears that there are 5 million people missing from the unemployment data, and it seems to be spiking right now:
What does this mean for the unemployment rate itself? By my calculations, if you keep the missing people in, it is 11.4% right now, up 0.1% from last month when it ws 11.3%. The whole thing about it being down to 8.3% is absolute hogwash. Below you can see the striking difference between the real unemployment rate and the official one:
It's really a striking divergence isn't it? While the official rate seems to show a 1.7% improvement in the unemployment rate since the peak, the improvement is really a paltry 0.4%! And if you don't believe me, check out the government's own employment to population ratio which is also at multi-decade lows:
As you can see, the labor force participation rate is now down over 2% since Obama has taken office. Some would argue that this is due to demographics, as baby boomers leave the labor force as they reach retirement. The problem with this argument is that if you look at the participation rate for those 55 and up, it is slightly up since Obama has taken office. All the decline in due to those who would be considered to be in their peak working years. If you keep the rate at 66%, where it was at right before Obama was elected it appears that there are 5 million people missing from the unemployment data, and it seems to be spiking right now:
What does this mean for the unemployment rate itself? By my calculations, if you keep the missing people in, it is 11.4% right now, up 0.1% from last month when it ws 11.3%. The whole thing about it being down to 8.3% is absolute hogwash. Below you can see the striking difference between the real unemployment rate and the official one:
It's really a striking divergence isn't it? While the official rate seems to show a 1.7% improvement in the unemployment rate since the peak, the improvement is really a paltry 0.4%! And if you don't believe me, check out the government's own employment to population ratio which is also at multi-decade lows:
Saturday, December 10, 2011
The Self Destruction of the Obama Coalition
Here is a great essay by Paul Rahe on the Obama coalition and why it is likely to self-destruct (h/t Powerline). Below is a key excerpt, though take the time to read the entire fascinating essay:
what Obama and his advisors plan to do is to abandon once and for all the old New Deal coalition and forge a new governing coalition resembling the one that John Lindsay put together in the city of New York – i.e., a coalition of upscale voters and minorities with some support from young people of the sort who were carried away by Lindsay’s glamor.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Republican Party will hand Obama another victory. None of the figures seeking the Republican presidential nomination inspires confidence. All are either inept in some obvious way or have baggage that voters might find off-putting, and the one most likely to be effective in debating the President has the most baggage. It is easy to see how Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich can be demonized.
But I nonetheless think that the Republicans are likely to win. The John Lindsay coalition is an exceedingly fragile one. One might even say that it is apt to self-destruct. The material interests of upscale voters and those of Americans dependent on government largesse do not coincide, and in a time of straitened circumstances and widespread unemployment the tensions between those who pay the bulk of the taxes collected and those on the take are apt to be extreme. How many upscale voters want to see their taxes dramatically increased in the near future? It may not be bread alone that determines voting patterns in the US, but during economic downturns such concerns loom especially large. I could easily imagine a new coalition taking shape – one that unites upscale voters, working stiffs, and small businessmen against public-sector workers and those who live off government patronage. Such a coalition, forged in a time of suffering, might last a very long time, and, if it did, the number of public-sector workers and of those living off government patronage would steadily decline.
To this analysis, we can add one more item. Barack Obama has done for the United States what John Lindsay did for the city of New York. He has brought us to the edge of bankruptcy, and he has made us look into the abyss – and he has compounded the problem by saddling us with Obamacare, which grows less popular with time. Moreover, one cannot say with regard to the administration that brought us the Fast and Furious and Solyndra scandals that it has not been “incompetent or foolish or corrupt.” One can say, however, that it has been “actively destructive.”
I have said it before, and I will say it again. Barack Obama is a gift to the friends of liberty. He is the sort of man who gives a bad cause a bad name.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Christie to Obama: What the Hell Are We Paying You For?
Another classic from my Governor. He also broaches the subject that maybe Obama should go back to being a Senator:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Third Quarter GDP Revisited
As I mentioned last month when the advance estimate for GDP came in at 2.5%, don't get too excited by the number. Well, lo and behold in today's Q3 GDP revision, the estimate went down from 2.5% to only 2% in the quarter. And in a year-over-year growth analysis (always my preference as it automatically adjusts for seasonality) the economy continues to deteriorate, only growing 1.5% over the third quarter last year:
Even more disturbing, real disposable personal income was flat compared to a year ago. This is a number that only turned negative in Q1 2009 and before that you had to go back to the 1974 recession to see it turn negative. Also, on a sequential basis, it's down two quarters in a row. No wonder people are so gloomy, their personal finances are officially in a recession. Anyway, here is real disposable personal income over the last 10 years:
Given this situation, it's really nice to see a President demanding tax increases, sabotaging shovel ready projects and focusing almost exclusively on campaigning.
Even more disturbing, real disposable personal income was flat compared to a year ago. This is a number that only turned negative in Q1 2009 and before that you had to go back to the 1974 recession to see it turn negative. Also, on a sequential basis, it's down two quarters in a row. No wonder people are so gloomy, their personal finances are officially in a recession. Anyway, here is real disposable personal income over the last 10 years:
Given this situation, it's really nice to see a President demanding tax increases, sabotaging shovel ready projects and focusing almost exclusively on campaigning.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)