Sunday, July 12, 2015
CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR-OWNED POLITICO PUBLISHES HIT PIECE ON DR. BEN CARSON
On Tuesday, Politico ran an article with this blaring headline: “Ben Carson’s Godly Riches: He reaped $2 million in fees from Christian groups in 2014 alone. Now he wants their votes.”
The headline, which implies some sort of hypocrisy on Dr. Carson’s part, is belied by the actual content of the article.
“Clearly if you were to read in great detail Politico’s article, they are clearly only admonishing Dr. Carson in their headline and not the true substance of their story,” Armstrong Williams, Dr. Carson’s business manager, tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview.
“The reason being they truly had nothing to report,” Williams notes.
Politico, which is owned by Clinton Foundation donor Robert Allbritton, failed to point out in the article that during that same time period Hillary Clinton charged speaking fees ranging from $200,000 to $325,000, and Bill Clinton charged $250,000 for his average speaking fee. In 2010, Bill Clinton was paid a $500,000 speaking fee by a Russian company. Even former first daughter Chelsea Clinton charged speaking fees of $65,000, well in excess of Dr. Carson’s fees.
In 2014, Dr. Carson’s speaking fees ranged from $12,320 to $48,500.
During roughly the same period of time that Dr. Ben Carson earned $2 million in speaking fees, Bill and Hillary Clinton together earned $25 million in speaking fees.
The actual facts of Dr. Carson’s 2014 speaking engagements reported by Politico do not match the article’s somewhat sensationalist headline.
One fundraiser at which Carson spoke “brought in a net profit of $150,000,” after Carson’s fee was paid, the article reports.
At another fundraiser, the host organization was very pleased with the outcome of Carson’s speaking engagement. “He did a really good job for us in bringing in people who may not have known about HopeWorks,” the group’s executive director Ron Wade toldPolitico.
“They couldn’t find anything negative or controversial about Dr. Carson’s speaking engagements,” Carson’s business manager Williams says.
When asked about Politico’s failure to report the vastly higher speaking fees charged by Hillary, Bill, and even Chelsea Clinton, Williams is quick to point out Politico’s bias.
“Without a doubt the good Dr. Carson is held to a different standard,” Williams says. “It’s nitpicking by Politico. There’s really nothing negative they can report.”
The Politico bias, Williams argues, is as apparent from the people the authors chose not to interview as it is of those they chose to interview.
“Politico could not find anyone who was not satisfied with Dr. Carson’s speaking engagement. Imagine the many individuals interviewed for the article that were not included, because they had high praise for the good doctor.”
Williams’ comments support the perception that Politico is often a “mouthpiece” for establishment Republicans as well as the Democrat elites. “A lot of these sources Politico used are coming from within the establishment,” he says.
Carson’s strong showing in the polls has had an impact on his rivals for the Republican Presidential nomination, Williams argues. “Republican establishment candidates are very threatened by Dr. Carson,” he tells Breitbart News. “The establishment media consistently are searching for phony reasons to negate his immense popularity,” he adds.
From a strategic perspective, Carson offers something establishment Republicans can’t provide—appeal to disaffected conservative voters.
“Dr. Carson is popular among many conservative Christians and Millennials who did not vote in the last presidential election,” Armstrong says.
Currently, “outsiders” like Dr. Carson, Donald Trump ,
, and Carly Fiorina appear to be gaining traction, while more establishment- oriented candidates appear to be languishing.
“That article is trying to negate the progress and phenomenal gains Dr. Carson is making as an outsider,” Williams says.
The popularity of “outsider” candidates in the Republican Presidential primary field is likely to continue its upward movement in spite of Politico’s transparent and unsuccessful attempts to discredit them.
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.
Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?
For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons[5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.
Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.
As a rule of thumb, poor households tend to obtain modern conveniences about a dozen years after the middle class. Today, most poor families have conveniences that were unaffordable to the middle class not too long ago.
Poverty: A Range of Living Conditions
However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.
Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession.[6]Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.
Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.
In discussions about poverty, however, misunderstanding and exaggeration are commonplace. Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.
Living Conditions of the Poor
Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases its annual report on income and poverty.[7] This report, though widely publicized by the press, provides only a bare count of the number of Americans who are allegedly poor. It provides no data on or description of their actual living conditions.
This does not mean that such information is not available. The federal government conducts several other surveys that provide detailed information on the living conditions of the poor. These surveys provide a very different sense of American poverty.[8] They reveal that the actual standard of living among America’s poor is far higher than the public imagines and that, in fact, most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. Regrettably, these detailed surveys are almost never reported in the mainstream press.
One of the most interesting surveys that measures actual living conditions is the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),[9] which the Department of Energy has conducted regularly since 1980.[10]The RECS survey measures energy consumption and ownership of various conveniences by U.S. households. It also provides information on households at different income levels, including poor households.
The first half of this paper uses RECS data to analyze and describe one aspect of the living standards of the poor: ownership and availability of household amenities.[11] The second half provides a broader description of the living standards of America’s poor.
Availability of Amenities in Poor Households
This section uses RECS data from 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, to analyze the amenities typically found in poor households.[12] The 2005 RECS data represent the living conditions of the poor before the current recession. Conditions are likely quite similar today.
Because the current recession has increased the number of poor persons in the U.S. since 2005, it might seem likely that poor households would have fewer amenities and conveniences today than in 2005. However, the increase in poverty during the recession is, to a considerable degree, the result of working-class families losing employment. One would not expect these families to dispose of their normal household conveniences in those circumstances. Thus, paradoxically, the increase in the number of working- and middle-class families who have become temporarily poor is likely to increase slightly the share of poor households that own various items. When the present recession ends, the living conditions of the poor are likely to continue to improve as they have in the past.
Chart 1 shows the percentage of all U.S. households that owned or had available various household amenities and conveniences in 2005. For example, it shows that 84 percent of all U.S. households had air conditioning, 79 percent had cable or satellite television, and 68 percent had a personal computer.[13]
Chart 2 shows the same information for 2005 for poor U.S. households (those with cash incomes below the official poverty thresholds). While poor households were slightly less likely to have conveniences than the general population, most poor households had a wide range of amenities. As Chart 2 shows, 78 percent of poor households had air conditioning, 64 percent had cable or satellite TV, and 38 percent had a personal computer.[14]
Trump in Vegas, Phoenix: Illegals 'Wreaking Havoc on Our Population'
Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump criticized U.S. immigration and trade policies on Saturday in speeches that veered from accusing Mexico of deliberately sending criminals across the border to professing respect for the Mexican government and love for its people.
Speaking to a gathering of Libertarians in Las Vegas before headlining an event in Phoenix, Trump repeated his charge that Mexico was sending violent offenders to the U.S. to harm Americans and that U.S. officials were being "dumb" in dealing with immigrants in the country illegally.
"These people wreak havoc on our population," he told a few thousand people attending the Libertarian gathering FreedomFest inside a Planet Hollywood ballroom on the Las Vegas Strip.
In the 4,200-capacity Phoenix convention center packed with flag-waving supporters, Trump took a different view — for a moment — and said: "I love the Mexican people. I love 'em. Many, many people from Mexico are legal. They came in the old-fashioned way. Legally."
He quickly returned to the sharp tone that has brought him scorn as well as praise. "I respect Mexico greatly as a country. But the problem we have is their leaders are much sharper than ours, and they're killing us at the border and they're killing us on trade."
His speeches in both venues were long on insults aimed at critics and short on solutions to the problems he cited. When he called for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the audience in Las Vegas groaned.
In a break from the immigration rhetoric that has garnered him condemnation and praise, Trump asserted that he would have more positive results in dealing with China and Russia if he were president and said he could be pals with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Asked by an audience member in Las Vegas about U.S.-Russia relations, Trump said the problem is that Putin doesn't respect Obama.
"I think we would get along very, very well," he said.
Trump has turned to victims of crime to bolster his argument that immigrants in the U.S. illegally have killed and raped. In Las Vegas and Phoenix, he brought on stage Jamiel Shaw Sr., a Southern California man whose 17-year-old son was shot and killed in 2008 by a man in the country illegally. Shaw vividly described how his son was shot — in the head, stomach and hands while trying to block his face — and how he heard the gunshots as he talked to his son on the phone.
Latest News Update
Shaw said he trusted Trump, and encouraged the crowds in both cities to do the same.
Trump's speeches were filled with tangents and insults leveled at business partners such as Univision and NBC that have dropped him in the wake of his comments that Mexican immigrants bring drugs and crime to the U.S. and are rapists. He also directed familiar barbs at other presidential contenders, including Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton ("the worst secretary of state in the history of the country"), news media figures ("lyin' Brian Williams") and President Barack Obama ("such a divisive person"). He called journalists "terrible people."
As Trump lambasted Univision for cancelling its broadcast of the Miss USA pageant, one of his many business enterprises, a group of young Latinos unfurled a banner pointed toward the stage and began chanting insults. They were quickly drowned out by the crowd, and nearby Trump supporters began to grab at them, tearing at the banner and pulling and pushing at the protesters. Security staff managed to get to the group and escorted them out as Trump resumed speaking.
"I wonder if the Mexican government sent them over here," he said. "I think so."
Arizona's tough-on-immigration Sheriff Joe Arpaio introduced Trump in Phoenix after outlining the things he and the candidate have in common, including skepticism that Obama was born in the United States. He went on to criticize the federal government for what he called a revolving door for immigrants, saying many of them end up in his jails.
"He's been getting a lot of heat, but you know, there's a silent majority out here," Arpaio said, borrowing from a phrase Richard Nixon popularized during his presidency in a speech about the Vietnam War.
A single protester standing outside the room where Trump spoke in Las Vegas was more concerned about the businessman being tied to the Libertarian Party.
"I've been a Libertarian for 43 years and Trump ain't no Libertarian," said Linda Rawles, who asserted that including Trump in FreedomFest set back the party's movement.
Saturday, July 11, 2015
[VIDEO] Mexican Man Confronts Trump During Q&A: ‘Did You Read the Statue of Liberty?’
After Donald Trump spoke in Vegas today, a man who said he’s from Mexico confronted him during his Q&A and said he’s “incredibly insulted” by what Trump has been saying about illegal immigrants and Mexico.
He told Trump he’s being unfair to paint all illegal immigrants with a broad brush, but Trump piped up, “Did the government of Mexico ask you to come up and say this?”
The man dismissed Trump’s comment and asked him if he would build walls around every U.S. state to keep out all the rapists and criminals who are already in the United States and cross state lines.
Trump continued to stand by everything he’s said thus far on the matter, and right before they moved on, the man shouted, “Did you read the Statue of Liberty?”
CA Policies to Blame for High Gas Prices, Not Oil Companies
Am I the only one that finds billionaire/environmentalist Tom Steyer siding with Consumer Watchdog’s attack on the oil companies counter intuitive?
Consumer Watchdog and Steyer say the oil companies are manipulating production so Californians have to pay more for gasoline. They say it adds to the cost of gasoline for the consumer.
Steyer’s goal is to get people to reduce or perhaps stop entirely the use of fossil fuels. He’s a renewable energy advocate. Shouldn’t he be thrilled that people must pay more for gasoline encouraging them to use less? Wouldn’t the laws of economics help his crusade to reduce fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy if people had to pay not the $3.44 per gallon average in California today but say, $15.44 a gallon; or $50.44 per gallon, for that matter?
Or is there another agenda here?
If the idea is to paint the oil companies as bad guys, gouging the public, that might come in handy if Steyer runs the campaign he has discussed to levy a tax on oil as it is removed from the ground. Then again such a tax would also raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for the average Californian.
California’s tax and regulation requirements for gasoline and reduced number of refineries are the chief reasons Californians pay so much more for gasoline than other parts of the country.
Yet, Steyer says cost is a concern for him. He told the L.A. Times that even the current cost of gasoline is a burden on working people commuting to work.
Well, I’m not a billionaire so maybe Mr. Steyer understands something about finances that escapes me — but in my two plus two world the economics of this situation do not add up.
The Democrats Turn Left
Between the 2010 midterms and President Obama’s re-election in 2012, the conventional understanding of political polarization was that Republicans had shifted sharply to the right, while Democrats had remained essentially where they were, or maybe edged ever-so-slightly leftward. The argument that polarization is largely a Republican-driven phenomenon—that the two poles are drifting apart, but that the red pole is moving much faster than the blue one—looked weaker after the 2012 election, when Obama came out swinging for an ambitious liberal agenda in his inaugural address. Now, as the 2016 election gets underway, this narrative will likely need to be scrapped entirely. The New York Times recently reported on the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch, and how frontrunner Hillary Clinton is adapting to it:
Nearly 20 years after President Bill Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over,” Hillary Rodham Clinton is proposing muscular federal policies that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending and markedly expand Washington’s influence in a host of areas, from universal prekindergarten to Alzheimer’s disease research…Against the sweep of Democratic Party history, Mrs. Clinton’s proposals reflect a decided return to vibrant liberalism.The government programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt – whose presidency Mrs. Clinton regularly invokes – and Lyndon B. Johnson aimed to transform the lives of poor and elderly Americans with jobs, health care, and retirement benefits. But the consecutive electoral losses of Jimmy Carter, Walter F. Mondale, and Michael S. Dukakis in the 1980s – as well as President Ronald Reagan’s framing of government as “the problem” – gave rise to centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton who envisioned federal programs as safety nets rather than solutions to every social ill.
During the 2012 election, Barack Obama memorably attacked the Republicans’ rightward shift, saying that Ronald Reagan could not win a modern Republican presidential nomination. That may be true, but it’s also true that Bill Clinton could not win a modern Democratic presidential nomination—as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton has had to renounce the majority of her husband’s positions in order to be competitive.
This left-populist resurgence comes even as the nation might be poised to drift rightward, for two reasons. The big challenge—and opportunity—facing America today is the decline of the postwar welfare and managerial state beginning in the 1970s (what we call the “blue model”). The Democratic party’s orthodox response to this trend is to try to shore up what’s left of that model, and rebuild some of what’s been lost. But as Walter Russell Mead has documented at length, the blue decline traces, at least in part, to economic and demographic factors like globalization, technological change, and the aging of the population that simply can’t be put back in the genie’s bottle
[VIDEO] Clinton to deliver economic speech Monday, with tax policy at issue
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is set to give a major economic speech Monday, after weeks of deferring about her plans to improve the U.S economy including whether she’ll raise taxes.
The focus of her economic agenda will be to increase middle class income and wages. And she will argue that stagnant paychecks is the biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy.
Clinton's campaign on Saturday provided a preview of her speech, which will also include the argument that the real income of everyday Americans must rise steadily alongside corporate profits and executive compensation.
Clinton declined in a CNN interview earlier this week to say whether she would raise taxes on big corporations or the country’s highest wage-earners, as primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed.
“I think we have to grow the economy faster and fairer,” she said. “So we have to do what will actually work in the short term, the medium term and the long term. … then, I’ll look forward to the debate.”
While top-tier Republican candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has called for an annual growth rate of 4 percent, Clinton will assert that the nation's economy should not be judged by a specific growth figure but rather by how much income increases for middle-class households.
"For a typical working American, their income has not been rising anywhere near as fast as it should be rising, and that is the challenge we face," said David Kamin, a New York University law professor who has advised Clinton's campaign. "It's not a new problem, and it's going to take a holistic vision."
The Clinton campaign said the former first lady and New York senator in her speech at The New School, a university in New York City, will point to economic progress during her husband's two terms in the 1990s and more recently under President Obama.
But she will aim to identify ways of improving upon the uneven nature of the nation's recovery since the Great Recession, bolstering wages even as the unemployment rate has fallen to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent.
Clinton is also expected to begin outlining a series of specific economic proposals this summer on issues like wage growth, college affordability, corporate accountability and paid leave.
Via: Fox News
Continue Reading....
FOR SECOND TIME IN A WEEK, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ACCUSED OF HIT-AND-RUN
RALEIGH (WTVD) --
Federal immigration officials tell ABC11 a second illegal immigrant suspected of causing a serious wreck this week will not be allowed out of jail.
Earlier this week, the I-Team covered the return of Efren Roblero to the streets of Wake County.
Roblero is accused of driving drunk and causing a crash that injured two people over the weekend. He managed to post his $75,000 bond and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials approved his release from jail.
Now, another illegal immigrant, Antonio Arellano, is accused of hit-and-run causing serious injury, driving without a license, and reckless driving.
The woman he allegedly hit spoke to ABC11 Friday from her hospital bed at WakeMed where she is recovering from surgery.
"Just looked up and there's a truck coming head on. I tried to swerve to avoid it, and there was nothing I could do," said Stephanie Johnson.
Johnson says she heard about the release of Roblero on ABC 11 and feared Arellano might also get out of jail. She suspects Arellano might have been driving drunk.
However, that's something investigators can't prove since he wasn't arrested until two days after the crash.
"I see here that you have two prior convictions for impaired driving and that you have been removed from the United States by a previous immigration proceeding," Wake County District Court Judge Ned Mangum told Arellano during the suspect's first court appearance on the charges Friday afternoon.
During that appearance, Mangum nearly tripled the bond on the 31 year old.
Witnesses at the crash scene identified Arellano.
That includes the woman who told a 911 dispatcher: "The gentleman walked away. He got out of the F-150 [pickup truck] and walked toward Jonesville Road."
Johnson, who suffered a lacerated liver, a broken wrist and ribs, and a compound fracture to her left leg, can't believe anyone could walk away from a crash and leave someone badly injured.
"I know he heard me screaming for help," said Johnson. "That's all. That's all I ever remember saying, 'Help me. Get me out of this car.'"
An ICE official said because Arellano has two prior DWI convictions in Wake and Randolph Counties he falls under the "priority" category for the Homeland Security agency.
That means, if Arellano posts his $32,000 bond, he still won't be able to leave jail because the feds will detain him.
Roblero was approved for release according to the ICE official because he didn't meet ICE priorities -- specifically that he hasn't been convicted of a crime and hasn't been deported since 2014.
He has been charged with prior crimes that haven't been tried and was deported but that was before 2014.
Walmart to ‘melt’ class rings bearing Confederate flag rather than complete orders
An Arkansas woman who went to pick up the class ring she ordered from Walmart left disappointed, after store officials told her the retailer's new policy barred them from turning the item over -- because it bore an image of the Confederate flag.
Elaine Glidewell told KFSM someone from the store in Fort Smith called her to pick up the ring she'd ordered for her nephew, but when she arrived on Tuesday, a clerk told her she couldn’t have it. The ring had been ordered before Walmart stopped selling items bearing images of the flag, in the wake of controversy that stemmed from a racially-charged shooting in South Carolina.
“I wanted to cry,” Glidewell told KFSM, adding that the store clerk said the ring would be "melted."
Glidewell said she paid $320 for the ring and was going to present it to her nephew, who recently graduated. He had expressed interest in a design that bore a Rebel mascot that incorporates the Confederate battle flag. She got her money back, but no ring.
“They wouldn’t let me have the ring. It had a note on it, was in a plastic bag, it said do not sell. It was signed by the store manager,” Glidewell said.
Brian Nick, spokesman for Walmart, told FoxNews.com Glidewell was denied the ring because her transaction came after the retailer made a “business decision” to stop selling items with the Confederate flag on it.
“The decision was made several weeks ago not to sell products promoting the confederate flag and this item fell under that category and the associate made the right choice and did not complete the sale,” Nick said.
Nick said the ring might have slipped through the cracks because a third party manufactured it, and the store did not realize the Confederate flag was on the ring until an associate went to sell it.
“Because there was a little bit of time I think that’s probably the reason it was noticed a few weeks after,” Nick said.
Nick said the store put Glidewell in touch with a manufacturer, who can get her a new ring, but Glidewell says it was that particular piece she wanted.
“I would give anything to have that ring. Anything. Just because it means so much to him,” Glidewell said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
'It's A Great Opportunity For Me Personally, It's Great Opportunity For Our State' ASBURY PARK, N.J. (CBSNewYork) –... -
Global consulting giant Accenture has agreed to pay $63.7 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it defrauded the US government, US offi...
-
The nation’s capital has denied a “no stop” permit for the “2 Million Bikers to DC” rally on Wednesday, meant to “remember those who were k...
-
Small businesses won't grow, and more employees will work fewer hours. That's just for starters. Harvard (and later Colum...
-
We recently found out that the incredibly effective ObamaCare exchange website is – well, not exactly state-of-the-art . The federal ...
-
he Obama administration is moving forward with plans to expand a waiver program that will allow additional illegal aliens to remain in the...
-
Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley may not be doing well in the polls, but he's putting in a concerted effort to ... -
Yes, Obamacare has raised premiums, caused people to lose their health coverage, raised taxes, and more. But on January 1, Obamacare star...
-
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor of distinction, has written an important column for National Review Online , laying out wha...
-
[VIDEO] Ted Cruz, angered by Obamacare ruling, tells ‘rogue justices’ to resign and run for CongressSen. Ted Cruz delivered a full-throated critique Thursday of the Supreme Court , saying that it is clear that the “rogue justices” t...
