Ben Carson leads in Gallup’s favorability poll

Donald Trump’s net favorable rating among Republicans increased significantly over the past two weeks, putting him among the top six Republicans overall on this measure.Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%‘s image also improved, while Carly Fiorina’s and Ben Carson’s images remain significantly better than they were before the Aug. 6 debate. John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are among those whose images worsened.

What is more interesting is what happens when Gallup cross references favorability with name recognition

The implication here is that Bush has crested, though one really wonders who doesn’t know Bush is running for president, with high name recognition and a very low favorability rating. Much the same can be said of Perry, Paul and Christie. The potential breakout candidates would seem to be Fiorina, Walker and Jindal who have good favorability numbers and would benefit from increased exposure.

One doesn’t know what to make of Ben Carson’s campaign. He is an immensely personable candidate who, in my opinion, seems both authoritative and insubstantial. We’ll have to wait until the next fundraising support to see if he has either capitalized on his popularity and poll numbers or gotten his campaign organization under control.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading.....

Obama’s gun law enforcement at work: sell 55 illegal guns, get one year probation

When Shannon Miles walked up behind Harris (TX) County Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth and pumped 15 9mm rounds into him he did so with a weapon he was not allowed to possess. Via Houston Chronicle:

Court records reveal that Miles had a lengthy criminal history. His first reported arrest came in February 2005 for failing to identify and giving false information to police officers. He would be arrested six more times by 2009.

In July 2005 he was arrested by Harris County Sheriff’s deputies for criminal mischief. On Oct. 2, 2005, he was arrested again by Harris County and held for eight days for resisting “arrest, search or transport.”

In 2006 he was arrested for “discharging or displaying” a firearm. He pleaded guilty and was held for 10 days. On May 3, 2007, Jersey Village police arrested Miles for evading arrest. Nine days later he was arrested again for criminal trespassing by Harris County deputies. On Jan. 29, 2009, Miles was arrested for preventing or obstructing officers duties by using force against the officer.

In addition he had been declared mentally incompetent for committing a violent assault:

A man charged with murder in the ambush of a suburban Houston sheriff’s deputy had a history of mental illness and was once declared mentally incompetent, according to authorities and his former attorney.

…

Miles was found to be mentally incompetent in October 2012 and he was sent to North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, Texas.

How does this happen? How does someone who is barred from possessing a firearm suddenly get one? Via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel we get some insight:

In giving probation with no jail time to a Milwaukee man charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them without a license, a federal judge delivered a message:

…

Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.

On Wednesday, he was sentenced. As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading..... 

[VIDEO] Is Jorge Ramos a journalist or an attention whore masquerading as one?

What, exactly, is a journalist? The cynical among us (read: every comment to the posts on journalism that I write) would say that a journalist is a leftwing hack that advocates for the left-of-center causes and attacks Republicans at every opportunity. And, why not say that? Modern journalism is exactly that, you know.

But, let us take the curious case of Jorge Ramos, a man who stood up, out of turn, at a Trump press conference and attempted to lecture Trump on immigration issues before being removed. Ramos went all over the place saying that, as a journalist, he had rights that were violated by Trump. Is this true? Did Ramos get mistreated by the big bad Trump?

Of course not.

What is a journalist? He or she is a human being whose job is to report the news. It is commonly accepted that journalists are to strictly report the news and not be the news, which is the very first rule Ramos broke. And he knew he was going to be the news. It’s what he wanted. His goal was to get kicked out, and by God, Trump said “Go back to Univision,” and tossed Ramos out like he was a raging alcoholic at a bar around closing time. Good for Trump for doing so, and even better for Trump to be the bigger man and let Ramos back in.

A journalist asks the tough questions. They pursue the truth. They seek information beneficial to the public. Ramos had one goal: Get on camera to attack Trump. His “question,” if indeed you could call some sort of hybrid rant/lecture/screed such, was nothing more than the publicity stunt of a man who pretends to be a journalist while pursuing a spotlight to demand that people who violate the law to be in this country be treated as citizens (sorry, Lefties! They aren’t citizens!). There is no reason to think that anything he did was journalistic in any regard.

Had it been any one else, I’d be livid that a man who wants to be president of the United States would kick out a journalist. Especially Trump, who has at times seemed to be able to dish it, but not take it. After all, he has every right to remove a journalist because it is his event, but to seek to dodge questions by barring journalists from participating shows weakness. However, the man he had removed was a man who contributes nothing to journalism. He is an attention whore of the highest caliber and seeks only his own glory in front of the camera.

Ramos is absolutely no journalist, and to act as though he is some sort of martyr because Trump was mean and kicked him out (never mind that he let him back in later and lost yet another exchange) is an insult to the people who are journalists, who know how to do their jobs.

Via: RED STATE

Continue Reading.....

Actually, it’s ‘All lives matter’ that resonates.

Imagine for a moment that you broke your left wrist. In excruciating pain, you rush to the emergency room for treatment only to run into a doctor who insists on examining not just your mangled left wrist, but your uninjured right wrist, rib cage, femur, fibula, sacrum, humerus, phalanges, the whole bag of bones that is you. You say, “Doc, it’s just my left wrist that hurts.” And she says, “Hey, all bones matter.”

If you understand why that remark would be factual, yet also, fatuous, silly, patronizing and off point, then you should understand why “All lives matter” is the same.

…or you’re not a doctor who knows pretty darn well that when somebody shows up in your emergency room with a ‘mangled right wrist’ then you had better make sure that the patient doesn’t, you know, have other broken bones. Or a concussion. Or internal bleeding. Or… you get the point, right? Because, yes, in case all bones do matter, including the ones that you didn’t check because somebody was screaming in your face about how you have to concentrate on cracked wrists until the end of time*.

Yes, I understand: it’s just a stupid metaphor. Indeed. It is a stupid metaphor, which is why Leonard Pitts, Jr. should have used a different one. It’s also being used to support an argument that isn’t nearly as popular as its adherents pretend it is:

Two out of three black people prefer the term “all lives matter” to “black lives matter,” according to aRasmussen poll released Thursday.

Only 31 percent of black people surveyed said that the statement “black lives matter” most closely comports to their own beliefs, compared to 64 percent who chose “all lives matter.”

This does not necessarily make the entire Black Lives Matter movement invalid: as my RedState colleague and friend Leon Wolf noted a few days ago, there are serious questions that can be and should be asked about police behavior, as well as our current criminal justice system. What it does suggest, however, is that – as usual – the Usual Suspects are busily trying to turn the whole thing into yet another way to squeeze a few more votes out for Democrats. We’ve seen this tactic before, and we’ll probably see it again.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Go ask an emergency room physician or nurse just how good the average patient is at describing how and where he or she hurts. Seriously. Go ahead. If you don’t already know the answer, you’ll probably find it rather enlightening.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading.....

V

Report: Democrats in panic over Hillary Clinton’s criminality

 Actually, they are in a near panic over her getting caught as they have been fine with her criminality for a couple of decades. From The Hill, Dems near Clinton panic mode:

Democrats are worried that the furor over Hillary Clinton’s private email server will be prolonged and intensified after her sudden move to hand it to the FBI.

The Clinton campaign’s decision to give up the server and a thumb-drive containing back-up copies of emails left Democrats scratching their heads as to why the former secretary of State had resisted turning over the server for months.

Coupled with new polls that suggest Clinton is vulnerable, Democrats are nearing full-on panic mode.

“I’m not sure they completely understand the credibility they are losing, by the second,” said one Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “At some point this goes from being something you can rationalize away to something that becomes political cancer. And we are getting pretty close to the cancer stage, because this is starting to get ridiculous.

…

Separately, Media Matters for America — the liberal watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock — sent out a statement under the subject-line “Myths and Facts about Hillary Clinton’s email.” The first fact it listed was that “none of the emails sent to Clinton were labeled as classified or top secret.”

It goes without saying that aging pederast David Brock’s nasty little neo-Nazi propaganda machine is just an arm of the Clinton machine. But I was intrigued as to what possible defense they could offer. These are their points. I’m not providing a link because I don’t link to hate sites.

Rarely does one encounter such a brazen example of lying. Actually not a single fact in this is true.

Fact. At least two documents were imagery from the Talent Keyhole satellite and they were clearly marked.

Fact. Retroactive classification aside (though the Obama administration persecuted NSA whistleblower Tom Drake by retroactively classifying documents), the documents in question were and remain highly classified.

Fact. Actually the experts cited only debunked a comparison IF Hillary unknowingly stored classified information. That is not the case.

Fact. The only kind of referral from an Agency IG to the FBI is a criminal referral. The FBI does not investigate acts which are only administrative glitches. In fact, the initial Justice Department press release called it a “criminal referral” before Hillary’s campaign strong-armed the agency into calling it a “security referral for counterintelligence purposes.”

The problem for the Democrat establishment is getting more interesting by the day. The national mood demands change but their front runners are white, social security eligible, party apparatchiks who haven’t had an original thought in decades. The nation distrusts government and 57% of the nation doesn’t trust Hillary Clinton (I don’t even want to imagine where they found the 43% who do). Other polls find that in swing states EVERY GOP CANDIDATE either lead Hillary or is well with the MOE of the poll. More importantly, the nation is united in its dislike of Clinton:

This profile with a burgeon investigation that dovetails nicely with your main weakness is not what any candidate needs. While I’m stocking up on popcorn, the Democrats find themselves very late in the election cycle with a candidate who isn’t liked, isn’t trusted, and may very well see her inner circle indicted if she isn’t indicted herself. Do they convince her to step aside? Do they encourage more palatable alternatives to get in the race? Do they pull a Torricelli at some later point and replace her with another nominee? The only thing certain is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see how Clinton stays in the race much less wins the White House…unless the GOP does what it does best…

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

The POW MIA Flag Is Racist (because American prisoners of war are racists and deserve whatever they get)

Sometimes the left does things that are so bizarre that at first blush you think you are being trolled. Take this, for instance. In Newsweek “historian” (this is an appellation that, in this particular case, doesn’t seem to require any academic credentials), accused plagiarist Rick Perlstein claims to have discovered yet another “racist” flag:

You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.

Oh, wait. You thought I was referring to the Confederate flag. Actually, I’m talking about the POW/MIA flag.

I told the story in the first chapter of my 2014 book The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan: how Richard Nixon invented the cult of the “POW/MIA” in order to justify the carnage in Vietnam in a way that rendered the United States as its sole victim.

The only hint that it isn’t a clever bit of trolling and clickbait is that is is obvious that Perlstein is bleeding from his eyes and whatever as he writes this.

Perlstein’s claim here is pretty much bull***t. The history of the POW/MIA flag is well documented. It was created by POW families and it was in response to widespread outcry over the treatment of US POWs by the North Vietnamese. Contrary to what Perlstein claims, there was widespread concern about US prisoners long before the Peace Talks started, of course, Perlstein was still pooping yellow at the time and can be excused for substituting what was actually being talked about for whatever be picked up in college. The treatment of US prisoners held by the Koreans and Chinese was well-known. The hugely successful film, The Manchurian Candidate was released in 1962.

There was good reason to be concerned. Over 900 US and allied prisoners were known to have been held by the Koreans and Chinese after the armistice. The Soviet Union held Japanese prisoners will into the 1950s and never provided an accounting of who they held or their disposition. So the idea that no one cared about prisoners until the Evil Tricky Dick dreamed them up is simply a rather grotesque lie.

As Sean Davis writing in The Federalist says:

If you can believe it, that’s actually the most coherent passage in the entire piece. Did you know that prisoners of war are members of a “cult?” Perlstein apparently does. Did you know that mistreatment of American prisoners of war in Vietnam is “a pernicious myth”? Perlstein says it is, so it must be true. If I learned anything from his piece, it’s that there is apparently such a thing as a POW Truther.

From this anti-historical beginning, Perlstein not only jumps the shark, he levitates above the very ocean.

During the Nixon years, the Pentagon moved them into a newly invented “Missing in Action” column. That proved convenient, for, after years of playing down the existence of American prisoners in Vietnam, in 1969, the new president suddenly decided to play them up.

He declared their treatment, and the enemy’s refusal to provide a list of their names, violations of the Geneva Conventions—the better to paint the North Vietnamese as uniquely cruel and inhumane. He also demanded the release of American prisoners as a precondition to ending the war.

This was bullshit four times over: first, because in every other conflict in human history, the release of prisoners had been something settled at the close of a war; second, because these prisoners only existed because of America’s antecedent violations of the Geneva Conventions in bombing civilians in an undeclared war; third, because, as bad as their torture of prisoners was, rather than representing some species of Oriental despotism, the Vietnam Communists were only borrowing techniques practiced on them by their French colonists (and incidentally paid forward by us in places like Abu Ghraib): see this as-told-to memoir by POW and future senator Jeremiah Denton. And finally, our South Vietnamese allies’ treatment of their prisoners, who lived manacled to the floors in crippling underground bamboo “tiger cages” in prison camps built by us, was far worse than the torture our personnel suffered.

Missing in action was a term that was used in World War II and Korea. Anyone can look at contemporaneous War Department, Navy Department, or DoD documents and find it. You can also find it in newspapers and casualty reports throughout the Vietnam War. This should be logical to all but the dimmest bulbs.

Actually, through most of recorded history, prisoners have been exchanged (assuming they weren’t killed outright or sold into slavery) were exchanged on a regular basis. In the US Civil War, for instance, prisoners were paroled and exchanged until the Dix-Hill Cartel ended in June 1863. And not to put too fine a point on it, a peace was being “negotiated.” When you “negotiate” it is customary to ask for more than you expect to get and it is usual to pressure the other side to give in. So the history of how prisoners had been treated (and there is no evidence whatsoever that Perlstein is even vaguely familiar with the subject) is really immaterial to a process of negotiations.

North Vietnam was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and was obligated to notify the Protecting Power (Switzerland) of the names of prisoners. Bombing civilians so long as they aren’t deliberately targeted is not against the Geneva Conventions. Wars don’t have to be declared but the Vietnam War was approved by Congress. The treatment of North Vietnamese prisoners is immaterial to the discussion as reprisals against prisoners is not allowed by the Geneva Conventions. Viet Cong were illegal combatants and however the South Vietnamese government wanted to treat them under their own laws or policies was not a subject of international oversight.

So the underpinning of Perlman’s story is, as they say in Germany, quatsch.

Now, why is the flag racist?

Racist is the leftwing codeword for “I don’t like it.” Damp toilet paper, for instance, is racist. America, too, is racist. Supporting American troops is racist. Not liking commies is racist. Perlstein is upset that we don’t see POW collaborators like Larry Kavanaugh, Edison Miller and Gene Wilber as heroes rather than as unindicted traitors and that makes the POW/MIA flag racist.

As David French writes, this is about rewriting American history:

It’s not common to see a leftist still carrying the torch for the Viet Cong and the NVA, but it’s a useful reminder of the rage that beats within some leftist hearts, a rage that can even take a symbol meant to honor and remind Americans of the undeniable fact that there are — in fact — men who are missing in Vietnam, men we can’t account for an may never be found, and turn it into a symbol of — you guessed it — racism. Never mind that Americans were dying to defend people of the exact same race as the enemies they fought. Never mind that families fly the flag to remind their neighbors of their sacrifice, and our nation flies it to remind citizens of the men of courage who fought a deadly Communist enemy. It’s not a battle flag, nor is it a flag of conquest. It’s a flag of remembrance.

But that’s the entire point. Perlstein hates that people don’t remember the Vietnam War the way he wants it remembered, as a racist, unlawful enterprise. The POW/MIA flag is merely a pretext for him to repeat the tired arguments of the 1970s, arguments that lost their sting when the NVA finally triumphed, and the world watched a Communist dictatorship work its vengeance on the South Vietnamese population. He won’t bring down the flag, but he apparently does want to re-start a historical battle that the Left has largely and rightly lost since the Fall of Saigon. His piece is further evidence that the defense of history — like the defense of liberty — requires constant vigilance.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading..... 

[VIDEO] Q&A with Bobby Jindal at #Red State Gathering 15

Bobby Jindal’s long been a friend of us here at RedState, so it should come as little surprise that he came to speak at this year’s Gathering. What you can view here is part of the question and answer session we had with him earlier this year. It’s a short video, but since he’s running for President in 2016, I think it’s nevertheless important to view. Check it out:

He does a great job of tearing apart the Iran Deal and why Obama’s attempt to compare himself to Ronald Reagan is laughable. He also discusses oil production in Louisiana and how the BP oil spill affected his state. In the process, he points out just how little the Obama administration knows about oil drilling. Of course, that revelation comes as a surprise to no one who has paid attention to the federal government over the last 6 years.

What this video showcases best is what might be Bobby Jindal’s biggest selling point in the 2016 campaign: he’s smart and he knows how to take apart an argument. I hope we get to see more of this on the campaign trail.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Government Slowly Kills the Private Sector – And Blames the Victim for Its Sputtering Demise

One of the advantages Big Government advocates have in their efforts to end the private sector – is the size of the victim. A $17-trillion-a-year economy is so huge – it almost always takes a lot of time to dismantle.

It’s like taking down those giant oliphants in the “Lord of the Rings.” Our economy can take a LOT of government arrows – and continue its march forward. Slowed, bowed – but still moving.

And here’s the really obnoxious part. As the private sector is dragged down by the government assaults – Big Government advocates say it’s proof that the PRIVATE SECTOR doesn’t work.

Which is like being shot – and then having the shooter yell at you for bleeding on them.

Occasionally, the government attack is so huge – it does rapid, recognizable damage. And the line of correlation can be easily drawn. See: ObamaCare.

Far more often, the injuries take time to accrue. An ever-increasingly regulated sector doesn’t go from 60mph to 0mph. It goes from 60 to 55. Then 55 to 50. Then 50 to 45….

So the Big Government advocates get away with the damage they do – and with blaming their victims for ultimately collapsing in a taxes-and-regulations-addled heap.

We Less Government advocates do our best to make people understand all of this. We are, as always, woefully outgunned – but we occasionally win a skirmish here or there.

For instance, we have successfully explained the damage government is poised to do to the Internet. With Network Neutrality. With unilateral regulatory “Reclassification” – which is the Barack Obama Administration all by itself deciding to impose on the Web 1934 land line telephone and railroad law.

We have successfully detailed the looming huge regulations. And huge taxes. And how any new regulation diminishes private investment – and how these huge new regulations will hugely diminish it.

In short, how the Internet was pre-Obama likely the freest part of the private sector – and is now likely the most under government’s thumb.

How do we know we won this fight? Because we never were given a chance to actually fight it.

Big Government advocates didn’t get Congress to pass a law creating Net Neutrality and/or Reclassification – because they couldn’t. Big Government big-footing the Web has never been popular. In 2010, ninety-five Democrats signed a pre-election Net Neutrality pledge. All ninety-five lost.

Having lost the messaging war – Big Government advocates turned to tyranny. And had three unelected Democrat bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unilaterally slam the Net.

How else do we know we won? Because they are spending a lot of time trying do undo our explanations of what they’ve done.

FCC Chief (Tom Wheeler) Argues That Net Neutrality Won’t Gut Broadband Investment

Tom Wheeler Claims (Reclassification) Order Won’t Affect Taxes

The new imposition has only been in place for less than half a year. Most of the (tens of) thousands of pages of new regulations – haven’t even yet been written.

And the Internet sector is 1/6th of our entire economy – i.e. HUGE. This oliphant won’t immediately keel over.

Thus, to say that the mostly-unwritten rules haven’t yet broken the Net – therefore the rules will NEVER break the Net – is…absurd. But Big Government advocates specialize in the absurd.

So Far Net Neutrality Hasn’t Broken The Internet

Net Neutrality Hasn’t Stalled Investment After All

The investment argument is especially ridiculous. Many companies plot their investment allocations YEARS in advance. They are currently investing money for which they budgeted – in the 2000s.

What hasn’t taken very long – is Big Government advocates using this newly minted Big Government to attack the sector.

FCC Swamped by 2,000+ Net Neutrality Complaints Against ISPs

Of course, taking them at their word is always…dubious.

Yet Again, the Left is Caught Fraudulently Faking Support for its Ridiculous Policies

We can’t be sure if the FCC has actually received 2000+ complaints. After all, we were told – about theactually-fifty-fifty nature of the Net Neutrality Comments the FCC received – that they were overwhelmingly pro-Big Government.

Remember when we said the FCC hadn’t yet actually fleshed out the rules? That’s not nearly all of the uncertainty that exists.

What is not clear, however, is exactly how the FCC is supposed to enforce its rules against companies that violate the open Internet laws. 

Speaking earlier this week in front of a congressional subcommittee, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler admitted to the commission that the FCC had yet to figure out how exactly it will be able to exercise its authority over ISPs and enforce penalties.

Get that? The FCC has “yet to figure out how exactly it will be able to exercise its authority over ISPs and enforce penalties.” This MASSIVE uncertainty won’t hurt the Internet at all, I’m sure.

But wait a minute. Wheeler and his FCC have in fact already figured out how to use its undefined, amorphous power-grabbed powers to line its pockets at the expense of We the Consumers – I mean, enforce penalties.

AT&T Faces $100 Million Fine in FCC’s First-Ever Net-Neutrality Case

Seems pretty figured out to me.

Of course, every penny government forces out of companies – forces companies to charge us more for their goods and services. Because pro-consumer – or something.

Anti-consumer is huge new government power grabs – with prospectively tens of thousands of new pages of regulation. Which are “in place” – but haven’t yet been written.

Anti-consumer is a huge grab that empowers the government to impose confiscatory new taxes. And unlimited fines.

All of that – and more – is what Big Government just did to the Internet.

Think that won’t damage the Web? Not necessarily now – but over time as the government poison seeps throughout the system?

Of course you know it will. So too do the Big Government advocates.

They just can’t admit it – and must instead blame the private sector at which they take perpetual aim.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Don’t Fear The Shutdown… well, it *kind* of scans.

 

SunnyRight‏@sunnyright

From the people who brought you "The Koch Bros will hurt Republicans in 2014" comes "Attacking @PPAct will hurt Republicans in 2016"

• RETWEETS7
• FAVORITES5
• 

2:10 PM - 31 Jul 2015

More

With some clarifications, sure. First off: yes, very little that happens with a shutdown in Congress this year will have any effect on the national elections next year.  This is, of course, broadly similar to what happened in 2013: everybody who wasn’t part of the Republican grassroots (and a few of them, too) was convinced that the shutdown would do permanent damage to the GOP brand, right up to the point where Obamacare blew up in the missile silo. Technically, something equivalent has not yet happened this year.  But something will. Something always will. You can’t subject the populace to a year-plus-long rant about the inequities of the Republican party without said populace eventually tuning it out.

Second: unfortunately, you can’t really count on the Democrats being as dumb in 2015 as they were in 2013 – and they were dumb. Starting with the Democrats not taking the free gift that the GOP had offered them – there’s a bunch of former Senators and governors who wish that they had – and following with not capitalizing on even the transitory advantage the shutdown gave them. At this point somebody’s going to smugly mutter ‘Virginia,’ and I’ll mutter ‘sitting governor obvious en route to being indicted,’ and then we can all pick sides over who to blame in the Virginia gubernatorial election. I will note that, the way things were going, one more week and we would have won that race… which does not suggest that the Democrats really followed through on things. Presumably they’ve learned better. Obviously, it’s great if the Democrats haven’t, but it’s safer to assume that they have.

Third: this year’s races. A shutdown could very well affect the Kentucky gubernatorial race between Matt Bevin and Jack Conway. It probably won’t hurt Mississippi’s, given that Phil Bryant is running for re-election and he’s pretty popular. As for Louisiana’s… are we certain that a Democrat will even survive the jungle primary in the first place? – So if you do favor a shutdown of the government over Planned Parenthood funding, you should also be in favor of making sure that it doesn’t hurt Matt Bevin‘s gubernatorial bid.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....