In the following call to arms, conservative Lloyd Marcus exhorts all of us to vociferously oppose Obama, Progressives and their anti-American, anti-freedom and big government agenda. Being politically correct or silent will not allow us to obtain our goals. We must be fearless and relentless in our attempts to oust Obama and the Democrats in Congress (and elsewhere).
Tea Party David Vs. Two-Headed Goliath
Lloyd Marcus April 23, 2011
On the O'Reilly Factor TV show, Dennis Miller was asked his thoughts regarding the media's response to Obama's numerous flip flops. Miller said the media will report whatever Obama does in a positive light.
We patriots are well aware of the liberal media's love affair with Obama. And yet, for some reason, the reality of Miller's comment hit me hard right between the eyes. I thought, "Oh my gosh. This is not funny. Our country is in serious trouble."
Not only must we defeat the Obama administration, we must take on and defeat the liberal mainstream media as well; take on the two powerful well-funded entities committed to the fundamental transformation of America. Lord, help us!
Patriots, we can, will and must defeat this two headed evil Goliath. Despite the left's shock and awe public relations slanderous attacks on the tea party and our candidates, we took the House of Representatives. Thus proving, they can be beaten!
I am so sick of advisors cautioning us conservatives to walk on eggshells when dealing with the liberal media. It has even been suggested that we stop using the term "tea party" due to the negative image created by the media.
Patriots, even if we change our name to the "Happy Go Lucky Nice People Movement," we will still be targeted for destruction by the media. What part of they hate us and want us to fail do our advisors not understand? The liberal media is going to put a negative spin on whatever we say.
Now, am I advocating saying stupid provocative things? Of course not. I am advocating fearlessly and aggressively attacking Obama's horrific record. Call out the liberal media on their biased reporting. Stop allowing the Democrats and their media minions to set the rules of engagement. Patriots, the stakes are far too high to wimp out foolishly seeking approval from those actively pursuing our total destruction.
Again, I say, what do we have to lose by confronting the democrats and the liberal media? They are going to trash us regardless.
Yes, they will call you a racist. I say this in love: "Get over it." Throughout U.S. history many have suffered far greater and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Why? Because America is worth it.
Tons of articles have been written calling me a stupid self loathing n****r, an Uncle Tom, a tea party minstrel, a traitor, a sellout, and a clown. It all rolls off my back. I know I am on the right side. So, why should I care what evil stupid people say or think of me? But most of all, my strength and peace comes through knowing God is with us and America is worth it.
Like little David in the Bible, we must boldly confront the two headed Goliath, Obama administration/liberal media.
Why do you think Trump and Palin are doing so well in the polls? Both are boldly and unapologetically takin' it to Obama and are not kowtowing to the liberal media. Patriots are frustrated with Republicans pandering and trying to "play nice" with a Democratic Party and liberal media who are relentlessly and viciously attempting to kill us politically. The Democrats and the liberal media take no prisoners.
Rush Limbaugh says the Democrats and liberal media will tell you who they fear most by the intensity of their attacks. Who have been numbers one, two, and three on the Democrats' and liberal media's list? Answer: Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party. Brothers and sisters, we can beat them!
How do we defeat them? In addition to ceasing to fear Obama and his liberal media co-conspirators, we must continue doing what we have been doing. Patriots must continue following their passion and using their gifts and talents wherever needed in our extraordinary divinely inspired Tea Party Movement.
We are blessed with great minds on our side; patriots are writing books, organizing and conceiving various strategies to take back our country.
While some lament that we lack a central leadership organization or charismatic leader, I am grateful for all of our numerous patriot groups and committed individuals. Each is driven to politically defeat Obama in its own way. Their spirit is the tea party.
Just as God's grace guided David's stone to topple Goliath, our stone of truth, honor, and freedom will hit its mark and bring down the two headed evil Goliath of the liberal media and the Obama regime in 2012.
We do not get involved in racial discourse except as relates to the demagoguery spewed by our politicians or appointed government officials. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has repeatedly and unequivocally demonstrated a very biased and reprehensible approach and attitude to race relations and justice with a pro-black, pro-minority preference specifically vis-à-vis Whites. Such an approach further engenders unprovoked violence by blacks on whites and other races
We saw this in Obama’s reckless and irresponsible involvement in the Cambridge police incident involving his belligerent (black) buddy Henry Louis Gates, Jr., professor of Black Studies at Harvard who falsely claimed racism.
We have seen this with Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s dismissal of charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in video documented evidence in Philadelphia during the Presidential election. Of course, they have refused to release any evidence or explanation of why there was such a dismissal even though the defendants were ready to plead guilty.
The Dept. of Justice under this same racist Eric Holder has been “instructed” not to pursue cases of racism if perpetrated by blacks on whites. However, they are to aggressively pursue cases if it whites were the alleged perpetrators. Insiders have revealed this to be the “culture of justice” of our own Justice Dept.
And of course, who can forget the vitriolic, racist ramblings and screed of Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose church Obama and Michelle attended for years. He never protested such despicable racist hatred and the black liberation theology that was espoused.
Furthermore, Obama was very close not just with Wright but also with Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam who is the quintessential vehemently anti-white, anti-semitic racist and who also preaches anti-American vitriol.
The list of examples of racism by the Obama Administration, his czars (Van Jones) and other appointees is nearly endless and entirely unacceptable.
Why are we bringing this up?
Obama is conveying and instigating by actions, incendiary rhetoric and legislation, an aggressive entitlement and superiority attitude for blacks over the “flawed” and “racist” whites that is spilling out into the African-American community, particularly the lower socioeconomic level. They do not see this as demagoguery but as “reality” and then channel this hateful energy into what they see as acceptable anger and actions aimed against whites. After all, “their” President seems to be doing the same – though not by violence.
There has been a spate of attacks by blacks on whites since Obama has been President. Most of these have seen little news coverage because they do not fit into the progressive media’s far left agenda of “showing” the “abused, downtrodden” blacks.
The following egregious incident (see video below) is an attack perpetrated by 2 black females on a white "female" inside a McDonalds in Baltimore and captured on video. At least some of the employees of the restaurant were black males and could have instantly stopped the beating but didn’t (one was actually took the video as seen below). The Caucasian girl, who happened to be a transsexual, was subjected to a prolonged, violent beating by these uncivilized hateful individuals including a head injury. It is not clear if this specifically was partially motivated by her being white or if there was any knowledge of her sexual orientation.
Outrageously, the local police dept. stated that it is “looking into this” to see whether there was any evidence that this was a hate crime (which the victim believes to be the case).
Are they kidding?
Despite several blacks present inside this McDonalds, it took an older white woman to help stop this.
We haven’t heard a word out of Obama about this. Or from Attorney General Eric Holder.
What about Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?
You could be sure that if this were reversed with several Whites brutally abusing a black girl even if it wasn't patently motivated by race, there would already be rioting in the streets by blacks and claims of racism by Jackson and Sharpton. Holder would already have a Dept. of Justice investigation underway and the white “perpetrators” would have been already been convicted in the public forum.
This video is very graphic. See the two subsequent articles as well.
Shocking, Disturbing Restaurant Assault Vid: Woman Allegedly Beaten Into a Seizure As Employees Laugh
Jonathon M. Seidl April 22, 2011
When we post restaurant brawl videos, many times the tone centers around disbelief mixed with uneasy chuckles. What you’re about to see might result in audible screams, gasps, and expletives. Warning, it’s disturbing.
The details on the following attack are fuzzy.* What you see is two woman mercilessly attacking another in a McDonald’s. But that doesn’t really do the video justice. The two women repeatedly punch and kick the woman in the head while she lies in the fetal position on the ground. They then drag her across the floor by her hair near the door, where they continue the beating. All the while, the employees stand by laughing (although one seems to give a half-hearted vocal attempt to stop the madness, and another eventually tries to step in).
Eventually, it appears the woman is beaten so badly she has a seizure.
According to a description from the video site LiveLeak, the person filming the incident coaches the attackers to flee:
The two black females exit, then re-enter the store to continue the beating, until an older white woman attempts to stop them from dragging the white victim outside into the parking lot. note: the black male employees have disappeared from camera view, even though they are plenty well capable of stopping the attack.
At the end, the white victim is beaten until she has a seizure, at which point the camera operator warns the black female attackers to flee, because the police are on the way. Note: he makes sure to repeatedly tell the criminal attackers to flee, instead of keeping them there for the police to apprehend.
*UPDATE:
Many of you have e-mailed asking for more information on this disturbing video. As is mentioned in the article, details are fuzzy right now. There is no word on where or when this occurred or what eventually happened to the attackers or the victim. As soon as we find anything out, we’ll let you know.
UPDATE II:
McDonald’s has responded to the video and says it occurred in Baltimore.
Video of beating in a Baltimore County McDonald's goes viral
Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun April 22, 2011
A video of a vicious beating at a Baltimore County McDonald's restaurant went viral Friday, garnering hundreds of thousands of views on various websites and prompting the fast food giant to issue a statement condemning the incident.
The video shows two women – one of them a 14-year-old girl – repeatedly kicking and punching the 22-year-old victim in the head, as an employee of the Rosedale restaurant and a patron try to intervene. Others can be heard laughing, and men appear to be standing idly by.
Toward the end of the video, one of the suspects lands a punishing blow to the victim's head, and she appears to have a seizure. A man's voice tells the women to run because police are coming.
The three-minute clip was apparently first posted on YouTube, then taken down by administrators who said it violated the site's policies. But it sprung back up on other sites and was ultimately linked from the popular Drudge Report, which gave it top billing for much of the day.
By mid-afternoon, the video had received 450,000 views on one site alone.
County police confirmed that the attack occurred April 18 in the 6300 block of Kenwood Ave. Police said the 14-year-old girl has been charged as a juvenile, while charges were pending against an 18-year-old woman.
The victim suffered cuts to her mouth and face, and a police report said she was in "fair" condition.
The report classifies the attack as a "second degree assault" -- one of the suspects said that the fight was "with a woman over using a bathroom."
As the video spread online, McDonald's acknowledged that the attack had occurred in a Baltimore restaurant and said they were working with local police.
"We are shocked by the video from a Baltimore franchised restaurant showing an assault. This incident is unacceptable, disturbing and troubling," the company said in a statement posted on its website. "Nothing is more important than the safety of our customers and employees in our restaurants. We are working with the franchisee and the local authorities to investigate this matter."
State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger said the racial dynamics of the incident – the attackers are black, and the victim is white – could result in hate crime charges.
"We just received this case, and the police department is continuing their investigation," Shellenberger said. "If there is evidence that the crime was racially motivated, we will take a look at those charges and see if we meet those elements. We have the ability, if the facts are there, to upgrade the charges at a later date."
The video begins with two women near a bathroom door kicking and hitting a woman who is lying on the ground. Viewers from across the country expressed shock at the sheer brutality of the video, and the racial dynamics of the attack drove much of the commentary on the sites that posted the clip.
An employee repeatedly tries to separate them, but the attackers continue to stomp and kick the victim's head. People yell, "Stop! Stop!" to no avail, though others can be heard laughing. An older woman at one point also attempts to pull the attackers away, and is shoved.
About halfway through the three-minute clip, the attackers rip a wig off the victim and drag her by her hair to the front door. That is where the victim is sitting before a blow to the head causes an apparent seizure.
Throughout the attack, a man is filming and does not intervene. But when the victim appears to go into a seizure, he yells, "She having a seizure, yo. … Police on their way. Y'all better get out of here."
Through a McDonald's spokesman, the owner of the Rosedale restaurant released a statement. The chain said the owner and employees would not be made available for comment.
"I'm as shocked and disturbed by this incident as anyone would be. The behavior displayed in the video is unfathomable and reprehensible," said the franchise owner, Mitchell McPherson. "The safety of our customers is a top priority. We know the police were called immediately, and we are thoroughly investigating this matter."
Obama is using the power of government, effectiveness of demagoguery and the obvious power or wealth redistribution in order to stack the deck in his favor for re-election.
As clearly stated in the article below:
Obama's potential for a "near lock" in the Electoral College shows the political power of "income redistribution" in combination with an ever-larger, all-pervasive government that (including state and local) controls and spends nearly 40% of GDP in a discriminatory manner …
Members of Obama's potential coalition receive disproportionately large amounts from government but pay little of the cost of government.
With the help of fellow Progressives in government and an irresponsible fawning far left news media … combined with our money stolen away in usurious taxation, he is close to achieving a stolen and manipulated election victory.
Riding Income Redistribution Back To White House In 2012
Ernest S. Christian and Gary A Robbins 04/20/2011
How can Barack Obama be about the worst president in history — and at the same time the "best politician" in America, according to some experts?
Simple answer: Being president is about substance; being a politician is about theatrics. Sometimes, the twain meet and — as in the case of Ronald Reagan and others — produce a statesman.
But not in Obama's case. Just the opposite!
Being a good president involves competence, integrity and making Americans better off, often by stopping government from doing things that make people worse off. (Rep. Paul Ryan's trailblazing blueprint for reducing the deficit and downsizing government is a prime example.)
To Obama, politics is about bamboozling people into thinking that he's making them better off when he's making them worse off.
The trick is to expropriate money from people who work hard and pay their taxes — and use the loot to scatter around enough political lagniappe to piece together a majority of bought-and-paid for votes strategically placed in the right locations to yield an Electoral College victory.
Obama never lets a cynical political ploy go unexploited. He blares away about raising taxes on the "rich." He knows that high taxes ruin the economy and hurt everyone who depends on a nongovernment job for a living.
But so what?
The sotto voce Obama plan: Get rid of pesky Republicans; get re-elected; raise taxes through the roof starting in 2013; knock smug middle-class Americans off their high-earning perch; crash the economy; catch everyone in a new "safety net" where all have the same modest government-controlled income and live under federal supervision.
In his "now you see it, now you don't" speech at George Washington University on April 13, the president of the United States declared war on mainstream America and common sense.
Obama insulted Rep. Ryan for trying to save and reform Medicare. How dare Ryan defy King Barack and stand in the way of ObamaCare and the government-run health care rationing that Americans hate?
Among other cost-cutting priorities, repeal of ObamaCare should be a condition for any increase in the federal debt limit.
Obama's latest phony "solution" to the Obama debt crisis is to appoint a committee to run in circles and gum up Congress sufficiently to delay a Budget Resolution that cuts spending.
Obama is funding a new political imperium built upon a massive voter turnout of government-oriented constituencies. These include government employees (about 17% of total employees); the roughly 60 million people who depend significantly on government assistance; and a large portion of the three rapidly growing "minority" groups who, according to census data, will soon constitute an arithmetic majority in America.
In 2008, African-Americans favored Obama by 95%. Overall, he got 67% of the Hispanic vote and 62% of Asians. In key locations, his percentages were sufficiently enormous and concentrated to tilt the electoral vote count. Obama got 67% of the electoral vote with 53% of the popular vote.
Members of unions vote heavily (60%) for Obama in exchange for favors. So do abortion supporters (73%) and members of the GLBT community (70%).
Obama will get the "kiddie" vote on campuses, the anti-American left, the hard-core environmentalists, the brass-collar Democrats and a lot of nice people who cannot bring themselves to vote against America's first black president.
Obama's potential for a "near lock" in the Electoral College shows the political power of "income redistribution" in combination with an ever-larger, all-pervasive government that (including state and local) controls and spends nearly 40% of GDP in a discriminatory manner among an increasingly diverse and balkanized population.
Members of Obama's potential coalition receive disproportionately large amounts from government but pay little of the cost of government.
A small minority of Americans (roughly one-third of eligible voters) already pay nearly all the personal income tax — and Obama will whip the "tax slaves" into paying more and more until they collapse.
Originally, the disparity in treatment between "net payers" and "net takers" was to help people who were actually poor (instead of merely less well-off than someone else) — but Obama and other levelers have made broad scale "redistribution" the main mission of government.
Jeffrey Miron at Harvard points out that in 2007 — before the recession — Washington was already spending about 50% of the budget on programs designed to redistribute money from the better-off to the less well-off.
The Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependency shows that dependency on government has increased by about 15% since 2007.
In Obama's un-American America, a modest standard of living will become both the minimum and the maximum.
Thanks, but no thanks.
• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
Their goal?
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
The solution?
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
Obama’s little more than 2 years in office as President has revealed a multitude of noxious traits, actions and ideologies, a high proportion of which serve to abet his agenda to the detriment of the American public. Many even openly flout the Constitution and other legalities.
Probably the most vile and dangerous of these to the American public are his concerted attempts to consolidate power and control while concurrently thwarting the opposition. Obama acts much like a dictator though an inept one at that. He also has sought to implement ideologies which abrogate many of our rights and freedoms through the use of myriad regulations and Presidential edicts rather than through democratic channels like Congress. This even includes attacks on the right to free speech – including political speech and contributions.
Through Presidential edict, Obama is now seeking to legislate away the rights of supporters of his opponents while at the same time, allowing groups supportive of him and the Democratic machine (such as unions) to keep making their massive political contributions unscathed.
Obama's Executive Order coming to cut off funding to his political opponents?
Ed Lasky April 20, 2011
From the man who said he would bring a gun to a knife fight, the latest ploy to cut his opponents off at their knees. This one is not based on arguments or facts, but on sheer abuse of the powers he has as President.
Kenneth Vogel writes in Politico that President Obama is "considering a number of measures to compel disclosure of the kind of anonymous campaign contributions that helped finance millions of dollars of attack ads against Democrats during the 2010 elections."
These measures appear broad in scope:
The White House last week began circulating a draft executive order that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose contributions -- including those that otherwise would have been secret -- to groups that air political ads attacking or supporting candidates.
The proposed order follows several actions by regulatory agencies that have a similar intent of making corporate and individual donations more transparent.
Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a decree that could result in shareholders having more say in corporate election spending. Democratic appointees to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission are pushing measures that could make public currently anonymous contributions to outside groups.
Administration critics, including the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are seizing on the White House's draft executive order, in particular, as evidence of an attempt to use executive power to punish or silence political adversaries, while rewarding supporters.
Calling the draft executive order "an affront to the separation of powers ... (and) to free speech," chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff said it "lays the groundwork for a political litmus test for companies that wish to do business with the federal government" and is "less about disclosure than intimidation."
One White House ally, Craig Holman, applauds these plans since the 2010 election brought too many Republicans into Congress to hold out hope that these "reforms" could happen through legislation. So President Obama intends to use brute force to take these measures that would chill free speech and the campaign efforts of his critics. Apparently, a great deal can be achieved administratively through a regulatory approach and by executive order. A draft of the executive order requires disclosures of contributions made by companies' executives and board members to support candidates and third-party groups (such as the very effective American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity groups).
Tellingly, the draft order would not apply to Democratic-allied groups that receive grants from the federal government (such as Planned Parenthood) or to unions, which bankroll so many Democratic campaigns and which have trumpeted that their spending power helped elect Barack Obama and makes them the king of the (Capitol) hill. Unions are among the biggest campaign spenders in America and they give their money to Democrats. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
Similar efforts to compel disclosure are being made through the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FCC and through the Federal Election Commission.
While the nation reels from a faltering economy with the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, with a deficit and debt crisis that may merit a S & P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, with a geopolitical earthquake in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds time to figure out ways to hurt his political opponents (or his "enemies" as he would characterize them).
Public disclosure of campaign contributions can lead to boycotts of companies whose executives give to political campaigns (as happened when Target came under fire for its campaign contributions, when boycotts targeted campaign contributors to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker; similar efforts to punish people for their political views litter the political landscape).
Barack Obama wants to chill political speech to further his chances to win reelection. He made clear his views towards the law as decided by the Supreme Court when he crassly lambasted them last year during the State of the Union address for supporting the First Amendment in their Citizens United decision (a law he basically wants to undercut by using the powers of the Presidency in a particularly underhanded way).
Barack Obama , when he ran his campaign for state senator, had his opponents thrown off the ballots by challenging the signatures on their petitions to run. He cleared the ballot of all opponents.
He does not play fair -- and never has. That is his modus operandi. He learned everything he needed to know about politics in Cook County and he has brought its mores to Washington.
Change, yes, change; but in a wrong direction and in a way that the media would scorn had a Republican tried to derail opposition by these tactics.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments