Wizblog

Bill Clinton has been accused of hurting his wife's political campaign in a variety of ways, to include hogging the limelight, sheer nastiness and below-the-belt rhetoric, and just reminding everyone every day that he will be going back to the White House too, if Hillary gets elected.

Now, just as Democrats have begun to once again use the economy as a political hammer to George Bush's head, (after ignoring for six years the high growth, low inflation, low unemployment prosperity) and have begun using the 'R' word again, here comes Bill Clinton to confuse matters.

Now "recession" is not an undesirable but inevitable result of Republican economic policy as much as it is a goal to be pursued by all. And a noble, even an earth-saving goal at that. Talk about moving the goalposts just as your own team's kicker approaches the ball. From Jake Tapper of ABC, quoting WJC:

"We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

Clinton goes on to say that the U.S. and Europe and Japan and Canada.... "the rich countries", can't do it alone.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.

So, if the poor countries join us in the effort to cut emissions they will "stay poor", admits Clinton. But...

The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

So, if I've got this right, we will intentionally slow down our economy so we can then transform it, while in a recessionary state, into a sustainable one, so we won't have to force ourselves to intentionally slow it down again anytime soon...you know...to save the planet for our children and grandchildren. And it turns out, all we have to do to effect this transformation...the one that "will create millions and millions and millions of jobs", is of course to "vote for her. She'll give it to you. She has the right energy policy." Why had no one thought of this before?

Just one more, slightly incoherent quote from the slick one:

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future…

I'm sure there must be some statistical, factual basis for this assertion somewhere, (because Bill wouldn't lie) although I'm aware that most all of the European Kyoto signatories are failing to meet their emissions cuts commitments, and many are still actually increasing their CO2 emissions at rates higher than those in the U.S.

Wait a minute. He didn't say any of these unspecified countries have actually reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. He just said they had made a commitment to do it, that we hadn't. Now they have rising wages and declining inequality. They're not reducing emissions, but they're well intended. Why can't we follow the lead of our European friends and do better at meaningless posturing while continuing to pursue our own country's best economic interests?

Of course, we can do better. And it's easy. Bill's bottom line message is this: "Vote for her. She'll give it to you." Because she just has so much to give.

To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg; Why mess with the pursuit of happiness when you can elect to have it delivered?

Posted by dan at 11:46 PM | Permalink

If you haven't caught the PBS Frontline show Return of the Taliban yet, I'd recommend it highly. The whole one-hour show is available online at the link, if you can't wait to see it on your PBS channel.

On location in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, the program gives some sense of just what we're up against in that mountainous Afghan border region where both the British and the Russians eventually gave up on pacifying the locals. There is some gruesome footage early in the show attesting to the depravity of the Taliban, and the whole program conveys the logistic and political difficulties of governing in an area where Osama bin Laden is a hero, and crowds rally in the streets to cries of "Bush is a dog!"

Pakistani government officials lie through their teeth to the Frontline reporter when pressed on the details of attacks on terrorist leadership, claiming credit for the Pakistani military, when the evidence proves that they were the work of U.S. missiles. And even George Bush seems to not believe what he's saying in his public appearances with Musharraf, that "Pakistan is our ally in the War on Terror."

The hell they are.

Posted by dan at 10:53 PM | Permalink

Here's the full text of the President's State of the Union speech.

Posted by dan at 1:34 AM | Permalink

This is priceless. (via The Corner)

Posted by dan at 10:40 PM | Permalink

Bill Clinton's dismissal of Barack Obama's victory in South Carolina with a pointed reference to Jesse Jackson's wins there in the 80's has the Clinton campaign under fire from liberals and conservatives alike. I've assembled a sampling of center-right commentary from the last couple of days, and there seem to be a few recurring themes. To a man, the commentators quoted below acknowledge that the admirable tone of Obama's campaign has been the polar opposite of Jackson's tired race-baiting, and that Obama's electoral accomplishments already dwarf those of the Reverend.

And behind a sort of barely-concealed glee at seeing leftists hoist by their own identity-politics petard, is another kind of satisfaction, from watching decent liberals come to be disgusted by what they see in what has always been Clintonism. Starting with the Wall Street Journal op-ed...

The Clinton Race Gambit - WSJ.com

Asked by a reporter why it took "two" Clintons to beat Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton replied that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" in 1984 and 1988. And he added that both Rev. Jackson and Mr. Obama had run "a good campaign here." Hmmm. The reporter hadn't mentioned Jesse Jackson, but Mr. Clinton somehow felt it apposite to refer to him anyway. He thus associated Mr. Obama's landslide victory with that of a black candidate who never did win the Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency, and who had run overtly as an African-American candidate in contrast to Mr. Obama's explicit campaign theme of transcending race. [Barack Obama]

Anyone who thinks this was accidental has spent too much time with Sid Blumenthal.

---

It's going to be fascinating to see if Democrats and the press let the Clintons get away with this. Imagine if Mitt Romney had made the Jesse Jackson comparison. Democrats would have immediately denounced the remarks as "racist," or as a part of some Republican "Southern strategy."

James Taranto, reacting to Jesse Jackson's quote that he didn't "read anything negative into Clinton's observation"...

In Mr. Clinton's defense, it may be said that Obama has some things in common with Jackson as a presidential candidate. Like Jackson (at least in South Carolina), he won an overwhelming number of black votes--78%, according to CNN exit polls--presumably in part because of ethnic pride. As for the white vote, one can argue that Obama's glass is half empty (less than 1 in 4 whites went for him) or half full (Obama's 24% was much better than the estimated 5% to 10% Jackson got in the 1988 caucuses, according to the New York Times). Also, in this columnist's opinion, Obama, like Jackson, is too liberal and too inexperienced to make an ideal president.

Given all this, and given that Jackson himself is taking the high road, shouldn't we refrain from making a big deal of Mr. Clinton's remark?

Absolutely not. Jackson is impossibly compromised in this matter, because at the root of Mr. Clinton's comment is the recognition that Jackson stands for something loathsome--something that Obama has repudiated.

Jesse Jackson is not a racial healer but an ambulance chaser. He has made his career exploiting black insecurity and white guilt, seizing on racial disputes and misunderstandings to profit financially and enhance his own status. If racial disharmony disappeared tomorrow, Jackson would be out of a job.

In this sense--the sense that is most important to Jackson's political identity--Obama is Jackson's opposite. He has emerged as a national political figure, and a plausible prospective president, by calling for unity, not by seeking to take advantage of division.

When Mr. Clinton likens Obama to Jackson, the clear message to white voters is that a black candidate cannot be better than Jackson, cannot be relied upon to put the interests of the country above those of his race or himself. This is a truly bigoted notion--and it is one that Jackson cannot protest, for to protest it would be to acknowledge the truth about himself.

Bill Kristol in the New York Times: (I just like the way that sounds)

What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.

Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.

But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters

So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.

Christopher Hitchens:

How can one equal Bill Clinton for thuggery and opportunism when it comes to the so-called "race card"? And where does one even start with the breathtaking nastiness of his own conduct, and that of his supporters, in the last week? Barack Obama carries South Carolina having made no sectarian appeal to any specific kind of voter, and the best Clinton can say is that this is no better than Jesse Jackson managed to do. Really? Did Jackson come south having already got himself elected the senator from Illinois? And, come to think of it, was Jackson so much to be despised and sneered at when he was needed as Clinton's "confessor," along with Billy Graham, during the squalor of impeachment?

Hitchens recalls a couple prominent examples of Clinton's history of exploiting racial division, including the execution of the severely mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector, and notes that...

...all this was forgiven by credulous liberals who were sure that they had discovered a New Democrat who was a Southerner to boot.

Many of these same people do not like it now that they see similar two-faced tactics being employed against "one of their own." Well, tough. And many of the most prominent and eloquent black columnists—Bob Herbert, Colbert King, Eugene Robinson—are also acting shocked. It's a bit late. I have to say that Bob Herbert shocked even me by quoting Andrew Young, who said that his pal Clinton was "every bit as black as Barack" because he'd screwed more black chicks. How is Hillary Clinton, or Chelsea Clinton, supposed to feel on hearing that little endorsement? One gets the impression, though, at least from the wife, that anything is OK as long as it works, or even has a chance of working.

Indeed, many on the Left, including former Clinton supporters and apologists are expressing revulsion and surprise at this latest Clintonian smear. The WSJ editorial linked above finishes like this:

This primary contest has been a rolling revelation for many Democrats and the media, as they've been shocked to see the Clinton brand of divisive politics played against one of their own. Liberal columnists who long idolized the Clintons are even writing more-in-sorrow-than-anger pieces asking how Bill and Hillary could descend to such deceptive tactics. Allow us to answer that lament this way: Our readers aren't surprised.

UPDATE 1/28: A bit off topic, but regarding the endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy today, I thought Peter Wehner eloquently noted the irony dripping from Teddy's bemoaning of the "politics of personal destruction."

UPDATE 1/20: Daily Observer has a sample of the criticism of Clinton from the left.

Posted by dan at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Barack Obama is being advised by a number of people with track records of anti-Israel pronouncements and actions. Drawing attention to that reality may force Obama to be more forthcoming on the subject. Among those doing that is Ed Lasky at American Thinker:

One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.

As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship.

Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain.

Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel.

Writing at contentions, Noah Pollock identifies one of those advisors as Harvard professor Samantha Power:

Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School’s website, Power was asked to explain “long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy.” She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is “the US historic predisposition to go it alone.” A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause:

Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole is defined and pursued . . . America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.

So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests–especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace–seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.

Power is not just assenting to the Israel Lobby view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003–an appalling slander, and a telling one.

My excerpts don't do either piece justice. Click and read it all. More from Lasky here.

UPDATE 1/28: It's only fair to point out that there are those who believe Obama has been co-opted by the "Israel lobby", and is far too pro-Israel already. This site, tellingly called Electronic Intifada, is one example.

And a letter that Obama wrote to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad has been circulating in recent days. It may or may not have been timed (the version I saw was not dated) and publicized to counter some of the voices that have been critical of his circle of advisors. Here's the text:

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condenm the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Posted by dan at 2:42 PM | Permalink

David Horowitz answers his critics.

Posted by dan at 1:24 AM | Permalink

When the temperature hits single digits in January, it's baseball time. The Indians have had a quiet offseason, but Peter Gammons says it's because Mark Shapiro and his staff have laid the groundwork in previous years for a young, talented team, pushed and fed by a strong farm system. As tough as the Tigers lineup looks now with Cabrera, Gammons says they still have an unproven pitching staff.... but he likes the Tribe's pitching.

The Indians, meanwhile, will start the season with seven starting pitchers. Can they count on C.C. Sabathia and Fausto Carmona combining for 38 wins and a 3.15 ERA again? Probably not. But, remember, they left the city limits of Winter Haven, Fla. last spring thinking Cliff Lee and Jeremy Sowers were their second and third starters based on being a combined 21-15 in 2006 (Sowers was second in the AL in ERA in the second half), and both ended up at Triple-A Buffalo after they combined to go 6-14, 6.32.

Both Lee and Sowers are a lot better than that. Jake Westbrook is better than 6-9 and Aaron Laffey demonstrated consistent sink, athleticism and an ability to hold runners in his September and October stint. Adam Miller believes his arm and finger problems are behind him. But with Sabathia likely headed into free agency at the end of the season, Miller likely will be groomed to take his extraordinary talent into the rotation in 2009.

Joe Borowski is always going to scare Cleveland fans (that 5.07 ERA might have something to do with it), but he still had 45 saves and bounced back from virtually every derailment. With Rafael Betancourt, Jensen Lewis, Rafael Perez, Aaron Fultz and Kobayashi, the bullpen is deep and versatile.

Remember, Travis Hafner's home runs and OPS dropped from 42 and 1.098 in 2006 to 24 and .836, and Grady Sizmore's OPS dropped from .908 to .852 last season. This year, they will have Asdrubal Cabrera in the lineup from the start of the season. And don't forget, they finished the Yankees' season in New York last October and had the Red Sox down 3-1 in the ALCS before Josh Beckett slammed the door of momentum in their faces.

David Pinto's Baseball Musings uses something called the Lineup Analysis Tool to predict each team's 2008 offense. Cleveland's given runs per game is 5.6 (which would have been second in the league in 2007), Detroit's 5.58, Boston's 5.78 and the Yankees' 5.89.

Fortunately, Mark Shapiro is far from dead. He along with several of the other Indians front office executives, Chris Antonetti, Mike Chernoff, John Mirabelli and Ross Atkins and that very well put together organization are working on who and what will be in place when Sabathia leaves, or Casey Blake starts to age.

This winter's quiet is testament to all the work the Indians have done the previous seven years, with all that is in place to repeat as the winningest team in baseball.

One thing that Shapiro has tried to pull off is acquiring a power-hitting corner outfielder without giving up too much young talent in return. Who can blame him for holding back so far when the asking price usually starts with Adam Miller? My fond hope is that Ben Francisco, who arrived with such a splash last season, will grab on to the left field job in the Spring, and not let it go. Jason Michaels stays as the fourth outfielder. Then with talented young outfielders like Jordan Brown (#2) and Nick Weglarz(#6) coming up through the system, maybe Shapiro can focus his attention on other things.

Check out Baseball America's ranking of Tribe prospects. And here's a detailed look at a ranking of theTop 50 Indians prospects, a must for hardcore Tribe fans. Lots more at the home page Cleveland Indians Minor League Insider. I ended up there via The DiaTribe, a blog written by Paul Cousineau. If there's a better Indians blog, I haven't found it.

UPDATE 1/27: Terry Pluto's take in the Sunday PD.

Posted by dan at 9:41 PM | Permalink

I missed it several days ago when the story of The Lost Archive appeared in the WSJ. 450 rolls of film containing photos of early manuscripts of the Quran, long thought lost in WWII bombings in Germany, have surfaced, and are causing controversy among scholars, including resistance by some to their being examined at all.

Media Matters, an organization formed by Hillary Clinton and funded by leftist sugar daddy George Soros, has finally discovered Chris Matthews' sexism, now that he has been critical of the junior senator from N.Y. Matthews has folded like Superman on laundry day under pressure from the Clinton machine. And he's disappointed, because he so wanted to be liked by these people.

With an assist from John Kerry, Barack Obama is attempting to counter an email that has been widely circulated in recent weeks claiming that Obama is, or has been a Muslim. Kerry has suggested that the charge is analogous to the notorious "Swiftboating" that hurt his electoral prospects in 2004. While it appears Obama has not ever been a practicing Muslim, he might do well to avoid the Kerry comparisons, because despite the popular perception, most of the charges made against Kerry by the Swiftboat Veterans in 2004 have not been disputed, much less discredited. (via IP)

Ed Morrissey is staying on top of the documents from the 1994 Health Care Task Force that are gradually being released via a Judicial Watch inquiry. (see CQ posts here and here) They are reminders of the kind of arrogance and media manipulation that were hallmarks of the first Clinton administration. See also Cal Thomas on this issue.

Frank Gaffney cites a recent case that illustrates the potential dangers that the Law of the Sea Treaty poses for U.S. sovereignty.

Posted by dan at 11:18 PM | Permalink

Buckets of bandwidth have been used up already in reaction to the New York Times feature story on the "deadly echoes" of war now playing out on the streets of the heartland as Iraq veterans return home. The paper has devoted 7000 words (in Part 1 alone) to a roundup of violent misdeeds by Iraq veterans (121 in all), generating lots of "human interest" but precious little context or meaningful analysis, much less any linkage between military service and violent behavior.

And it hasn't taken long for the back-of-the-envelope number crunching to begin, prompted in part by the outrage of people whose experiences with returning Iraq veterans doesn't resemble the portrait of gut-wrenching death and heartbreak in the Times story. Ralph Peters was among those digging down for some numbers early on:

The Times did get one basic fact right: Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.

Had the Times' "journalists" and editors bothered to put those figures in context - which they carefully avoided doing - they would've found that the murder rate that leaves them so aghast means that our vets are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers.

Click and read the basis for Peters' calculation, but whatever you do, don't miss Iowahawk's brilliant riposte (I heard it called too real to be true parody) to the Times piece. The product of the time and research of one blogger in a few days would appear to compare favorably to that of the nine reporters the Times had working on "Deadly Echoes". See also a follow-up post by Iowahawk.

Mark Steyn is trenchant and funny, as ever:

As usual, the Times stories are written in the fey more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone that’s a shoo-in come Pulitzer time: “Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.”

“Patchwork picture,” “quiet phenomenon”… Yes, yes, but exactly how quiet is the phenomenon? How patchy is the picture?” The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan either “committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one.” The “committed a killing” formulation includes car accidents.

Thus, with declining deaths in theater, the media narrative evolves. Old story: “America’s soldiers are being cut down by violent irrational insurgents we can never hope to understand.” New story: “Americans are being cut down by violent irrational soldiers we can never hope to understand.” In the quagmire of these veterans’ minds, every leafy Connecticut subdivision is Fallujah and every Dunkin’ Donuts clerk an Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with an annoyingly perky manner.

Bob Owens pulled together lots of the relevant violent crime statistics writing here at PJM, and also at his own blog. Interesting too, that Bob is also busy these days writing the final chapter in the story of a previous media attempt to propagandize with a misleading (okay, utterly fictional) portrayal of the degradation of the U.S. soldier by the ravages of war. See recent Beauchamp document dumps here, here, and here.

John Dilulio at the Standard has more numbers.

And I'll wrap it with an excerpt from Ralph Peters follow-up column The New Lepers

The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).

But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder . . . ).

Well, a quick statistics check let the air out of the Times' bid to make us dread the veteran down the block - who the Times implies has a machine gun under his bathrobe when he steps out front to fetch the morning paper. In fact, the capital-crimes rate ballyhooed by the Gray Lady demonstrates that our returning troops are far less likely to commit such an offense.

---

To a darkly humorous degree, all this reflects the Freudian terrors leftists feel when confronted with men who don't have concave chests. But it goes far beyond that.

Pretending to pity tormented veterans (vets don't want our pity - they want our respect), the Times' feature was an artful example of hate-speech disguised as a public service.

Plus one of Iowahawk's posters:

Posted by dan at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

How could he have slept through that?

via Bearing Drift Ohio

Posted by dan at 11:44 PM | Permalink

Matt Labash, whose October piece on political operative Roger Stone I thought was some of 2007's best journalism, is revisiting Stone for the lowdown on his latest venture, a new anti-Hillary 527 group called Citizens United Not Timid. I haven't spent any time at the group's website, but Labash says there's not much by way of a substantive message that the group wishes to impart to voters. They're just hoping the acronym goes viral. And it just might.

Posted by dan at 1:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

With the new year comes the new Edge question, and the answers of lots of smart people.

"What have you changed your mind about? Why?"

I read this every year. It's humbling. Pack a lunch.

Posted by dan at 2:22 AM | Permalink

Democrats aren't worried about budget deficits anymore if their "stimulus package" proposals are any indication. Rubinomics, RIP, from the WSJ.

A postmortem on the Ron Paul controversy by libertarian writer/blogger Robert Bidinotto.

People dying stupidly: The 2007 Darwin Awards nominees

A rather depressing report from Foreign Policy on the indoctrination of French and German students on the evils of free markets, capitalism and entrepreneurship: Europe's Philosophy of Failure

A YouTube video illustrating the immigration problems we face if current trends continue: Immigration Gumballs

Worst. Blogging. Clichés.

Posted by dan at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I know....wrong beer slogan. Watch anyway.