Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Professors examine influence, roots of tea party on politics (Better educated, wealthier than avg.)
Southeast Missourian ^ | December 2, 2014 | Ruth Campbell
In the past few years, political-science professor Jeremy Walling and former colleague Will Miller have delved into the tea party's influence on politics and policies, and some of what they found surprised them.
Walling and Miller -- a former political-science professor at Southeast Missouri State University, now director of Institutional Research at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida -- edited "Tea Party Effects on 2010 U.S. Senate Elections: Stuck in the Middle to Lose" and "The Political Battle Over Redistricting."
November's midterm elections were a victory party for the Republicans and the tea party. But, while Miller said the tea party has had a "great influence" on policy, it's not the way everyone assumes.
" ... We haven't seen an influx of national policy decisions that scream 'tea party.' We haven't abolished the IRS or stopped any military actions, but there [have] been underlying influences," Miller said.
"The Republican 'tsunami' comes down to nothing but the expected backlash against a second-term president at the midpoint."
"What really is more impressive for the GOP was gubernatorial victories in places like Massachusetts and Illinois, plus holding on in Wisconsin and Florida while dominating in Ohio. Heck, Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio, both voted for a Republican governor for the first time in decades," Miller wrote.
Underlying that, however, is passage of initiatives and referendums, such as legalizing personal use of marijuana that passed in Washington, D.C., and Oregon. In Florida, more than 50 percent of voters backed medical marijuana, but the initiative failed because they needed 60 percent, Miller said.
"[People] seem to be showing fatigue of Obama, which isn't surprising," Miller said. "He decided, on his own, to spend his first term fixing health care when the country was clamoring for attention to go on the economy. Now with ISIS, a lot of Americans want to see strength in foreign policy, and that has never been an Obama strength."
In their research, Walling said one of the things that surprised him and Miller was the portrayal of tea party members as "boneheads" or "uneducated."
"What we found was that they were educated ... a lot of them wealthy. They were people who had disposable time and disposable income to go to a rally in the middle of the day and protest what was going on in government. ... I don't know that we were necessarily surprised to see that, but it was because we were kind of suspicious of the narrative that these were just dumb morons showing up to these rallies. Actually, it turns out they were more educated than the average citizen, they were wealthier than the average citizen; their backgrounds were different from what ... people thought," Walling said.
The other thing Walling and Miller concluded was something they already knew: A strong candidate is a strong candidate, and a weak candidate is a weak candidate. He gave the example of former Nevada Assembly member Sharron Angle, who ran against U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat.
"You take somebody like Sharron Angle in Nevada. Sharron Angle was all the rage on talk radio; 'she's going to knock off Harry Reid.' She was doing very well in some polls, but when it came down to Election Day, she got her clock cleaned. She's a weak candidate. Her background did not really present her with a lot of options in terms of campaigning and then she's going up against somebody who is one of the master candidates, who [has] been around forever and won repeatedly; who has the party apparatus at his fingertips. One of the things that we saw was you looked around at the candidates that were successful -- the tea party candidates -- and they were strong candidates anyway," Walling said.
Walling and Miller also have worked on a paper about what tea party members are doing now that they're in government. The lasting effect on the Senate side won't be known for a while, since they won't be facing re-election for another three years, Walling said.
"Whether they're being obstructionist for good depends on you, because if you oppose this president and you oppose things like immigration movement, then the obstruction is good. You think standing up and saying, 'We're going to block this.' Or Rand Paul's filibuster that he did where Ted Cruz came in the middle and read to his children so they could go to bed. All of that stuff to a supporter looked like 'go team,'" Walling said.
To the other side, it looked like "here we go again," Walling said.
Whether voters are on the left or right, policies passed in Congress have to include the median voter, so if that's true, it doesn't matter who the party outliers are, "the median is still going to be the median," Walling said.
"So you bring in Ted Cruz, or you bring in Rand Paul, or whoever else, they're still working over here in the fringes. The median's still going to be whoever that moderate Republican is from Maine," Walling said.
However, with an election like the Nov. 4 midterms, Walling said it does move the median voter to the right.
"We still haven't really seen anything come out of the tea party candidates that got elected in terms of product that they can point to and say, 'Our legacy is that. We did that,'" Walling said.
Pertinent address:
1 University Plaza, Cape Girardeau, Mo.
In the past few years, political-science professor Jeremy Walling and former colleague Will Miller have delved into the tea party's influence on politics and policies, and some of what they found surprised them.
Walling and Miller -- a former political-science professor at Southeast Missouri State University, now director of Institutional Research at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida -- edited "Tea Party Effects on 2010 U.S. Senate Elections: Stuck in the Middle to Lose" and "The Political Battle Over Redistricting."
November's midterm elections were a victory party for the Republicans and the tea party. But, while Miller said the tea party has had a "great influence" on policy, it's not the way everyone assumes.
" ... We haven't seen an influx of national policy decisions that scream 'tea party.' We haven't abolished the IRS or stopped any military actions, but there [have] been underlying influences," Miller said.
"The Republican 'tsunami' comes down to nothing but the expected backlash against a second-term president at the midpoint."
"What really is more impressive for the GOP was gubernatorial victories in places like Massachusetts and Illinois, plus holding on in Wisconsin and Florida while dominating in Ohio. Heck, Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio, both voted for a Republican governor for the first time in decades," Miller wrote.
Underlying that, however, is passage of initiatives and referendums, such as legalizing personal use of marijuana that passed in Washington, D.C., and Oregon. In Florida, more than 50 percent of voters backed medical marijuana, but the initiative failed because they needed 60 percent, Miller said.
"[People] seem to be showing fatigue of Obama, which isn't surprising," Miller said. "He decided, on his own, to spend his first term fixing health care when the country was clamoring for attention to go on the economy. Now with ISIS, a lot of Americans want to see strength in foreign policy, and that has never been an Obama strength."
In their research, Walling said one of the things that surprised him and Miller was the portrayal of tea party members as "boneheads" or "uneducated."
"What we found was that they were educated ... a lot of them wealthy. They were people who had disposable time and disposable income to go to a rally in the middle of the day and protest what was going on in government. ... I don't know that we were necessarily surprised to see that, but it was because we were kind of suspicious of the narrative that these were just dumb morons showing up to these rallies. Actually, it turns out they were more educated than the average citizen, they were wealthier than the average citizen; their backgrounds were different from what ... people thought," Walling said.
The other thing Walling and Miller concluded was something they already knew: A strong candidate is a strong candidate, and a weak candidate is a weak candidate. He gave the example of former Nevada Assembly member Sharron Angle, who ran against U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat.
"You take somebody like Sharron Angle in Nevada. Sharron Angle was all the rage on talk radio; 'she's going to knock off Harry Reid.' She was doing very well in some polls, but when it came down to Election Day, she got her clock cleaned. She's a weak candidate. Her background did not really present her with a lot of options in terms of campaigning and then she's going up against somebody who is one of the master candidates, who [has] been around forever and won repeatedly; who has the party apparatus at his fingertips. One of the things that we saw was you looked around at the candidates that were successful -- the tea party candidates -- and they were strong candidates anyway," Walling said.
Walling and Miller also have worked on a paper about what tea party members are doing now that they're in government. The lasting effect on the Senate side won't be known for a while, since they won't be facing re-election for another three years, Walling said.
"Whether they're being obstructionist for good depends on you, because if you oppose this president and you oppose things like immigration movement, then the obstruction is good. You think standing up and saying, 'We're going to block this.' Or Rand Paul's filibuster that he did where Ted Cruz came in the middle and read to his children so they could go to bed. All of that stuff to a supporter looked like 'go team,'" Walling said.
To the other side, it looked like "here we go again," Walling said.
Whether voters are on the left or right, policies passed in Congress have to include the median voter, so if that's true, it doesn't matter who the party outliers are, "the median is still going to be the median," Walling said.
"So you bring in Ted Cruz, or you bring in Rand Paul, or whoever else, they're still working over here in the fringes. The median's still going to be whoever that moderate Republican is from Maine," Walling said.
However, with an election like the Nov. 4 midterms, Walling said it does move the median voter to the right.
"We still haven't really seen anything come out of the tea party candidates that got elected in terms of product that they can point to and say, 'Our legacy is that. We did that,'" Walling said.
Pertinent address:
1 University Plaza, Cape Girardeau, Mo.
BREAKING: Democrat Rapist Bill Cosby Hosted Events For Rapist Ted Kennedy in 2009, Hillary in 2000
gotnews.com ^ | Dec 1, 2014 | Charles C. Johnson
Rapist Bill Cosby hosted an event for rapist Ted Kennedy in 2009. He also hosted a campaign event for Hillary Clinton in 2000.
(snip)
Cosby was also reported to be doing campaign events with First Lady Hillary Clinton.
(snip)
Democrats Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are widely believed to have sexually assaulted dozens of women.
Rapist Bill Cosby hosted an event for rapist Ted Kennedy in 2009. He also hosted a campaign event for Hillary Clinton in 2000.
(snip)
Cosby was also reported to be doing campaign events with First Lady Hillary Clinton.
(snip)
Democrats Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are widely believed to have sexually assaulted dozens of women.
(Excerpt) Read more at gotnews.com ...
Monday, December 1, 2014
Republicans dismiss impeachment, say it would ‘martyr’ Obama
washingtontimes ^ | Nov. 30, 2014 | S.A. Miller
Unsuccessful attempt could undermine GOP efforts to reverse amnesty order
Capitol Hill Republicans have furiously denounced President Obama’s executive action on immigration as illegal, unconstitutional and an abuse of the power of his office — but they get skittish when the talk turns to impeachment.
Even Rep. Steve King, one of the most fiery opponents of the president’s “executive amnesty” for illegal immigrants, backed away from his previous calls for impeachment.
“I don’t want to do the ‘I’ word. Nobody wants to throw the nation into that kind of turmoil,” the Iowa Republican told CNN immediately following Mr. Obama’s executive action.
Unsuccessful attempt could undermine GOP efforts to reverse amnesty order
Capitol Hill Republicans have furiously denounced President Obama’s executive action on immigration as illegal, unconstitutional and an abuse of the power of his office — but they get skittish when the talk turns to impeachment.
Even Rep. Steve King, one of the most fiery opponents of the president’s “executive amnesty” for illegal immigrants, backed away from his previous calls for impeachment.
“I don’t want to do the ‘I’ word. Nobody wants to throw the nation into that kind of turmoil,” the Iowa Republican told CNN immediately following Mr. Obama’s executive action.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
As Two-Parent families Decline, Income Inequality Grows
Townhall.com ^ | November 30, 2014 | Jeff Jacoby
Few political debates in this country are as freighted with emotional, cultural, and ideological baggage as those that touch on the choices people make in forming families. When public discourse turns to decisions about wedlock and child-rearing — think of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 report on "the breakdown of the Negro family," or the uproar over Murphy Brown during the 1992 presidential race, or the modern push for same-sex marriage — civility is too often swept away amid a storm of hurt feelings and self-righteousness.
All the more reason, then, to welcome two recent studies — one national in scope, one focused on Massachusetts — on the effects of single parenthood and the decline in marriage. Both lay out the data with clarity, while avoiding moralizing or disapproval.
One report, aptly titled "For Richer, For Poorer," is by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the American Enterprise Institute and economist Robert I. Lerman of the Urban Institute. It documents the profound links that connect family structure and financial well-being, and underscores what decades of empirical data have shown: Families headed by married couples tend to be much stronger economically than those headed by unwed single parents.
"Anyone concerned about family inequality, men's declining labor-force participation, and the vitality of the American dream should worry about the nation's retreat from marriage," the authors write. The steady fall in the percentage of married two-parent households — from 78 percent in 1980 to 66 percent in 2012 — goes a long way toward explaining why so many ordinary families have trouble climbing beyond the lower rungs on the economic ladder. Correlation isn't proof of causation, of course. But there is no refuting the strong association between growing up with both parents in an intact family and achieving higher levels of education, work, and income as young adults.
Wilcox and Lerman put dollar amounts to the "intact-family premium" reaped by those who are raised by their own biological or adoptive parents. By age 28 to 30, for example, men from such backgrounds are earning on average $6,500 more per year in personal income than their peers from single-parent homes. And since growing up with both parents increases one's likelihood of marrying as an adult, men and women who were raised by married parents tend to enjoy much higher family incomes as well — in the case of that 28- to 30-year-old male, more than $16,000 higher, on average. (Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is higher still: $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.)
To be sure, not all families headed by married parents are stable or successful, and not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama, who was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, is dramatic evidence of that.
But as Obama himself says, the data aren't in question. "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol."
As the second study documents, these unhappy trends haven't bypassed Massachusetts.
In recent decades, the fraction of Bay State children in single-parent homes has risen to more than one in three. While the state's marriage rate has plummeted — there were 49,000 Bay State marriages in 1980 vs. fewer than 36,000 in 2011 — the rate of out-of-wedlock births has soared. The Massachusetts Family Institute, in a report replete with just-the-facts-ma'am statistics, lays out the economic and social costs.
"The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality," it notes. In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. Citing data from the National Survey of Children's Health, the report observes that only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. For kids being raised by never-married single mothers, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
There is no finger-wagging or blame in these reports, just the numbers — and compassion. The child poverty rate is so much steeper in single-parent homes than in two-parent homes, and it is heartbreaking that so many young people raised in fatherless families will have such trouble climbing out of poverty as they grow older.
Income inequality may or may not be "the defining challenge of our time," as Obama and others have proclaimed. But the most significant driver of that inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach.
Few political debates in this country are as freighted with emotional, cultural, and ideological baggage as those that touch on the choices people make in forming families. When public discourse turns to decisions about wedlock and child-rearing — think of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 report on "the breakdown of the Negro family," or the uproar over Murphy Brown during the 1992 presidential race, or the modern push for same-sex marriage — civility is too often swept away amid a storm of hurt feelings and self-righteousness.
All the more reason, then, to welcome two recent studies — one national in scope, one focused on Massachusetts — on the effects of single parenthood and the decline in marriage. Both lay out the data with clarity, while avoiding moralizing or disapproval.
One report, aptly titled "For Richer, For Poorer," is by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the American Enterprise Institute and economist Robert I. Lerman of the Urban Institute. It documents the profound links that connect family structure and financial well-being, and underscores what decades of empirical data have shown: Families headed by married couples tend to be much stronger economically than those headed by unwed single parents.
"Anyone concerned about family inequality, men's declining labor-force participation, and the vitality of the American dream should worry about the nation's retreat from marriage," the authors write. The steady fall in the percentage of married two-parent households — from 78 percent in 1980 to 66 percent in 2012 — goes a long way toward explaining why so many ordinary families have trouble climbing beyond the lower rungs on the economic ladder. Correlation isn't proof of causation, of course. But there is no refuting the strong association between growing up with both parents in an intact family and achieving higher levels of education, work, and income as young adults.
Wilcox and Lerman put dollar amounts to the "intact-family premium" reaped by those who are raised by their own biological or adoptive parents. By age 28 to 30, for example, men from such backgrounds are earning on average $6,500 more per year in personal income than their peers from single-parent homes. And since growing up with both parents increases one's likelihood of marrying as an adult, men and women who were raised by married parents tend to enjoy much higher family incomes as well — in the case of that 28- to 30-year-old male, more than $16,000 higher, on average. (Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is higher still: $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.)
To be sure, not all families headed by married parents are stable or successful, and not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama, who was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, is dramatic evidence of that.
But as Obama himself says, the data aren't in question. "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol."
As the second study documents, these unhappy trends haven't bypassed Massachusetts.
In recent decades, the fraction of Bay State children in single-parent homes has risen to more than one in three. While the state's marriage rate has plummeted — there were 49,000 Bay State marriages in 1980 vs. fewer than 36,000 in 2011 — the rate of out-of-wedlock births has soared. The Massachusetts Family Institute, in a report replete with just-the-facts-ma'am statistics, lays out the economic and social costs.
"The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality," it notes. In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. Citing data from the National Survey of Children's Health, the report observes that only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. For kids being raised by never-married single mothers, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
There is no finger-wagging or blame in these reports, just the numbers — and compassion. The child poverty rate is so much steeper in single-parent homes than in two-parent homes, and it is heartbreaking that so many young people raised in fatherless families will have such trouble climbing out of poverty as they grow older.
Income inequality may or may not be "the defining challenge of our time," as Obama and others have proclaimed. But the most significant driver of that inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach.
Is He Out of His Narcissistic Mind?
The American Spectator ^ | December 1, 2014 | Marilia Duffles
"....Conversely, the scathing disdain [Obama] shows those who disagree with him ...or whom he considers not on his team—in power or intellect—is of a man whose anger seethes so close to the surface he wears it on his starched long sleeve.
Of course politicians get angry, but it is generally after long and frustrating negotiations where someone is not playing by the rules.
But Obama seems to be always angry.......
....Instead, and like an angry teen-ager who defaces walls with graffiti,he effaces the Constitution instead with his feckless and reckless Executive Orders,no matter the consequences.
He is Homo politicus on steroids.
And why did he let the Middle East reach the point of ISIS? He certainly had the Pentagon,the CIA,the State Department advising him of the opposite…and very early on.
No,I dare say that angry brain is hell bent on directing his anger at the whole lot, the entity called America....
....We now know from revealing tomes by insiders and outsiders(Gates,Panetta,Edward Klein)the inner workings of this dysfunctional White House,where cabinet briefing papers and staff memos are given cold shoulders(Secretary of Defense Hagel being the most recent casualty),chiefs of staff are relegated to figurehead positions,and key staff members are undermined because decisions are made by two brains:
Obama’s—in needy mode—and Valerie Jarrett—as mother figure....
Valerie is not the ideal-hungry because she seems to be too solipsistic for that. Few senior presidential aides have demanded Secret Service detail. And five agents?!
No,the ideal-hungry ones are not just the sycophantic liberal media,the drive-bys as Rush Limbaugh accurately labels them,who reflexively shoot down anything Republican while mindlessly propping up the emperor each time he stumbles.
Like Brazil’s Cidinha, the finger points at the Democratic Party who propped up this fragile person as their political puppet—their polpett—to dangle before the ideal-hungry American people. Or,to invoke a Gruberism:the “stupid American people” who fell hard for this charade...
"....Conversely, the scathing disdain [Obama] shows those who disagree with him ...or whom he considers not on his team—in power or intellect—is of a man whose anger seethes so close to the surface he wears it on his starched long sleeve.
Of course politicians get angry, but it is generally after long and frustrating negotiations where someone is not playing by the rules.
But Obama seems to be always angry.......
....Instead, and like an angry teen-ager who defaces walls with graffiti,he effaces the Constitution instead with his feckless and reckless Executive Orders,no matter the consequences.
He is Homo politicus on steroids.
And why did he let the Middle East reach the point of ISIS? He certainly had the Pentagon,the CIA,the State Department advising him of the opposite…and very early on.
No,I dare say that angry brain is hell bent on directing his anger at the whole lot, the entity called America....
....We now know from revealing tomes by insiders and outsiders(Gates,Panetta,Edward Klein)the inner workings of this dysfunctional White House,where cabinet briefing papers and staff memos are given cold shoulders(Secretary of Defense Hagel being the most recent casualty),chiefs of staff are relegated to figurehead positions,and key staff members are undermined because decisions are made by two brains:
Obama’s—in needy mode—and Valerie Jarrett—as mother figure....
Valerie is not the ideal-hungry because she seems to be too solipsistic for that. Few senior presidential aides have demanded Secret Service detail. And five agents?!
No,the ideal-hungry ones are not just the sycophantic liberal media,the drive-bys as Rush Limbaugh accurately labels them,who reflexively shoot down anything Republican while mindlessly propping up the emperor each time he stumbles.
Like Brazil’s Cidinha, the finger points at the Democratic Party who propped up this fragile person as their political puppet—their polpett—to dangle before the ideal-hungry American people. Or,to invoke a Gruberism:the “stupid American people” who fell hard for this charade...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Leftist organizers are using Ferguson to rehearse the Big Ugly
The American Thinker ^ | December 1, 2014 | Lee Cary
Multiple far-left groups are using Ferguson as a pretext to rehearse widespread civil disobedience when the Welfare State taps the brakes.
The scaling down of the Welfare State in America is not a question of “if,” but “when.” The status quo is unsustainable.
“Unsustainable” is one of those Washington D.C. words with a history of meaning little -- like Foggy Bottom’s use of “unacceptable.” But unlike unacceptable, unsustainable, when applied to the Welfare State, is a derivative of mathematics -- a major determinant of the wealth of nations.
The American Welfare State is unsustainable -- destined for significant downsizing by cold, impassionate, apolitical Arithmetic.
All except the most hardcore leftist pols inside the Beltway know this to be true, but it remains mostly unspoken.
The first line of defense for those who would sustain the life of the Welfare State is to reduce expenditures for the Warfare State. That battle is yet to be fully engaged, but is already underway in D.C. skirmishes.
The goal of leftist pols will be to negotiate big cuts to the Warfare State in exchange for small cuts in Welfare.
In the meantime, leftist, community organizing groups -- meaning those that openly define their guiding ideology with socialist/communist language (quoting Marx & Lenin, while avoiding any mention of Stalin) -- have been using Ferguson to stretch their muscles, largely unused after the 2008 election of an ally in the White House. For them, the Ferguson protests have little to do with Michael Brown’s death, and more to do with anti-capitalist rants, punctuated by chants against police brutality against young, innocent, black men.
Their stage setting is Brown’s death -- the play is about anti-capitalism...
Multiple far-left groups are using Ferguson as a pretext to rehearse widespread civil disobedience when the Welfare State taps the brakes.
The scaling down of the Welfare State in America is not a question of “if,” but “when.” The status quo is unsustainable.
“Unsustainable” is one of those Washington D.C. words with a history of meaning little -- like Foggy Bottom’s use of “unacceptable.” But unlike unacceptable, unsustainable, when applied to the Welfare State, is a derivative of mathematics -- a major determinant of the wealth of nations.
The American Welfare State is unsustainable -- destined for significant downsizing by cold, impassionate, apolitical Arithmetic.
All except the most hardcore leftist pols inside the Beltway know this to be true, but it remains mostly unspoken.
The first line of defense for those who would sustain the life of the Welfare State is to reduce expenditures for the Warfare State. That battle is yet to be fully engaged, but is already underway in D.C. skirmishes.
The goal of leftist pols will be to negotiate big cuts to the Warfare State in exchange for small cuts in Welfare.
In the meantime, leftist, community organizing groups -- meaning those that openly define their guiding ideology with socialist/communist language (quoting Marx & Lenin, while avoiding any mention of Stalin) -- have been using Ferguson to stretch their muscles, largely unused after the 2008 election of an ally in the White House. For them, the Ferguson protests have little to do with Michael Brown’s death, and more to do with anti-capitalist rants, punctuated by chants against police brutality against young, innocent, black men.
Their stage setting is Brown’s death -- the play is about anti-capitalism...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
