The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for May 16th, 2011

Fairfax teacher still suffering from false molestation allegations. Police officer admits to lying…

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

You can read the story HERE at the Washington Post:

Sean Lanigan’s nightmare began in January 2010, when the principal at Centre Ridge Elementary School pulled him out of the physical education class he was teaching and quietly walked him into an interrogation with two Fairfax County police detectives.

He had no warning that a 12-year-old girl at the Centreville school had accused him of groping and molesting her in the gym.

The girl, angry at Lanigan about something else entirely, had made the whole thing up. But her accusations launched a soul-sapping rollercoaster ride that still hasn’t ended.

“Emotionally, a part of me has died inside,” Lanigan said in a recent interview. “I’m physically and mentally exhausted all the time, how the whole process has been dragged out to this date. It certainly has affected the quality of life for me and my family at home.”

Lanigan remains in limbo, nearly a year after a jury’s acquittal. The Fairfax School District transferred him from Centre Ridge in a move that ultimately forced his wife to quit her job. School officials are now transferring him again. And the district has refused to pay his $125,000 in legal fees, even though Virginia law allows reimbursement for employees who are cleared of wrongdoing on the job.

~snip

A jury found him not guilty after just 47 minutes of deliberation — virtually unheard of in a child sex abuse case. Jurors were outraged by the lack of evidence, with one weeping in sympathy during closing arguments.
~snip
But this is the part that really rubs me bad…

Police declined to allow Nicole Christian, the lead detective on the case, to be interviewed for this article. Several months after Lanigan was acquitted, Fairfax prosecutors dismissed another of Christian’s child abuse cases in the middle of trial, a rarity, when the detective acknowledged that she had “misstated” some key facts in her sworn testimony.

This kind of nonsense happens just too often. Be sure to go to the Washington Post’s web site to read the entire piece and be sure to watch the video. It is not every day that I get to commend the Post on a solid piece of journalism, I just wish it would become a trend.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Over Half of All Obamacare Waivers Given to Union Members

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard:

In what is fast becoming a weekly event, the Obama administration granted 200 more companies aivers from the Democrats’ sweeping health care law in the Friday night news dump. That brings the number of companies receiving waivers to 1,372. (You can get a full list of the companies exempted here.)

Not surprisingly, it helps to be a Democratic ally when seeking a waiver. The Republican Policy Committee reports that over half of the workers that have been exempted so far belong to unions:

The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the health law’s requirements.  Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half – over 1.55 million – are in union plans, raising questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements.  The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions also continues to rise – the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March.

Unions already received a generous concession in the health care bill. Their generous “cadilac” insurance plans were exempted from being taxed until 2018, adding about $120 billion to the bill’s cost over ten years. For more on how the administration has helped unions, see my story in THE WEEKLY STANDARD from a few weeks ago.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Reagan at Notre Dame 30 Years Ago. A Speech that Changed the Direction of History.

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

Reagan has always been close to South Bend as the film that launched his career was shot right here.

Dr. Paul Kengor at National Review:

Reagan at Notre Dame

A call to transcendence and duty

or those of us fascinated by Cold War history, the last few months have been a treat, with recognition of two 20th-century giants who played a huge role in peacefully taking down an Evil Empire and ending the longest-running conflict of a bloody century. In February, Americans marked the centennial of the birth of Pres. Ronald Reagan. This May, Catholics marked the beatification of Pope John Paul II.

Even then, that’s just the tip of the historical iceberg. We’re at the 30-year mark of a bunch of events that conservatives in particular should reflect on, instead of just hopping from news cycle to news cycle. The founders of our movement, with the founding editor of National Review among them, would want us to stand athwart history yelling “Stop”; that is, to pause and pay recognition.

In January 1981, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president. Mere weeks later, on March 30, he was shot. On May 13, John Paul II likewise was shot. Both men, we learned only later, came perilously close to bleeding to death during emergency surgery. Those events would convince the president and the pope that God had spared them for a special — indeed, historical — purpose.

Some of this has been acknowledged in retrospectives in recent weeks. What will not get its due, however, was a special speech given by President Reagan on May 17, 1981, at Notre Dame. And here, I encourage conservatives to listen up and take notes.

The occasion was Notre Dame’s commencement, and Reagan gave the assembled undergrads a lesson to remember, including one of his first presidential predictions on the demise of Communism:

The years ahead are great ones for this country, for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization. The West won’t contain Communism, it will transcend Communism. . . . It will dismiss it as some bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.

The visionary quality of Reagan’s words is evident only in retrospect. Though no one else was making such audacious predictions, and though many scoffed at Reagan, those last pages were indeed being written. Unbeknownst to the world, Communism’s grip on Eastern Europe would not survive the decade. Even the USSR would disintegrate peacefully. On Dec. 25, 1991, a helpless Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as leader of the USSR, formally turning out the lights.

For Reagan, that process was aided by an indispensable ally, John Paul II, who had been shot only four days before the Notre Dame speech. Reagan asked the Notre Dame faithful to pray for John Paul, and commended him for his recent encyclical attacking Communism.

The Notre Dame speech was crafted by chief speechwriter Tony Dolan, with a few edits from the president, as can be seen in a marked-up draft at the Reagan Presidential Library (“Presidential Speeches,” Box 1, Folder 7). As Dolan is always quick to acknowledge, the speech is “Reagan’s,” as it was written quintessentially for Reagan alone, based on his ideas, his voice, and with phrases he himself had used. Dolan could not have written such a speech for anyone but Reagan, nor would anyone but Reagan have signed off on it.

In fact, the speech as delivered was highly personal, begun with lengthy extemporaneous remarks by Reagan. It wove together quotes and anecdotes, impromptu and prewritten, establishing Reagan’s theme of a larger cause and challenge — a challenge for all of America. It was a complex, enigmatic speech that can only be fully understood today, long after Reagan’s presidency and with current knowledge of what Reagan was secretly pursuing behind the scenes. Reagan telegraphed its unorthodox nature in these opening lines:

The temptation is great to use this forum as an address on a great international or national issue. . . . Indeed, this is somewhat traditional. So, I wasn’t surprised when I read in several reputable journals that I was going to deliver an address on foreign policy and the economy. I’m not going to talk about either.

This wasn’t quite true. Or maybe it was. Reagan’s objective was much larger — yes, untraditional — as if transcending the economy and foreign policy. Reagan drew upon dramatic remarks by Winston Churchill: “When great causes are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits, not animals, and that something is going on in space and time, and beyond space and time, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

As Dolan knew, Reagan had first employed that Churchill quote back in the classic 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” the speech that launched his career and his crusade against the USSR. To Reagan, the obligation Americans must meet was their duty to fight expansionist, atheistic Soviet Marxism. Was America worthy of that challenge? He responded in the affirmative, citing a protracted history of Americans meeting tests.

Reagan then followed the Churchill passage with a personal story from his movie Knute Rockne, All-American. The film was always seen as a celebration of Notre Dame football, but Reagan was about to make it much more. He provided a most instructive parable, one that I’ve never seen elsewhere from Reagan. The president stated:

Now, today I hear very often, “Win one for the Gipper.” . . . But let’s look at the significance of that story. [Coach Knute] Rockne could have used Gipp’s dying words to win a game any time. But eight years went by following the death of George Gipp before Rock revealed those dying words, his deathbed wish.

And then he told the story at halftime to a team that was losing, and one of the only teams he had ever coached that was torn by dissension and jealousy and factionalism. The seniors on that team were about to close out their football careers without learning or experiencing any of the real values that a game has to impart. None of them had known George Gipp. They were children when he played for Notre Dame. It was to this team that Rockne told the story and so inspired them that they rose above their personal animosities. For someone they had never known, they joined together in a common cause and attained the unattainable.

We were told when we were making the picture of one line that was spoken by a player during that game. We were actually afraid to put it in the picture. The man who carried the ball over for the winning touchdown was actually injured on the play. We were told that as he was lifted on the stretcher and carried off the field he was heard to say, “That’s the last one I can get for you, Gipper.”

Now, it’s only a game. And maybe to hear it now, afterward — and this is what we feared — it might sound maudlin and not the way it was intended. But is there anything wrong with young people having an experience, feeling something so deeply, thinking of someone else to the point that they can give so completely of themselves? There will come times in the lives of all of us when we’ll be faced with causes bigger than ourselves, and they won’t be on a playing field.

Why this story in this speech? Reagan, of course, had played George Gipp in this movie; it was his character who uttered the unforgettable deathbed line, “Go out there and win one for the Gipper.” Throughout his political life he used that line as a kind of signature, often referring to himself as “the Gipper,” as did others. Yet here, in applying the story to a larger cause, Reagan appeared to be linking himself to Rockne, not Gipp.

Just as Coach Rockne rallied a team torn apart by “dissension and jealousy and factionalism,” Coach Reagan seemed to be rallying a team. He wanted this group to join “someone they had never known” — apparently himself, as a political leader — to “attain the unattainable,” just as that particular Notre Dame team had for a George Gipp they had never met.

This was not the first time Reagan had used a commencement address to rally a group of students to the cause. The challenge at Notre Dame was eerily similar to one he had made to the female students of tiny William Woods College way back in June 1952, whom he asked to join him in the battle, the grand ideological struggle, to “push back the darkness over the stadium of humanity.” That darkness was Soviet Communism.

Reagan was bent on motivating his young countrymen to rise above their personal animosities. A country divided and factionalized could not meet the Cold War challenge with confidence.

From the Gipp story, Reagan cast his gaze in a loftier direction:

When it’s written, the history of our time won’t dwell long on the hardships of the recent past. But history will ask . . . Did a people forged by courage find courage wanting? Did a generation steeled by hard war and a harsh peace forsake honor at the moment of great climactic struggle for the human spirit? . . . [T]he answers are to be found in the heritage left by generations of Americans before us. They stand in silent witness to what the world will soon know and history someday record: that in its third century, the American Nation came of age, affirmed its leadership of free men and women serving selflessly a vision of man with God, government for people, and humanity at peace.

Someday, Reagan believed, history would judge that America reached maturity by affirming “its leadership of free men and women serving selflessly a vision of man with God.” This was an implicit recognition and rejection of the atheistic Soviet vision. Only four paragraphs earlier in the speech, he had predicted that Communism was nearing its final days; the next three paragraphs continued that theme. Reagan concluded:

For the West, for America, the time has come to dare to show to the world that our civilized ideas, our traditions, our values, are not — like the ideology and war machine of totalitarian societies — just a façade of strength. It is time for the world to know our intellectual and spiritual values are rooted in the source of all strength, a belief in a Supreme Being, and a law higher than our own.

“The time has come.” Those values, which America should dare to show to the world, said Reagan, derive from the greatest of strengths: from God, from belief in God, and from the wisdom of God’s law.

It is interesting to note how Reagan himself viewed these remarks. Seven years later, in March 1988, he returned to Notre Dame for a final rally. He mentioned that in 1981 he had come to give “one of the first major addresses of my presidency,” and that his remarks included his prediction that the West would transcend Communism. He said America could achieve that objective because its spiritual values and inner strength were so great.

In sum, the May 1981 Notre Dame address ought to be recognized as one of Reagan’s finest and most revealing, one that conservatives especially should know and appreciate. It’s really a quite profound, poignant speech that captures the essence of Reagan’s presidency, his faith, his attack on the USSR, and his view of an exceptional America.

It is indeed, as Reagan put it, about all of us Americans — from our homes to the halls of Congress to the White House — understanding that “when great causes are on the move in the world,” as they are today as well, we learn that we’re spirits, not animals. We sense and know that there’s something going on in space and time, and beyond space and time, which, “whether we like it or not,” spells duty.

— Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Obama back to old tricks: Pushing banks to give high risk loans again…

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

… all because this policy worked out so well the last time right?

[LINK - start at the bottom of the linked page and start reading to get a great education on the mortgage crisis. It started with the abuse and deliberate misapplication of redlining regulations to accomplish political goals and economic social engineering. When the OFHEO regulator tried to warn Congress Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that the regulator was lying and even used the race card against them, of course the worst economy since the Great Depression has shown us that everything wasn't fine - Editor]

Via Weasel Zappers and Business Week:

(Business Week) — Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren’t offering credit to the city’s poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.

Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group’s targets, Midwest BankCentre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis’s predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don’t discriminate, Midwest BankCentre’s latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.

Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining. The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. “The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access,” says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires banks to make loans in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

US now borrows 58,000 per second…

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet? | Leave a Comment »

Indiana Supreme Court turns the 4th Amendment on its head.

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

This is one of the bad things about state and local politics and this problem is moving into the federal level more and more, that judgeship’s are becoming more like ambassadorships. No longer are qualified people demanded, or are great legal minds sought out; volunteer, lick some envelopes, make some donations, plan a few fund raisers, attend a few cocktail parties, and book a great guest at the State Barr Assoc. Dinner and whamo your a judge!

Unfortunately several states have courts like this. This will of course make it’s way to the federal courts where it will be overturned …….eventually, but that is not the point.

Here are the Indiana Supreme Court Justices and they must face the voters for a retention election come the end of their terms. While Justices Rucker and Dickson least voted no and are tolerable, the other three need to be made an example of and must be replaced by an upcoming Governor Pence. The governor cannot just pick who he likes, he must pick from a list of people chosen by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission which is made up mostly of the Bar Association. To put people like this up, who would have failed a 4th Amendment Question with this answer if they had taken Constitutional Law with Judge Allen Sharp as I did, tells me that the so called “Missouri Plan Method” of selecting judges has broken down, and either the Indiana Commission is a political body giving the illusion of merit, or it is infected with ideologues. In either case if a majority of judges on the court are this radical, the system is broken. More humiliation for Indiana when one day a federal court will site precedent and reverse this. The 4th amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment, and this also gives the federal courts judicial review over such flawed state court decisions.

What is most painful, is that Justice David who wrote this abomination of a ruling, was just appointed by Governor Daniels, whose primary opponents will have a ball with this. I was just starting to get some guarded enthusiasm about Gov. Daniels possible White House run, this hurts.

Politics is politics, but messing with God-given rights recognized since Magna-Carta is something else. Print out this page and put their names on your refrigerator, when retention election time comes send them packing.

Name Term Start Term Expires Position
Randall Shepard September 6, 1985 September 6, 2015 Chief Justice
Brent Dickson January 6, 1986 January 6, 2016 Associate Justice
Frank Sullivan, Jr. November 1, 1993 November 1, 2013 Associate Justice
Steven H. David October 18, 2010   Associate Justice
Robert Rucker November 19, 1999 November 19, 2009 Associate Justice


Via Hotair.com and Michelle Malkin:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment needs a disclaimer when it comes to officers of the law acting unlawfully (at which point, by definition, wouldn’t they cease to be “officers of the law”?).

No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong – in Indiana

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the  Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

And check out this “analysis”:

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”
I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

There have always been a difference between daytime “knock warrants” and smash and grab “no-knock” warrants. The “no-knock” smash and grab often ends up with the family dog being shot on entry. These kind of rulings encourage the police to use less restraint. With more reports of younger cops getting in trouble because of a lack of restraint (everyone has a camera phone now) if anything we should have more incentive for restraint, not less. These jackanapes on the court for some reason that abandons all logic, cannot understand that. They need to be sent back to private practice.

UPDATE – Apparently judging by what some lay people have sent via messages they completely do not understand this ruling.

If there was probable cause for the police to check on the welfare of the wife (which there may have been) than it was not an illegal entry. The problem is that the judges took it one step further and said, even if it was totally illegal and unjustified it still has our blessing – THAT is the problem. Hence the press coverage.

Essentially the three judges opinion position boils down to this, you have a Fourth Amendment right AFTER the fact. You do not have rights to be presumed presumed innocent, but rather you are presumed guilty, but IF you can afford a big fancy lawyer to take on the govt, and IF that lawyer is up to the task, and IF you can find a lawyer who is willing to sue the police YOU can go to court and if you prove you were innocent and the police invasion was unlawful, and you win you might get a damage award, after whatever damage is done to your family is already done. This takes away the burden of proof away from the state and puts it on the citizen.

What if that citizen does not have the resources to launch such a legal battle, now defacto he has no rights. It gets worse, if you have to sue, the government will defend, so they will do all they can to defeat (smear) you, investigate you up and down, do all they can to discourage you form continuing, and violate you even further because you were “foolish” enough to dare stand for your constitutional rights, but wait, it is not a right if you are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is on you, which is the entire point. So what is the incentive for the police to respect the rights of the people? Oh there is none. Instead of working to protect your rights the government must defend in court and thus work against them. Welcome to King George’s wet dream. The Constitution and the basis for Western Civilization is turned on its head. Jefferson would NOT be amused.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers