INCULCATED IRRESPONSIBILITY

Dave Gelernter, in the L.A. Times, railing away about black Democrats in the Georgia General Assembly walking out of the legislative body in protest over a voter I.D. card requirement, and other left-wing curiosities:

That's the whole basis of Democratic philosophy (I use the term loosely). We'll take care of you. Leave the thinking to us. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, minority leaders of the House and Senate, respectively, — kindly Mom and Pop to a nation of intellectually limited youngsters. (But thank goodness, they love us anyway.)

How could anyone be opposed in principle to private investment accounts within Social Security? I could understand Democrats arguing that "private accounts are a wonderful idea but the country can't afford the transition costs right now." But mostly I hear Democrats saying they're a lousy idea, and that President Bush wants to wreck Social Security — because, after all, he wants to let you keep a great big whopping 4% of your payroll taxes in a private account instead of handing over every cent to the government. How on Earth could anyone be opposed in principle to letting taxpayers manage a minuscule fraction of their own money (their own money, dammit!) if they want to? Because private accounts violate the Infantile American Principle, so dear to Democratic hearts. Little kids should turn over their cash to the Big Smart Government for safekeeping.

But of course they can't say that, so instead they say, "Bush wants to privatize Social Security" — as if government were going to wash its hands of the whole mess. The technical term that logicians use for this rhetorical gambit — applying a correct word for one part of a proposal to the proposal as a whole — is "lying."

The tendency is to infantilize, and to have no faith in the common person or that person’s basic willingness to latch onto their individual responsibilities as a citizen. What they steadfastly refuse to see is that their approach continually lessens the willingness of individuals to accept responsibility.

Inculcated Irresponsibility is what I call it and I have certainly practiced it. With the best of intentions, of course. Which brings up this recent story in the St. Pete Times:

"The man's a good man," she said. "He has a good purpose. It's sad that maybe there was a mistake. I have a problem convicting someone of trespassing when you are trying to do good."

Rouson, a lawyer, said the guilty verdict surprised him. "I'm a little surprised by it but undaunted," he said.

In June Rouson went to Purple Haze Tobacco & Accessories, 1437 34th St. S, looked over a pipe and asked manager John Pena how a "rock" could be smoked in it, referring to crack cocaine, prosecutors argued.

Pena, testifying on the first of the two-day trial, said he took the pipe from Rouson and repeatedly asked him to leave because signs in the store warn customers they aren't allowed to mention illegal drugs. Rouson, even after the store's owner showed up, refused, prosecutors said.

"Mr. Rouson exceeded his welcome, he was asked to leave and he refused. He trespassed," Pinellas-Pasco Assistant State Attorney Broderick Taylor said.

But Rouson, and his co-counselor and friend Jay Hebert, painted his visit to Purple Haze as an act of protest. The attorneys called to the stand a Catholic priest from Virginia who trained Rouson in nonviolent protest and civil disobedience.

"The mission was pure, the effort was right," Rouson said after the trial. "I'm going to do everything I can to attack this on all levels, which includes a legislative level as well as the street level," he said referring to pending state legislation targeting retailers that sell merchandise he says is used for illegal drugs.

Is this attorney, a former drug user and abuser, simply a person leaving his inculcated irresponsibility behind and simply answering the call of citizenship? Is he compelled to attack an “illicit culture of acceptance” run wild in our community? Or is he simply another Jesse Jackson publicity hound? Check out this earlier story on Attorney Rouson:

Rouson has long and publicly lamented the scourge of drugs and drug dealers in St. Petersburg.

What's less widely known is that in his legal practice, the 49-year-old has defended alleged drug suppliers as well as people accused of drug possession.

In the past year his firm, Rouson & Brumley, has defended at least two people charged with cocaine trafficking. It also has represented more than a dozen people accused of having small amounts of cocaine or marijuana, according to Pinellas court records.

Rouson sees no contradiction between his client list and his anti-drug work.

"I think my role is different because of my experiences," said Rouson, a recovering drug addict and alcoholic who marked his seventh year of sobriety in March.

Others, however, say taking such cases, particularly of those accused of supplying drugs, weakens Rouson's anti-drug crusade.

"Here's a guy who's making his bread and butter off people who are drug traffickers, people who are using drugs," said Pinellas-Pasco Assistant State Attorney Dave Tobiassen, who is prosecuting the case against Rouson Tuesday.

Maybe, just maybe, the good attorney isn’t done with his inculcated irresponsibility.

 

WHAT IS IT ABOUT JOHN BOLTON THAT’S REALLY DRIVING THESE PEOPLE CRAZY?

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, after recounting the evolving objections, nails it:

[None of the conventional wisdom], however, quite explains the depth of hostility that Mr. Bolton inspires. The deeper explanation is that he set out to explode the consensus views of the foreign-policy establishment--and succeeded.

This was the consensus that held, or holds, that North Korea and Iran can be bribed away from their nuclear ambitions, that democracy in the Arab world was impossible and probably undesirable, that fighting terrorism merely encourages more terrorism, that countries such as Syria pose no significant threat to U.S. national security, that the U.N. alone confers moral legitimacy on a foreign-policy objective, and that support for Israel explains Islamic hostility to the U.S. Above all, in this view, the job of appointed officials such as Mr. Bolton is to reside benignly in their offices at State while the permanent foreign service bureaucracy goes about applying establishment prescriptions.

John Bolton would have none of this. For this, he has been smeared by his partisan critics and maligned, often anonymously, by his former colleagues. But he has also been vindicated by events, and by his accomplishments, in the last four years. If this makes Mr. Bolton unconfirmable in the eyes of the Senate, then talented Americans have no place in our government.

I am tremendously disappointed in Colin Powell’s apparent involvement in all of this.

 

SO, YOU SAY YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME PAID TRIPS . . . RIGHT?

The good folks at lucianne.com have the right take on the whole ethics dust-up going on in the House of Representatives:

Be patient. What goes around comes around and clobbers one in the head.

Oh yeah, I likes the sound of that. And I sense a “rope-a-dope” strategy unfolding.

 

ALONG CAME LONG, LEAN, LANKY JONES!

Why do I love college football in the South? Listen to this link below – you gotta love this stuff:

Arkansas' Saline County Bottom Boys Salute to Matt Jones

He’s a Jacksonville Jaguar now and I’m excited as hell by this freak of nature; he makes good athletes look like they’re running in slow motion – that’s my signal to know that a player has special speed or quickness.

 

THE RESILIENCY OF AMERICA

Victor Davis Hanson insists that talk of an American decline (in the face of a European advance) is wrong, wrong, wrong and provides a roadmap on how a relevant assessment should be made:

A better way to assess our relative health is simply empirical — to look and listen to what goes on around us. I spend three days a week in upscale Palo Alto. The four other days, I reside on a farm in one of California's poorest rural areas. Statistics would perhaps depress us that the former smaller population is highly affluent and educated and has a greater range of life choices, while the latter larger one is not so well-served.

Yet new suburban homes are about 25 percent of the cost around my farm as they are near Stanford — and thousands of first- and second-generation immigrant families are snapping them up, with garages full of new cars. If households make a lot less in central California, their money also goes a lot further.

My optimistic rural neighbors may not shop at Saks Fifth Avenue, buy Mercedeses or live near museums and opera halls. Yet Wal-Mart, brand-new Kias and an array of low-cost sporting events, fairs, state universities and junior colleges provide at least the semblance of lifestyle parity.

What we miss in statistics about relative national strength are the extraordinary vibrancy and inclusiveness of American culture. It has an uncanny ability to assimilate minorities and newcomers. The United States allows freer access of information and bases decisions more often on merit than on nepotism or tribalism.

We engage in greater self-critique and seem to foster in our citizens a stronger desire for constructive emulation rather than useless envy of the more successful in our presence. The Constitution is unique in safeguarding prosperity, security and fairness — as Europeans, the United Nations and Asians all have learned when they have tried their own less successful versions.

All in all, America is still in pretty good shape, whether in Palo Alto or south of Fresno — and far stronger than its perennial critics think.

Betting on American failure? Prepare to be wrong.

 

SOUTH PARK CONSERVATIVES

There’s a book that has just been published and is generating quite a bit of buzz; here is Arthur Chrenkoff's take on it (and I begin with Arthur quoting the author, Brian Anderson, directly from the book):

"By no means... has the Right conquered popular culture; television entertainment, especially on the networks, remains mostly liberal in sensibility, and everyone knows where Hollywood stands politically. But it's no longer a liberal monopoly: A new post-liberal counterculture has emerged." Capitalism clearly is yet to triumph in other types of media the same way it did in publishing. It is somewhat ironic that books, being the oldest medium, in the end proved to be the easiest to conquer, while TV and print journalism are fiercely resisting calls for more intellectual diversity. Still, as Anderson shows, technology - some old, some new - can be very liberating and can be always used to circumvent media monopolies. Network TV won't give a chance? That's what cable is for. So is radio. Newspapers too biased? Internet will provide a balance.

And that, in the end, is the best message to take from "South Park Conservatives". Many on the right tend to have a pessimistic outlook on the world and - not without justification - develop a siege mentality. But what Anderson shows through his discussion of the culture wars is that doldrums - and monopolies - never last forever, that for every revolution there is eventually a counter-revolution, and that with optimism, ingenuouity, and technological progress nothing is impossible.

So join the revolt, and do yourself a favor - get a copy for "South Park Conservatives" today.

As Jesse would say, Keep Hope Alive ;-)

 

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

I’m in the middle of that hell we all know something about – switching phone service and being dependent on that company and their technicians completing the job. Yesterday, right in the middle of the job to switch my service (really, upgrade it) bad weather settled in. Lightning, etc. Technician says that it, they don’t pay me enough to risk electrocution. Hell, I couldn’t argue with that. But here I am with no DSL service, just dial-up – and any incoming call bumps me offline.

C’est la vie.

 

THE PAPACY’S NEW MAP

A few days ago I questioned whether the author of The Pentagon's New Map, Thomas P.M. Barnett, was smoking crack based on his remarkably negative reaction to the selection of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to become the next Pope, Benedict XVI. Now, TMLutas sounds the right note and explains why there should be optimism and not pessimism:

I think that Benedict is going to be a very good transitional Pope, one that is going to make the 1st "Southern" or "Gap" pope much more effective when he's finally elected. Right now, the College is disproportionately concentrated in historic dioceses that have lost their faithful but not the tradition that a red hat goes to the local bishop. That has to get fixed.

As someone who has been the doctrinal enforcer for JP II for so long, Benedict is going to be able to shift the red hats around to a far greater extent without protest than someone from the South/Gap would. Nobody's going to worry that Benedict is going to revive liberation theology by sprinkling Latin America with new cardinals. There might be more concern if it were a pope from that region doing it. Suspicion of region favoritism is not a good way to maintain peace in the College.

So here we have an objective measure, something that you don't need to be an insider to see. If Benedict is truly a "circle the wagons" pope then he's not going to increase the representation of Africa/Asia/Latin America. If he isn't, he'll do it in order to realign power in the hierarchy with people in the pews and make a transition so that the next time around, the Conclave will have an awful lot more diversity and the old European power bloc will be weakened.

There are likely other objective measures to watch for but this is a big one. If the College simply shifts out of eurocentricity under Benedict XVI and becomes more distributed, it will be a worthwhile papacy as far as Gap progress is concerned.

A shift away from “eurocentricity” – nicely put. That is the challenge before America now as we engage the 21^st Century and attempt to successfully fight this Global War on Terror.

Quite strange that Dr. Barnett wouldn’t intuitively see that linkage and respect the need for the Roman Catholic Church to institutionally provide for a transition. A Pole, Karol Wojtyla, provided the transition away from the Italian stranglehold on the papacy and it looks as though a German, Joseph Ratzinger, will provide the transition away from a European stranglehold on the papacy.

 

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

Arthur Chrenkoff speaks for me when he scoffs at a recent gathering of the so-called Phoenix Group days ago in Scottsdale, Arizona:

This underdog act by the left has always struck me as disingenuous and rather pathetic. Here we have a group of people subscribing to the same philosophy which has for the past few decades dominated the print and the electronic media, the universities, the foundations, the world of culture, arts and entertainment, the unions and the public service, and yet they keep complaining that they can't seem to get their messages across. Pro-Democratic think tanks don't need any more seeding; Harvard, Princeton and Berkeley are all pretty well funded. The reason that somebody like Daniel Pipes had to start his own Middle East Forum is because no "self-respecting" Mid East studies department at a major American university would now have such an outspoken enemy of Islamofascism onboard. And if the Heritage Foundation and the AEI are winning the battle of ideas against the combined might of the liberal academia and the media, not wanting to detract anything from the fantastic work of these two think tanks, it really says something about the liberal ideas themselves.

Yet the people who made millions and billions riding the waves of supply and demand think that if a product that's already been promoted to death is not selling, the solution is not to reevaluate the product but to increase the advertising budget. If Soros and the rest of the Phoenix Group run their businesses the way they run their politics they would be bankrupt by now. As it is, they're only intellectually bankrupt.

But . . . but . . . they’re SO MUCH SMARTER than the rest of us – it’s just not fair, it’s not FAIR!

 

WHY DO I LOVE THE INTERNET? HERE’S WHY – TRACKING THE U.N. OIL-FOR-FOOD SCANDAL THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST DESPERATELY WANT TO GO AWAY . . .

. . . but it won’t, it just won’t!

Roger Simon is steady on the case, slowly but surely advancing the story:

I know - this blog seems obsessed with the Oil-for-Food scandal, but it is one of the greatest mysteries of our time and this blog is written by a mystery writer. And, as with any good mystery, you never know the identity of Mr. Big until the very last minute. Of course, in this case it has seemed for some time that Mr. Big's initial (pace Kafka) would be K. But who knows? There are nooks and crannies as far North as Ontario now. Surprises could occur.

Then, the incomparable Wretchard the Cat signs on, delivering a link-fest: first, the Washington Post reporting on Maurice F. Strong and his ties to a South Korean (Tongsun Park) lobbyist (client: Saddam Hussein) accused of trying to bribe U.N. officials; second, another Post story where the Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is linked to some French-Canadians (the Demarais family) who have intimate links to businesses and banks tied to the Oil-for-Food scandal; third, as an example of the intimate connections, Wretchard links to a London Guardian story on the French oil industry giant, Elf Aquitaine which is associated with the Demarais family. It is at this point where Wretchard presents a chart for his readers and I’m reproducing it below:

 

Wretchard goes on to quote the Washington Times by noting that the primary Oil-for-Food investigator (Paul Volcker) is a close friend and paid adviser to Paul Demarais Sr. Hmmmmmm, now ain’t that something!?! The story went on to report that Demarais Sr. owns Power Corp. of Canada and:

Power Corp. shares control of a holding company that is the largest single shareholder of the multinational energy firm Total, which received $1.75 billion worth of oil from Iraq. Total was in discussions with Saddam Hussein to develop oil fields in Iraq if sanctions were lifted (which would have made them worth billions of dollars more). Mr. Demarais' son is currently a director of Total."

These people are downright brazen. But there’s more! Wretchard cites a Canada Free Press article:

[A] U.S. congressional investigation into the UN scandal [has] discovered that Power Corp. had extensive connections to BNP Paribas, a French bank that had been handpicked by the UN in 1996 to broker the Oil-for-Food program. In fact, Power actually once owned a stake in Paribas through its subsidiary, Pargesa Holding SA. The bank also purchased a stake in Power Corp. in the mid-seventies and, as recently as 2003, BNP Paribas had a 14.7 per cent equity and 21.3 per cent voting stake in Pargesa, company records show. John Rae, a director and former executive at Power (brother of former Ontario premier Bob Rae), was president and a director of the Paribas Bank of Canada until 2000. And Power Corp. director Michel François-Poncet, who was, in 2001, the vice-chairman of Pargesa, also sat on Paribas’s board, though he died Feb. 10, at the age of 70. A former chair of Paribas’s management board, André Levy-Lang, is currently a member of Power’s international advisory council. And Amaury-Daniel de Seze, a member of BNP Paribas’s executive council, also sat on Pargesa’s administrative council in 2002.

Incredible! Adding to the amazingly tangled web was this contribution from the Sydney Morning Herald:

A UN official said Mr Strong was in the Dominican Republic recuperating from pneumonia and would be making no public comments. Mr Annan, asked if he had known of the relationship between Mr Strong and Park, said he was not aware of it. Mr Strong was also a member of the board of Air Harbour Technologies, along with Mr Annan's son, Kojo Annan, whom the UN is also investigating for possible conflicts of interest in the award of an oil-for-food contract to Cotecna, a Swiss company that employed him.

Wretchard also alerts his readers to a damning Forbes Magazine article from January 12, 1998 reproduced at globalpolicy.org. Of course, some of Wretchard's outstanding readership quite naturally chimed in with some valuable additions:

Mrs. Davis said...

Most of us know Paul Desmarais as the . . . well, let’s hold it there: most Canadians don’t know Paul Desmarais at all. You could stop the first thousand people walking down Yonge Street and I’ll bet no one would know who he is. But the few who do know him know him as the kingmaker behind Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin. Jean Chrétien’s daughter is married to Paul Desmarais’s son. Paul Martin was an employee of M. Desmarais’s Power Corp., and his Canada Steamship Lines was originally a subsidiary of Power Corp. that M. Desmarais put Mr. Martin in charge of. In other words, Paul Martin’s public identity--successful self-made businessman, not just a career pol, knows how to meet payroll, etc.--is entirely derived from the patronage of M. Desmarais.

Mark Steyn, 2005

Things seem to be falling apart for the Canadian Liberal Party even faster than for the Iraqi Baathe Party.

11:53 AM

Rick Ballard said...

My compliments Wretchard. What an outstanding piece of reporting.

The next revelations will probaly tie Paribas/Total/Elf Aquitaine a bit more closely to Monsieur Jacques on the other side of the pond.

12:21 PM

Yep, that’s all we need now to make this story complete – Jacques Chirac.

Man, the blogosphere is incredible.

 

DR. BARNETT, ARE YOU SMOKING SOME CRACK?

Thomas P.M. Barnett, with an absolutely jaw-dropping opinion on the new Pope:

Ratzinger, John Paul II's enforcer, basically pulled off an insider succession. This is such a bad thing for the Catholic Church, I am almost speechless.

What an amazingly bad pick. Ratzinger is the Chernenko coming on the heels of enfeebled Brezhnev. Complete step backward that history will blame on John Paul II and his sorry management of church in 1990s and 2000s until his death. The regent assumes the throne.

Until a real New Core or Gap pope succeeds Ratzinger (he should just go with Pope Ratzinger I), the papacy will declline in global relevancy to an amazing degree. I blame JP II for this outcome. That man's intransigence will end up costing us plenty, and him most of his legacy.

A coup d’etat?

Quote: “This is such a bad thing for the Catholic Church, I am almost speechless.”

Uh, this is such a whacked out opinion – I am speechless. I mean, the man actually compared this to a SOVIET succession. The lack of seriousness required for that leap of logic (from, until recently, a Naval War College professor) is stunning.

 

PUSSIFICATION ALERT!

Our “caring professionals” are well-intentioned but they certainly aren’t doing us any favors as a nation. Dale Franks at Q and O Blog quotes George Will, among others, to paint the picture:

Vast numbers of credentialed—that is not a synonym for “competent”—members of the “caring professions” have a professional stake in the myth that most people are too fragile to cope with life’s vicissitudes and traumas without professional help. Consider what Sommers and Satel call “the commodification of grief” by the “grief industry”—professional grief “counselors” with “degrieving” techniques. Such “grief gurus” are “ventilationists”: They assume that everyone should grieve the same way—by venting feelings sometimes elicited by persons who have paid $1,795 for a five-day course in grief counseling.

“They assume that everyone should grieve the same way,” and (rest assured) that is usually a traditionally female way of grieving. Dale Franks asks:

Did you know that in Africa today, 10 year old boys are conscripted into combat? In the 18th and 19th centuries, 12 year-old boys routinely served as midshipmen in the Royal Navy, or as Drummers in the US Army?

Despite what the grief counselors would have us believe, most people, even children, are not quivering bundles of nerves, ready to crack at the first signs of stress. But the more that we act as if we are, the more likely it is that we will be.

Think about it. We are a people whose parents and grandparents, at 18 years old, invaded Europe under the murderous machine gun fire at Omaha Beach, then spent the next 281 days in combat. They then came home, went to work, raised families, and except to a few close acquaintances, never mentioned the war again.

Now we are increasingly a people that call grief counselors if we see unpleasant news on the TV.

What is happening to us?

Tell me about it.

I grew up as a pre-teen in the 1960s in a two-bedroom concrete block house with one bathroom to service our family of eight.

That’s right, eight.

In northeast Florida, my friends, with no air conditioning to deal with the May to October summers (and by the standards of many in this country, our summers really lasted from April to November; December and March were transition months, and true winter was January and February) – but we definitely had regular temperatures in the upper 80s and low 90s from May to October. Yet, all our black elected officials seem to want to do now is bitch, bitch, bitch about unfair treatment of one sort or another. Never once does it seem to cross anyone’s mind that the fortitude we were not only taught but expected to demonstrate has been casually thrown away – BY US!

And that fortitude had unseen benefits we are only now starting to come to grips with.

 

CONDOLEEZZA RICE – BLACK PANTHER

Our historic Secretary of State is in Russia handling her business (and ours); as part of her itinerary, she appeared on a radio program that was described thusly by mosnews.com:

During her visit to Moscow, U.S. Secretary of State answered listeners’ questions as part of a live address on Moscow’s Ekho Moskvy radio. In the interview moderated by the station’s own Alexei Benediktov, Rice gave an upbeat view of relations between Russia and the United States – in particular where non-proliferation attempts were concerned.

Of course, she did a fantastic job – the woman is very polished and almost never disappoints. Here are the last few questions and answers:

Are you afraid there will be a velvet revolution in Russia?

I think that Russia is a stable state, a country with the ability to develop democratic processes and institutions where people can state their preferences. There’s no need to see this as a revolution or as something to be afraid of. Russia has been through much, and I know it well. I know there were hard times after the USSR broke up, I know that Russian people are in the process of adjusting to what is going on around them, the market, the rapid economic development in progress. I know there is a lot of work to do outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, and I hope Russian people know that the U.S. is aware of the huge changes that have happened in Russia in the past few years. We respect the Russian spirit, the opportunities that Russia has. We know that the great country and the great people of Russia have a great future in front of them and none of us are worried for Russia’s future. We think that Russia’s future might be very bright.

Why does the Yukos and Khodorkovsky case receive so much attention in the U.S.?

Everyone is watching the Yukos case to find out about the rule of law in Russia, it is a question of courts and legal powers. I know the court will announce its verdict very soon. We, just like the rest of the world’s investing community, are going to watch it closely because we want to be sure that the law is powerful in Russia.

And one last question. We’ve got a 15-year-old schoolgirl asking what she can do to live like Condoleezza Rice. What does it take to make a career like Condoleezza Rice’s? What does it take to be like Condoleezza Rice?

This is a very difficult question, I wouldn’t like to talk about myself. All right, I am 50 years old, as you have already so kindly told everybody in Russia, I like what I do, I’ve got wonderful friends and a good family. I appreciate the chance to visit Russia, a country I love and whose language and culture I love, too. I am thinking of probably giving an interview in Russian, but you see it is very difficult without practice. Besides you have these horrible cases in your language, it is so hard to speak without mistakes, but thank you very much.

Thanks to Condoleezza Rice, and I would like you to have a look at the poll results. The question was whether our listeners saw the U.S. as Russia’s partner or as its enemy. So far we have received 6,000 votes with 54 percent seeing the U.S. as a partner and 46 percent seeing it as an enemy.

That’s very tight.

It is, so could I ask you now to address these 46 percent, those who think that the U.S. is Russia’s enemy, and tell them a few words.

I would like to tell these people that the U.S.A. is not Russia’s enemy, we are not against Russia’s interests, we really want to have a constructive, friendly relationship with Russia based on common interests so that we can solve common problems and our presidents will have a good relationship, too. The U.S.A. and its people respect Russia’s great culture and its great people. And we know Russia has a beautiful future.

Are you planning to run in the presidential elections of 2008? Would you like to become president?

No.

Thank you very much.

Pride.

Unrestrained pride – that what I feel when I think about this woman. I’ve recently had a personally disturbing discussion about us black folks and our response to Secretary Rice. I had to listen to a learned black woman trash Secretary Rice on the most specious and (to me) juvenile of reasons and I could think to myself was how sad it is – this need to pimp for the Democratic Party SO MUCH that you can’t even recognize (and be proud of – genuinely PROUD of) the objective accomplishments of this child of Alabama.

Amazing. According to John Hinderaker at Power Line. “Figaro reports that Russians call her the Black Panther, and it is easy to imagine the impression she makes.”

 

Yes it is, here and abroad.

 

THE COMING MEDIA REVOLUTION