Tag Archives: Harry Reid

Big Labor Finally Getting The Shaft From Democrat Politicians

By Doug Book

labor unions SC Big labor finally getting the shaft from Democrat politicians

It seems big labor is getting nervous about anticipated disastrous effects on the healthcare benefits of union membership by Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. So nervous are they in fact that James P. Hoffa and organized labor comrades Joseph Hansen and Don Taylor addressed their concerns in personal letter form to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, a clear break from the more conventional late night exchange of cash and instructions so common between labor kingpins and Democrat politicians.

“We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members,” wrote the 3 union bosses to leaders of the political party to which organized labor donated some $800 million in 2008 and $700 million two years later. “Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it.” Though Hoffa didn’t specifically include “When we buy politicians, we expect ‘em to STAY bought,” the implication was clear enough.

Four years ago, there were no more vocal or committed supporters of Obama’s signature healthcare plan than organized labor. But now, Hoffa and the others are whining that “…the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.” Yet none of the damaging contents of the Affordable Care Act have changed during the past 4 years. So why is labor suddenly in a panic?

The ObamaCare employer mandate requiring that employers of over 50 full time (40 hour/week) workers provide healthcare or pay a stiff penalty is being met with a sudden influx of part time employees. In fact, part time hires are outpacing full time in 2013 by over 4-1, a complete reversal of employment figures for 2012. This destruction of the 40 hour week complained of by Hoffa means fewer dollars for employees and a black eye for unions paid to protect their interests.

But of greatest concern to labor bosses are the multi-employer or Taft Hartley health plans currently carried by some 22 million union members. Unions pride themselves on their ability to provide these Cadillac health plans to members at reasonable prices. (Employers of course pay the bulk of the tab.)

However, as ObamaCare requirements are certain to drive premium prices sky high, employers will counter by dropping the plans when unions contracts expire,  placing members in the individual, ObamaCare exchange market. Once placed in the ObamaCare market without insurance, employees will qualify for subsidies.

BUT, why join a union or maintain membership if one of the principle reasons–the long-term availability of first rate healthcare at very reasonable prices–no longer exists?! One of the biggest draws for joining a union is being taken away from big labor, and they do NOT like it!

So Hoffa and other labor bosses now want to have their cake and eat it too–they are demanding that members be permitted …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Filibuster Lives: Senate Skirts 'Nuclear Option'

By John Johnson

The Senate’s little version of the Bay of Pigs is over, and this one won’t end with nukes, either. After much hemming and hawing and stern pronouncements, both sides reached a deal to avoid a showdown over filibuster rules , meaning Harry Reid won’t use the so-called “nuclear option” to make… …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home

Reid Goes Nuclear For Union Bosses

By Phil Kerpen

Reid 209x300 Reid Goes Nuclear for Union Bosses

In 2005, Senate Republicans floated the idea of altering Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees. The proposal, dubbed the nuclear option, involved breaking Senate rules to change Senate rules. (The rules require a two-thirds vote for rules changes, but the nuclear option changes the rules by simple majority.) Democrats fought back against it furiously. Harry Reid led the fight, saying on the Senate floor: “I would never, ever consider breaking the rules to change the rules.” Well, adjust your clocks to “never.” Reid is now poised to execute the nuclear option.

Reid is willing to gut the filibuster at the behest of union bosses who want to keep the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stacked with corrupt union lawyers who will continue to rig the rules to make it easier to force workers into unions. Even worse, the specific NLRB nominees Reid wants to break Senate rules to approve were already illegally appointed by President Obama.

The same media that was howling when Republicans considered the nuclear option are tying themselves into knots to justify it now that Democrats are in control. Consider this astonishing deception from NBC News: “The NLRB nominations have been pending so long that President Obama used so-called recess appointments — appointing board members while the Senate was out of session — to allow the board to function.”

“Pending so long”? President Obama named his NLRB nominees on December 14, 2011 and installed them via putative recess appointment on January 4, 2012. That’s 21 days. Some of the days were, obviously, major holidays. The nominees never filled out questionnaires or even underwent background checks. They didn’t meet with any Senate Republicans, who nonetheless are blamed for obstructing them.

“While the Senate was out of session”? No. The Senate was in session; Senator Ben Cardin had gaveled in the new session of Congress just the day before.

D.C. Circuit Court Chief Judge David B. Sentelle wrote: “An interpretation of ‘the Recess’ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction.”

The Supreme Court is almost certain to agree later this year.

You would think the Senate would, as an institution, recoil at the prospect of being effectively denied its constitutional prerogative of advice and consent. But for Senate Democrats, partisanship and dependence on union political muscle trump that concern.

Instead of nominating qualified members other than the ones he had already been rebuked in federal court for attempting to install illegally, Obama chose to renominate his illegal appointees and deliberately provoke confrontation. Reid is happily playing along, even to the point of nuclear escalation. Even though it means, as he described it as recently as 2008, the Senate as the Founders designed it would cease to exist.

All it …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Their Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios'

By Avik Roy

Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare. They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010. But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members. Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation?s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would ?shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.? …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Health

How About An Assault Pressure Cooker Ban?

By Fred Weinberg

Here’s an idea.

How about an assault pressure cooker ban?

In view of last week’s events in Boston, it makes more sense than an assault rifle ban. (Keep in mind that Obamacare probably will not pay for the surgical removal of my tongue from my cheek.)

It’s now well known that a cheap pressure cooker (Wal Mart has them as low as $42.87 for a T-Fal model) can be turned into an IED, which can kill or maim a lot faster than a Bushmaster 223 with a 30 round magazine.  Ask the folks who were gathered near the finish line of the Boston Marathon last week.

Where are the “if we can just save one life” folks on this one?

I’m pretty sure that the Second Amendment does not cover pressure cookers, so why not ban them in addition to ball bearings and printed circuit boards that can receive radio signals and switch something on?

A more reasonable question to ask, of course, would be if those folks in the Boston area, who were ordered back into their houses during the manhunt for the two Chechnyan punks who apparently set off the IEDs at the Boston Marathon, would have felt more comfortable with a handgun or an assault rifle to protect themselves and their families?

I know that if this had happened in Northern Nevada, there would have been a whole lot of weapons being loaded and cocked and kept handy until the manhunt was over.

At the risk of being accused of politicizing a tragedy, this is the exact reason we do not and should not ban guns in this country.  You have a guaranteed constitutional right to defend yourself from nutjobs like these clowns and, for that matter, anybody else who would do your family and yourself any harm.

Understand that you are not required to do so.  But you have the right to do so.  And, should you wish to be pro-active in a situation such as this, the nanny staters should not be standing in your way.

One such nanny stater is our own Harry Reid (D-Washington DC Ritz Carleton), who has now completed his transition from a one-time blue dog Democrat who understood exactly the nature of the state he represented to a Barney Frank limousine liberal who could care less about who actually sent him to Washington because he’s above all that.

In last week’s Senate votes on the President’s gun control bill, Reid actually voted FOR an assault weapons ban.

That’s right, Dirty Harry voted to stop me from owning my M1 Carbine, the assault rifle that won World War Two.  The rifle we made six and a half million of and sold surplus to citizens’ marksmanship groups in the 50s and 60s for around $21.

He lost by a good 20 votes because even in a Senate run by Harry Reid, there’s enough good sense to realize such a bill was going nowhere.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein poo

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Who Really Calls The Shots In Our Government?

By Floyd Brown

Congress has proven once again that it’s a special interest world – the rest of us are just living in it.

Earlier this week, the Senate voted against tighter restrictions on guns and gun owners, effectively ending the push that began in the wake of the Newtown, CT school shooting.

But the real story here isn’t the vote – it’s the NRA. You see, the NRA spends millions of dollars lobbying and giving contributions to members of the U.S. Senate. The Senate vote on gun control just proves how effective the NRA’s strategy really is.

And I want to talk about this strategy because it provides an excellent view into how Capitol Hill really works. Folks are always telling me they don’t understand why this or that happened on Capitol Hill. Well, it’s time to shed some light on it.

Now, as a matter of disclosure, I want to let you know that I’m a lifelong member of the NRA. I agree with the NRA’s position against restricting the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

But that’s not what I’m here to talk about.

I want to talk about process

The White House is in Shock

Right now, the U.S. Senate is controlled by the Democrats. Yet since the Democrats “defected” to the NRA, the Senate just totally jammed their exalted leader.

Barack Obama’s scheme to add additional rules, restrictions, regulations, and limitations to gun ownership lost big. In a progression of votes on amendments, the truth became clear: No one, Democrats included, wants to mess with the Second Amendment.

Even Sen. Harry Reid, Obama’s supposed point man in the Senate, didn’t seem like he wanted to deliver.

Thus, the central proposal to expand background checks was voted down 54-46. Remember – in the Senate, such bills don’t just need a majority. They require 60 votes to get past a virtually guaranteed filibuster.

The White House had even set in motion an intensive, coast-to-coast lobbying campaign that featured gut-wrenching pleas from families of the Newtown school shooting victims.

But it didn’t help. And Obama administration officials were visibly angry after his agenda got shellacked. The anger level was so high that even Obama spoke out. “All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” he said of the vote, adding that the effort “is not over.”

But in reality, it’s likely all over.

The Power of the NRA

In a democracy, a president always gets his chance.

But one third of the Senate and the entire House have to face the voters in 18 months, and these members know that the NRA can sway elections. No amount of tears from the Newtown families is likely to trump electoral politics in Washington.

So how does the NRA have such massive influence on national politics? They’ve only got about five million members, compared to a country of over 300 million.

First, it’s important to note that the NRA political machine is truly bipartisan. The NRA will support anyone – liberal, conservative, whatever – as long as that congressman is good on one thing: guns.

It’s this laser focus that gives

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/who-really-calls-the-shots-in-our-government/

Reid Pulls Weakened Gun Control Legislation

By John Johnson Given that the gun legislation moving through the Senate had been stripped of pretty much every reform advocates considered meaningful, Harry Reid today yanked what remained from consideration, reports the Hill . But he promised the Senate would revisit the proposal to tighten background checks after this indefinite “pause and freeze”…

From: http://www.newser.com/story/166477/reid-pulls-weakened-gun-control-legislation.html

Evidence Of Criminal Activity Inside Of Congress

By Floyd Brown

Last year, Congress passed the STOCK Act with great fanfare. I’ve written about it before because it had the potential to enhance government transparency. The law had the power to stop insider trading by congressmen.

Now, raise your hand if you actually thought that law would last…

No one? I figured.

In one of the least shocking moves in recent memory, Congress decided to gut the STOCK Act in an under-the-radar vote that crushed any hope for policy-making transparency.

You see, rather than build trust, our representatives would rather cover up criminal activity.

In modifying the STOCK Act, Congress killed the provision requiring congressional members and White House staff to post their stock transactions online.

The same day the bill was introduced, the Senate voted on the changes (with no public debate) in a nighttime voice vote. The House followed suit with a similar voice vote – and no debate – the very next day.

The whole process happened so quickly that Harry Reid introduced the bill on April 11, and it was signed by President Obama on April 15.

House Republican leaders even violated their much trumpeted promise to give the public three days to study any bill before holding a vote.

Never Listen to What They Say. Just Watch How They Vote.

When the original STOCK Act was passed on April 4, 2012, the media ate it up. President Obama said it was the first step to “help fight the destructive influence of money in politics and rebuild the trust between Washington and the American people.”

But media coverage of the latest changes was virtually nonexistent compared to the triumphant proclamations of a year ago. And the president is dubiously silent this time around.

There’s a silver lining, though! Starting in 2014, the president, vice president, and members of Congress will once again have to disclose their trades.

The problem is, the disclosures won’t be placed online where the public or journalists can easily review them. Instead, the disclosures will be extremely difficult to access. Why? National security.

That’s right. Whenever Washington passes an unpopular bill, they often justify it on the grounds of “national security”.

Tom Lee of the Sunlight Foundation explains the tactic this way: “This approach is known as ‘security through obscurity.’ Essentially, the idea is that rather than fixing a system’s flaws, you can just make the system opaque or unusable or unpopular enough that those flaws never surface.”

The reactions from government watchdogs were swift and furious.

Lisa Rosenberg, also of the Sunlight Foundation, writes:

Not only does the change undermine the intent of the original bill to ensure government insiders are not profiting from non-public information (if anyone thinks high-level congressional staffers don’t have as much or more insider information than their bosses, they should spend some time on Capitol Hill) but it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online.

Are we going to return to the days when public can use the internet to research everything except what their government is doing? Will Congress, in its

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/evidence-of-criminal-activity-inside-of-congress/

Source: Suspect Identified In Bombings

By Breaking News

0143 Source: Suspect identified in bombings

Investigators believe they have identified a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, a source who has been briefed on the investigation told CNN’s John King exclusively.

The breakthrough came from analysis of video from a department store near the site of the second explosion. Video from a Boston television station also contributed to the progress, said the source, who declined to be more specific but called it a significant development.

Earlier, a federal law enforcement source with firsthand knowledge of the investigation told CNN that a lid to a pressure cooker thought to have been used in the bombings had been found on a roof of a building near the scene.

While such clues may move the investigation forward, they did not reveal whether the attack was an act of domestic or foreign terrorism.

Read more at CNN. By Tom Watkins.

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/source-suspect-identified-in-bombings/

Video: Freudian Slip? Sen. Reid Calls Bill “Anti-Gun Legislation”

By NewsEditor

Sure looks like  a freudian slip to me!!

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/freudian-slip-sen-reid-calls-bill-anti-gun-legislation/

Plan to pardon black boxer

By hnn

A team of activists, politicians and celebrities has launched a campaign seeking the posthumous pardon of former heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was convicted under a racially motivated sentence a century ago.

Mike Tyson, Harry Reid and John McCain have all lent their support to the campaign, starting a Change.org petition asking President Obama to posthumously pardon the world’s first African-American boxing champion of his racially motivated 1913 felony conviction.

Source:
Salon

Source URL:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/new_push_to_pardon_boxing_legend_jack_johnson_partner/?source=newsletter

Date:
4-6-13

read more

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at History News Network – George Mason University

Does Obama Really Care?

By John Careccia

Obama Presidential Seal Podium Speech SC 780x1024 Does Obama Really Care?

Following an expose by Fox News, President Obama is going to write a $20,000 check to the U.S. Treasury this year, according to his press secretary, in a sign of solidarity with federal workers who face furloughs due to the sequester. However, he will keep going on family vacations, including his annual trip to Hawaii that costs taxpayers approximately $4 million per trip (according to estimates by the Hawaiian Reporter.) And that is supposing that Michelle goes to the same place this time. For the last several vacations, they have gone to separate locations, costing taxpayers double or triple what it should cost for one.

There is so much going on in Washington that it is really getting disturbing. The “Sequester” amounts to a 2% cut in the INCREASE in SPENDING, not the actual spending; and yet Obama is cutting the heart out of the public’s access to the White House or the ability to control illegal border crossings or reducing drug smuggling operations. For some reason, our president is forcing the average person to fear that the government is going to take something away from them. The latest is Medicare and cancer patients. All of the cuts are designed to inflict as much pain as possible on the average American; that is the only way Obama feels that he can get his way. He reminds me of a 6-year old who wants a certain toy and drives his parents crazy so they will give in and get him the toy.

Do you think he really feels your pain, or is he a very shrewd politician given his background in Chicago’s South Side?

President Obama has said on many occasions: “I am not a dictator; I am president.” What he really means is that he wants to be a dictator president. He is using everything at his disposal to inflict as much pain as possible to make the American people demand that Congress give him what he wants. When Congress resists his intimidating or tricky posturing and Harry Reid’s shenanigans, he uses his executive power to circumvent what Congress has put in place. For the life of me, I don’t know why Congress is letting him get away with slapping them in the face. They are becoming irrelevant. Congress could stop him, but they choose not to. Instead of thinking about what’s best for the country, they concentrate on what’s best for them and their continued stay in Washington. If we had term limits on Senators especially, it would do a lot to make them more compliant with their constituents and not their careers.

Since his drum-beating and scare tactics relating to the sequester is falling short, he is now traveling around the country as Campaigner in Chief, raising money and positioning his supporters to help make sure the Democrats take back the House in 2014. That way, he can push his programs through, just like he did with Obamacare. I think we all know what a disaster Obamacare is turning out …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Harry Reid’s Gun Control Bill Allows The Beginnings Of A National Gun Registry

By Breaking News

The final step of Nazi control in Austria was registration and confiscation of guns. (Fairly Civil)

It’s not a surprise. Gun Registration often leads to confiscation.

Now this…
Harry Reid is pushing a gun control bill that will likely lead to a national gun registry.
The Foundry reported:

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must know, Americans who own firearms have a special sensitivity to a “Big Brother” federal government that wants to keep centralized records on who owns what guns and where in America. Loose language in his gun control bill (S. 649) could start America down that slippery slope.

Since the Second Amendment guarantees to the people the right to keep and bear arms, many Americans look askance at efforts to create centralized records that might some day, in some distant future neither wanted nor expected, facilitate a despotic government’s efforts to disarm the populace or ensure that its supporters but not its opponents possess arms. Some Americans look at history and view that concern as far-fetched; others look at history and see careful attention to that concern as essential to maintaining freedom…

Read More at thegatewaypundit.com . By Jim Hoft.

Photo Credit: Talk Radio News Service Creative Commons

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Reid Bill Could Lead To National Gun Registry

By Breaking News

The final step of Nazi control in Austria was registration and confiscation of guns. (Fairly Civil)

It’s not a surprise. Gun Registration often leads to confiscation.

Now this…
Harry Reid is pushing a gun control bill that will likely lead to a national gun registry.
The Foundry reported:

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must know, Americans who own firearms have a special sensitivity to a “Big Brother” federal government that wants to keep centralized records on who owns what guns and where in America. Loose language in his gun control bill (S. 649) could start America down that slippery slope.

Since the Second Amendment guarantees to the people the right to keep and bear arms, many Americans look askance at efforts to create centralized records that might some day, in some distant future neither wanted nor expected, facilitate a despotic government’s efforts to disarm the populace or ensure that its supporters but not its opponents possess arms. Some Americans look at history and view that concern as far-fetched; others look at history and see careful attention to that concern as essential to maintaining freedom…

Read More at thegatewaypundit.com . By Jim Hoft.

Photo Credit: Talk Radio News Service Creative Commons

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Reid Readies Gun Bill With Background Checks

By John Johnson He put the kibosh on an assault-weapons ban , but Harry Reid insisted today that any gun legislation taken up by the Senate will include universal background checks, reports the Hill . Reid confirmed that he will allow measures to restrict assault weapons and high-capacity ammo magazines to be voted on only… …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home

Robert Menendez Donor Courted President Obama, Harry Reid

By The Huffington Post News Editors

Salomon Melgen had a knack for going straight to the top.

He posed for pictures with President Barack Obama, flew Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his private jet and sought advice on a port security deal from an ex-CIA agent who helped lead the hunt for Osama bin Laden, POLITICO has learned.

Read More…
More on Barack Obama

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Harry Reid: Jeb Bush ‘Made A Fool Of Himself’ On Immigration

By The Huffington Post News Editors

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not mince words on Tuesday when asked about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush‘s (R) stated opposition to a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“Let’s wait a few weeks and see how Jeb Bush changes his mind,” Reid told reporters. “His opinion on immigration is not evolving, it’s devolving. He keeps going backwards. I think he’s frankly made a fool of himself.”

Bush had previously said he supported allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens, but wrote with coauthor Clint Bolick in a new book, Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, that comprehensive immigration reform should instead allow only legal status. Reid supports a pathway to citizenship.

Read More…
More on Jeb Bush

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Killing The Obamacare Zombie: Hope Lives!

By Matt Barber

Obamacare SC Killing the Obamacare Zombie: Hope Lives!

“But Republican governors are folding like cheap lawn chairs,” you say. “And political eunuchs in the GOP establishment are bowing to Obama like he bows to foreign dictators. Any hope of repeal is long dead, and besides, Chief Justice John Roberts put the final nail in the judicial coffin last summer, didn’t he? Any chance of killing the Obamacare zombie is gone, right?”

Wrong.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention; but back in November, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel’s motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple – this time, with a whole new quiver of legal arrows.

Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Liberty Counsel recently filed its brief in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. The Christian civil rights firm represents Liberty University and two private individuals in this case. While there are other legal challenges to the employer contraceptive/abortifacient mandate, Liberty Counsel’s is the most comprehensive case pending in the country.

The lawsuit challenges 1) the employer mandate for all employers; 2) the abortion mandate for religious employers; 3) the abortion mandate for individuals; and 4) the entire law because tax bills must originate in the House (and Obamacare originated in the Senate.)

This case is the only one in the country that challenges the entire employer mandate for all employers. Like other pending cases, Liberty Counsel’s also challenges the so-called “Preventative coverage” mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and IUDs, which also causes abortion.

Additionally, Obamacare compels individual citizens to violate their conscience by making them directly fund abortion homicide – both surgical and chemical – under penalty of law. It forces all employees who are part of a plan that offers abortion coverage to pay $1 per month directly to a “free” abortion fund. There is no opt-out provision, and information relative to which plans offer abortion is intentionally covered up. This too is part of the case, so don’t let anyone tell you that Obamacare doesn’t require you to fund abortion on demand. If they do, they’re simply lying through their triple-grande,-four-pump-hazelnut-mocha-stained teeth.

Finally, Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that Obamacare is invalid because, since it’s a tax – as the Supreme Court already ruled in June – it violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause. To pass constitutional muster, tax bills must originate in the House, not the Senate.

Before the Democrat-led Senate rammed it through in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 2009, Senate majority leader Harry Reid used a House bill unrelated to Obamacare, struck all the language and the title so that only the former HR number remained, and then inserted a new title and over 2,000 pages of job-killing, economy-crushing, health-care-rationing compost.

Sneaky? Yes. Typical? No doubt. Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism