Spellchek

"If a word in the dictionary were misspelled,how would we know?"-Stephen Wright

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Apple not paying enough in taxes? Who should you be mad at?

Posted by 5etester on May 22, 2013

Congress is busy once again doing the two-step. Step one is to publicly vilify successful corporations for not paying enough taxes by exercising the very tax loopholes instituted by Congress. Step two is to laugh all the way to the bank with their crony-corporatism policies that make their fortunes while pretending to have the people’s back.

Apple is the latest target and Sen. Rand Paul is calling out these hypocrites – http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/21/apple-rand-paul-twitter/.

“I’m offended by the tone of these hearings,” he said, with some heat. “Tell me what Apple has done that’s illegal. If anyone should be on trial here it’s Congress. The Senate should apologize to Apple.”

Spellchek posted this a couple years back when G.E. was in the crosshairs – http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/g-e-pays-no-corporate-income-taxes-in-2010-are-you-mad/.

You can be mad at G.E. for exploiting the system and retaining as much of their profits as they can. You would be better served to direct your anger at the taxation policies of our government.

Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to MAXIMIZE profits for their shareholders. It is their obligation and duty. Any of this rhetoric we hear concerning a corporation having any type of moral obligation toward creating jobs or reducing profits as some sort of consumer benefit is just garbage. A company is in business for one reason and one reason only. To maximize profits and realize as great a return on their investor’s investment as possible. Period.

Getting mad at Apple or G.E. is simple ignorance to the facts. Congress makes their own bed and must lie in it.

Posted in Economics, News, Politics | Comments Off

Age old agendas guide geo-political events

Posted by 5etester on May 21, 2013

Spellchek has posted many times on natural resources, energy access and distribution as being the reasons behind the bulk of global conflicts. Religion and land are usually cited as the top reasons for war, however, even those are sometimes merely a front for a natural resorces basis. The fight over natural resources goes back centuries and still sits at the top of the list for governments to consider when making policy.

The next two globally intertwined conflicts fit the bill. Syria, which is primarily over pipeline distribution routes, and the lesser known China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, which is over the massive Chunxiao gas field.

Russia has been repositioning assets into the Mediterranean for the first time in decades – http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130521/181260167/Two-Warships-Join-Russias-Mediterranean-Task-Force.html.

Mere coincidence with the escalating rhetoric for more direct U.S. involvement in Syria? That may be the ‘official’ bill of goods being peddled but you can draw your own conclusions as the U.S. Marines with their assault ships are now in Israel coincidentally – http://www.investingchannel.com/article/229312/Russian-Pacific-Fleet-Warships-Enter-Mediterranean-For-First-Time-In-Decades-To-Park-In-Cyprus.

You may recall that the first Sino-Japanese war was fought over land in the form of North Korea – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War.

As a newly emergent power, Japan turned its attention toward Korea. In order to protect its own interests and security, Japan wanted to block another power from annexing Korea or maintaining dominance in Korea, or at least ensure Korea’s effective independence by developing its resources and reforming its administration

Interesting that is was U.S. intervention in 1854 that led Japan to become involved in global trade.

It is likely a common misunderstanding that nations intervene in foreign conflicts in an effort to secure assets for themselves. Iraq for oil as an example. Some would also suport the idea that to the victor goes the spoils as a form of repayment. The idea being that the U.S. nation built in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s OK to take their oil as repayment.

The problem is that you are painted a tyrant and occupier by most. If your agenda is global conquest, you would follow this logic as an aura of fear is preferable anyway.

History is replete with failed global tyrants and the governments of the world take notice, particularly the so-called superpowers. It is considered more efficient strategically to pursue what we see today. Proxy wars and interventions designed to ensure global access to natural resources as a way of denying opponents a strategic edge. Doesn’t matter if it’s water, land, gas, oil, precious minerals, whatever it may be, if it can be made available to a global market than no one country can control it.

It becomes clear when one studies the seemingly random and irrational pattern of interventions based upon issues such as human rights and third-world poverty. The way in which countries pick and choose their battles. The U.S. getting involved in Syria would qualify as Assad killing his own people is repeated daily in many other countries around the globe in which we don’t intervene.

This is not to say that natural resources are always the reason behind conflicts. The spread of Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda is very much ideology based and fully supported by our President even if he’ll never declare it. His actions defy him. It may seem to be a conflict of interest with the President’s personal agenda and the nation’s agenda. Yet any good politican always finds a way to make their personal beliefs coincide with their professional role.

Many times multiple agendas come together at certain points. Obama and the democrat party are one. His agenda is much bigger than the party, yet they are often bedfellows where the agendas align.

Any hopes for global peace and a lessening of wars and conflicts is folly. Simply way too many fingers in the pie for that to ever happen.

Posted in News, Philosophy, Politics | Comments Off

Obama desperately needs a distraction – sounds like a good time to meet with Turkey over the Syrian game plan

Posted by 5etester on May 16, 2013

Scandal-gate is in overdrive at the most transparent administration in history. It’s tough to keep up there are so many. Benghazi, the IRS, wiretapping reporters, the Saudi mysteriously cleared at the Boston Marathon, fast and furious, voter fraud, illegal immigration, and on and on and on.

With that in mind, Obama is meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the U.S. getting more involved in Syria. From USA Today.

President Obama turns back to Middle East diplomacy on Thursday.

The president welcomes Turkish Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan to the White House for a series of talks.

A primary topic: The civil war in Syria.

Erdogan is pushing the United States to do more to resolve the conflict in Syria.

“The prime minister’s visit underscores the close friendship between the United States and Turkey and the strategic importance we place on broadening and deepening our relationship moving forward,” says the White House.

After a bilateral meeting in the morning, Obama and Erdogan will host a brief news conference.

Thursday night, the president hosts a working dinner with Erdogan.

The news conference is likely to include questions about domestic disputes swirling around Obama, including Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service admission that it targeted conservative groups over their tax-exempt status.

On Wednesday, Obama’s aides released talking points officials developed in the days after the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack, while the president dismissed the acting IRS director.
Read more:http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/05/16/obama-turkey-recip-erdogan-syria/2165241/

You may recall that it was Turkey that Obama chose as his first visit as President to a Muslim nation – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/4953757/Barack-Obama-chooses-Turkey-for-his-first-presidential-visit-to-a-Muslim-nation.html.

Hmmm, a White House begging for a distraction to get itself off the headlines of every newspaper in the country and an ally with a request for our involvement in yet another overseas conflict? Sure sounds like a recipe for another Libya. It’s not coincidental that it was Turkey that Obama used as a transit route in trafficking Libyan weapons and Jihadists to Syria under the false premise of a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi.

If I were Assad in Syria, this would be a good time to make sure my last will and testament was in order.

Posted in News, Politics | Comments Off

Killing America one iconic symbol at a time

Posted by 5etester on May 14, 2013

thCA6HTH7VthCA1PYNZM

I wonder if the indian from the iconic 1970′s ‘Keep America Beautiful’ commercial would agree with Obama on his ‘green’ energy initiatives? It is estimated that in excess of half a million birds are killed each year by the windmills that are taking over our landscape.

redkiteH/T-http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3524/wind_farms_continue_to_kill_wildlife_as_government_stays_silent

I suppose it fits right in with the President’s agenda to crush the America we grew up with so why not allow one of its greatest symbols to die with impunity?

346023267_56ff881716

H/T – Redding.com – http://www.redding.com/news/2013/may/14/wind-farms-get-pass-killing-eagles/

Wait, you say. The President is only trying to do what’s best for the country. It’s for the greater good akin to eminent domain. If millions of birds have to take one for the team to wean our country off of fossil fuels, than all is forgiven, right? Kind of like the countless Americans who have died due to the CAFE standards in which increasing miles per gallon at the expense of safer vehicles is warranted? Or perhaps the ethanol mandate which is killing people in third-world countries?

Sacrificing for the collective is fine if we’re talking about your family, but when it’s tyranny and an authoritarian statist empire hell bent on dictating how to run our lives? No thanks.

Posted in News, Politics | Comments Off

The truth is a victim in Benghazi as political points are deemed more valuable

Posted by 5etester on May 11, 2013

Here are two accounts that claim only Obama could have issued a “stand-down” order. The implication being that we held back troops as our people were dying.

The Pentagon disputes the contention.

Could the U.S. military have done more to help? Not according to the Pentagon – and the hearing’s key witness. Aircraft that might have buzzed the compound where the second pair of Americans died – and scared the militants away — were 900 miles north in Italy. “Time and distance are a tyranny of their own,” Admiral James Stavridis, who responded to the attacks as the NATO commander, told Congress earlier this year. Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated it would take as long as 20 hours to get the planes above Benghazi. Hicks testified that he asked the U.S. defense attaché in Tripoli if planes could be scrambled to help those under attack in the CIA annex in Benghazi, a battle that unfolded hours after the initial assault on the nearby U.S. consulate, which killed Stevens, and led to two more American deaths. “He said that it would take two to three hours for them to get on site, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel,” Hicks said Wednesday. “And I said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and we went on with our work.” Hicks also testified that a four man team of Green Berets in Tripoli were denied a request to deploy to Benghazi the morning after the attack began, though officials doubt they could have arrived early enough to save lives at the CIA annex. “We continue to believe there was nothing this team could have done to assist during the second attack in Benghazi,” Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/death-security-and-hillary-2016-making-sense-of-the-benghazi-hearings/#ixzz2SyxjC4RP

Dempsey says as much as 20 hours to get planes to Benghazi. Panetta testifies in this video that it’s 9-12 hours. Dempsey states that the State Dept. never asked for help.

Panetta also testified that Obama directed both himself and Dempsey to do “everything we needed to do to try and protect lives there”. Maybe it’s just me but doing everything possible doesn’t require a State Dept. request for assistance now does it Gen. Dempsey?

Here is the Hick’s assertion that a stand-down order was given.

Let’s be honest about what this boils down to. Hicks testified that the denial to send in the 4 Green Berets was to secure the airport for securely transporting our personnel out of Benghazi. This would have taken place after both attacks had occurred and the 4 Americans were already dead. The Pentagon statement supports that timeline. The GOP is making hay with the potential “stand-down” order given to leave our people to die. That’s not what happened. Anyone who has ever read this blog knows that I don’t support Obama in the slightest, but we need to get the facts straight on Benghazi and this isn’t being portrayed accurately.

Sending in the 4 Green Berets wouldn’t have saved a single American life. One could make an argument that we had no way of knowing the attacks were over with and prudence would have merited sending them anyway to aid in what was still unknown at the time. That’s a valid point, however, it wouldn’t have saved any of the 4 lives being debated so the GOP needs to stop with the disinformation campaign in order to make political points. Securing an airport for personnel removal isn’t the same as holding back troops and allowing our people to die on the battlefield.

If they’re serious about holding the Administration to account for Benghazi, then they should focus on the testimony above. Panetta and Dempsey had been directed by Obama to do “everything” necessary which they did not do. This was approx. 5:15pm EST, about a half hour after the attacks had started at 9:40pm Benghazi time. Nothing Panetta or Dempsey would have done would have saved Chris Steven’s or Sean Smith’s lives as they died in the first attack. But they could have certainly done something to save the lives of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods who died nearly 7 hours later in the CIA annex attack.

To think that it would take anywhere from 9 to 20 hours just to get a plane in the air over Benghazi is hard to believe. I’ll bet we could get a B-2 all the way from Missouri there in that time frame with air-to-air refueling. Now, does Hick’s contention that merely flying around the area with a fighter jet would be effective at scaring and dispersing the crowd? No one knows the answer to that. But clearly, if Panetta and Dempsey had taken steps at 5:15pm EST to reposition assets, something surely could have been done before the 2nd attack commenced. Let’s not forget our NATO allies with assets in the region as well since Dempsey would have us believe that it takes nearly a full day to scramble a jet to Benghazi. Garbage!

Bottom line is that the GOP is never going to “get” Obama on a stand-down charge. They know it. They are simply playing it up for political points. That’s what disgusts me about the whole thing. Both sides still just playing politics. They could make a legitimate charge that Panetta and Dempsey should be held accountable as they had direct orders from Obama to act and do everything possible. As well, Hillary Clinton is responsible for the security lapses leading up to the attacks. If they could secure proof that an order was given not to arm the surveillance drone overhead, than they would have something legitimate. Truth is, if they had it, we would know it by now.

Where is the GOP focused? Altering talking points. Who gave a “stand-down” order that wouldn’t have saved a single life anyway.

Where is the GOP not focused? The gun-running to al-Qaeda! The silenced survivors. The mission of Benghazi.

Seems to me that where they aren’t focused is far, far more damaging to the Obama Administration. Problem is that it’s also lethal to the CIA, the State Dept., our global standing concerning foreign policy and whatever else we don’t know about with other government agencies involvement. Boehner and Issa aren’t going anywhere near there in an attempt to tarnish Obama and Clinton.

If somehow it were to ever all come out, it would make Watergate look like a non-event. Neither Democrats or Republicans are going to allow that to happen.

Posted in News, Politics | Comments Off

Benghazi drone camera operator interview

Posted by 5etester on May 7, 2013

The above was audio from a caller named John from Iowa to the Sean Hannity show who claimed to have operated the camera on the drone flying over Benghazi during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012.

We don’t know if he was legit or a ringer. His account of the attacks matches what is already known so he didn’t shed any light on anything unreported so far. However, he did make one important claim. That the drone was dispatched to the area well in advance because something “might go down”.

So why the mystery? He wouldn’t give his identity yet claimed he wasn’t revealing anything classified. Unless he could provide verifiable proof of his statement that something “might go down”, he really didn’t add much which might explain his bewilderment that no one from Congress has ever contacted him for his story. If Congress can view the drone feed themselves, then I’m sorry John from Iowa, you don’t really have anything to add.

Near the end of his call he threw out a dig at Clinton for her 2016 run for office stating “God help us”. This is where he just looks like a “ringer” caller set up for Hannity. As I have repeatedly harped on in previous posts, so much of these Benghazi revelations are nothing more than campaign material for the 2016 election and it would appear that caller “John” fits into that category.

Sorry if I seem like such a buzzkill to all of this, but I think is important to temper the enthusiasm in finally “getting somewhere” on exposing the Obama Administration lies concerning Benghazi. We may be making progress for the 2016 election, but we aren’t making progress in achieving justice for the dead in Benghazi.

Posted in News, Politics | Comments Off

Besides the 4 dead guys in Benghazi, who else is the victim? The American people who are looked at as suckers by the political establishment

Posted by 5etester on May 6, 2013

If you happened to read my post recently about the highly-touted “whistleblower” who appeared on Fox, you know I was less than impressed. Not because I don’t wish to see the truth about Benghazi come to light, rather I hope to see relevant testimony come forward. I think I can make a pretty safe bet that this isn’t it.

The GOP angle has become quite clear. Benghazi for them is merely a political opportunity to attempt to derail the Clinton 2016 candidacy before it ever gets legs. They know there isn’t any smoking gun to tie-in Obama who is a lame-duck anyway. So the next best thing is to tie Clinton in to the video cover-up and the non-response to the attacks in time to save lives.

The internet is strewn with stories today about the whistleblowers and the “explosive” testimony they are about to unleash. I have to go back to my post from October 18, 2012 – http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-true-benghazi-cover-up-means-asking-the-right-question/.

The media firestorm is all about the Obama cover-up of the response. It should be focused on why this ever happened because it stinks to high heaven. Ambassador Stevens is dead and it appears to me that it was intended to be that way. The testimony supports it. The events leading up to it supports it. The real question is why?

Despite all the attention that will be paid to Benghazi this week, we still won’t find out why. Nor will anyone even be asking the question. It just disgusts me. The GOP will be proudly displaying their badge of honor that they are fighting to get the truth out after all this time despite the Obama Administration doing their level best to just make it go away. Not in my book. The GOP may be doing all it can to score political points and better position themselves for 2016, but they aren’t pursuing the truth that really matters.

Don’t get me wrong. Tar and feathering Clinton for her involvement may be the best option the GOP has to take her down in 2016. Please proceed. But where is the ‘real’ investigation? I want to see the GOP pursue it with the same vigor they have for Clinton’s neck.

Investigate the gun trafficking and coordinating Jihadist fighters to Syria and al-Qaeda.

Investigate the CIA prisoner detention at the annex. Some speculate the NSA is behind all of it.

Investigate the survivors, how many, who they are, why they’re being silenced and what insight can they provide as to the above two questions.

Those are the core questions that will explain so much including the purpose of the U.S. special mission, the coordinated drawdown of security prior to the attacks and the lack of any aid once they commenced. This is where the real dirt is. And it’s why the GOP only gives it lip service. The truth will be extremely damning to the U.S. government and for a whole host of reasons the GOP doesn’t want it to get out any more than Obama does.

Once again, the American people are being snowballed. While the left and right have a political debate over Benghazi, the nasty, bitter pill that is the truth isn’t even up for discussion.

Posted in News, Politics | Comments Off

Fox Benghazi whistleblower bombshell interview? Or not?

Posted by 5etester on May 1, 2013

What is a whistleblower? According to the online dictionary, it is this: One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.

What’s unique concerning the Benghazi cover-up is the fact that no whistleblower has yet to come forward. We are merely hearing from hidden sources that “potential” whistleblowers exist and that they are being threatened. The supposed whistleblower that appeared in the Fox story is unidentified.

So we have State Dept. employees seeking legal counsel as they claim to have been threatened by the Obama Administration with career ending punishment should they go public. And we have special ops sources that appear on Fox that “would be decapitated if they came forward with information that would affect high level commanders”.

I remember serving on jury duty years ago in a drunk driving case. It seemed a little surreal to us jurors at first when both sides came out and told us that the defendant was guilty. In other words, we were only there to decide how much money to award the victim. The analogy being that we have both sides telling us that these whistleblowers really do exist and we are merely negotiating their punishment for doing so.

It would seem a little less weird if we had already seen a whistleblower come forward with an accusation and we were debating its merits. Instead, we are watching the GOP say they exist but they want the Obama Administration to be the ones to out them. Confusing to say the least.

A logical thinking person may ask what harm could come from simply releasing the identities of the survivors. Or what harm could come from the supposed State Dept. employees counsel revealing the names of those who wish to tell Congress what they know. After all, wouldn’t it seem preferable to have your identity revealed as a protection against future retaliation? It’s likely these State Dept. employees don’t have any concrete evidence as to direct threats or we would already know about it.

I mean, we aren’t even talking about giving up the goods on Obama, only the identities of those people. Yet we can’t even get to that starting point in uncovering Benghazi. Of course the Administration lackeys are all deployed to say it’s time to move on, we’ve spent enough time on Benghazi, etc. They have everything to lose if we ever get to the bottom of it.

But why won’t the GOP reveal names? Why won’t Issa issue subpoenas? Is everybody really caught up in playing this silly media game in which they simply hope to shame Obama in coming clean? Never. Gonna. Happen.

Either put your cards on the table or we may as well do as Obama wishes and just move on. Merely accusing Obama of misusing his options to respond to the Benghazi attacks isn’t going anywhere. Wouldn’t matter if the SEALS were having a training exercise 2 blocks away went it went down. If he made the wrong call as a response, the most you get him on is being an incapable Commander-in-Chief. You need solid evidence, not hearsay, of a stand-down order issued.

You can’t tell me that if that evidence exists that the GOP wouldn’t give every assurance to the whistleblower that they won’t need to worry anymore about career progression as they will be taken care of for the rest of their life. Some rich donor would see to that for sure if the result were to take down Obama. So suffice it to say that it isn’t out there. Any orders given were verbal only.

Nice try Fox. You might get your ratings bump by selling this as a bombshell revealed yet it’s only more of the same we’ve been hearing for seven months. Wake me up when you have something relevant.

Posted in News, Politics | Comments Off

Shotgun hold-up FAIL

Posted by 5etester on May 1, 2013

It would appear that this would-be thief followed Biden’s advice and bought a shotgun. Apparently, he didn’t realize that you don’t need to be 2 inches from your targeted victim for it to be effective.

You know, it’s bad enough to be made to look foolish by having your weapon knocked away but to have it completely stripped from you in a flash? This is one criminal who should have taken advantage of one of those cash for guns programs. At least he would have walked away with a few bucks.

Posted in Comedy, Cool stuff!, News, Politics | Comments Off

Liberal Suffering and Confusion by Walter E. Williams

Posted by 5etester on April 30, 2013

Liberal Suffering and Confusion by Walter E. Williams.

Here is yet another must-read article from the great Walter Williams. However, I will have to disagree with Mr. Williams on his title. It is the rest of us that suffer due to liberal confusion.

The liberal world vision and reality are often at variance, for example, with equal pay for equal work. I’ve often watched “Lockup,” a show that features California supermax prisons, including Pelican Bay and Corcoran. Often, a recalcitrant prisoner must be extracted from his cell through brute force. I’ve never seen female guards remove a prisoner. If they are part of the process at all, it’s to videotape the extraction for legal purposes. It’s my bet that female guards receive the same salaries as male guards while not having to risk injury. Along the same lines, women on aircraft carriers earn as much as their male counterparts, but I have yet to see women hefting a hernia bar to attach a 500- or 1,000-pound bomb to a fighter jet wing. All of this suggests that liberals are for equal pay for unequal work. Or could it be sex discrimination whereby equally qualified women are denied the opportunity to extract beastly inmates from their cells and load heavy bombs on fighter planes?

Here’s another bit of liberal confusion. Liberals deny that raising labor cost through minimum wages reduces incentives to hire. But if you asked a liberal for advice on how to stop rich people from shirking their tax obligations, they’d say raise the penalty. Ask low-information Harvard University doctors what should be done to stem gun violence and they answer that government should institute “a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition.” Ask Illinois’ Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle how to reduce purchases of bullets and guns. She’d say levy a nickel tax on each bullet and a $25 tax on each gun. Liberals demonstrate they understand the law of demand – that raising the cost of something lessens the amount taken – but they deny that it applies to labor. That’s as ludicrous as suggesting that the law of gravity applies to everything in the universe except cute creatures, such as pandas and puppies.

Liberals love political correctness that conceals information. For example, how does one know whether the “chair” of a board of directors or the chair of a city council is a man or woman? This issue arose during my (1995-2001) chairmanship of George Mason University’s distinguished economics department. At a chairman’s meeting or gathering, I was referred to as department chair. I told the speaker that I am a chairman and that I have empirical evidence as proof. Needless to say, it didn’t go over well, but academics don’t like the terms chairwoman or chairperson, either, but puzzlingly, God forbid that people refer to their idol as Chair Mao instead of Chairman Mao.

How liberals identify black people must be confusing to whites. Having been around for 77 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the more polite ones are colored, Negro, Afro-American, black and, more recently, African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent. Let’s look at it. To identify their races, suppose I told you that I had a European-American friend, a South America-American friend and a North America-American friend. You’d probably say, “Williams, that’s stupid. Europe, South America and North America are continents and home to different races, ethnicities and nationalities.” You might suggest that my friend is a German-American instead of European-American. My friend from Brazil is a Brazilian-American rather than a South America-American, and my friend from Canada is a Canadian-American instead of a North America-American. So wouldn’t the same apply to people whose heritage lies on the African continent? For example, instead of claiming that President Barack Obama is the first African-American president, he’s the first partially Kenyan-American president. Obama is lucky; he knows his national heritage. The closest thing to a national identity for most black Americans is some country along Africa’s Gold Coast. Adding to the confusion, what would you call a white American of Afrikaner or Egyptian descent? Is he an African-American?

Liberals suffer confusion and cognitive dissonance because the rest of us don’t help explain things to them.

April 30, 2013

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers