Content: Here is the recorded audio feed from the live episode plus a boat load of extra time and topics. We cover everything from Kevin’s recent back and forth with many people online regarding Ron Paul, the State of the Union address, military tribunals, and Kevin challenges me to do a Colbert-esqe show where I will play the far left host. I hope you all enjoy it.
Guests: Kevin Tracy and Sandra Gearhart
There is an almost never ending list of reasons to support the Fair Tax, but I’m convinced that this 10 is enough to sway those that are on the fence. This list, which is a variation of a list that pushed me over the edge and convinced me, is found in the book “FairTax: The Truth”, by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder.
1. No Capital Gains Tax. Those the feverishly oppose the Fair Tax will tell you that this just makes the rich richer, and yes, it does. You know who else it makes richer? EVERYBODY ELSE. What this really is is a tax on capitalism. With no capital gains tax, everybody will be free to invest in whatever they choose with out worrying about being double taxed. Having a capital gains tax at all is a determent on real “progress”.
2. No Death Tax. The fact that there is a tax even after you DIE brings new meaning to the phrase “Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes.” The death tax was the most ridiculous idea ever conceived. Why shouldn’t I be able to leave ALL of my wordly possesions to my son and wife? All the death tax is is a cheap trick to bring in some extra revenue, and it is unfair.
3. No Keeping Records of Financial Transactions. Hell, I don’t do that now, and I’m probably screwing myself out of a whollllle lot of money. Those pesky receipts are washed and lost and chewed up (between a dog and a baby, EVERYTHING gets chewed up) and are NEVER around when tax time comes around.
4. No More Filling Out Tax Forms. The amount of time that is spent by every family in the US just to comply with the tax code is ridiculous. The only other option (which I have to admit is what I do) is to forfeit a huge chunk of my tax check in order to have somebody else do my taxes (yes, I’m lazy, leave me alone). Eliminating this waste of time would not only free me up to do other things, but would give me an opportunity to spend my money and stimulate the economy because, let’s face it, we all like to buy useless crap.
5. Will Help Keep US Jobs IN The US. I actually wrote out a huge piece specifically about this, see a couple blog posts down on the INFairTax site to see it.
6. No More Penalties For Messing Up On Your Taxes. No tax forms to fill out, no more bogus mistakes that continually hit your wallet. Let me tell you all a little story about a friend of mine that I work with and the number of times that his home state, the state of Michigan, has contacted him with new “mistakes”, claiming that he owes more money. Between him and his wife, they make around 200 grand. His salary is around 60 grand. ALL of his salary plus a good chunk of his wifes goes towards taxes. Just something to think about.
7. The Government Will No Longer Have Access To Your Financial History. Why should they, after all? What business is it of the governments to have that kind of information that is reserved for my wife and I?
8. No More Class Warfare Used In Politics. In case you haven’t noticed, President Obama used class warfar A LOT during his campaign. He continually talked about raising taxes and having “the rich” pay their “fair share”, and he isn’t the only politician guilty of such rhetoric. If the tax system is broken down and replaced, no longer will the “soak the rich” rhetoric be useable, and it will help to keep me from blowing my brains out while watching political debates.
9. Less Lobbyist Influence. Lobbyists are, in my opinion, one of those necessary evils. I know that this is a hotly debated subject, but it’s just how I feel. For example, I’m a big fan of my gun rights, and so I enjoy the political pull that the NRA has in Congress. Sue me. However, if the Fair Tax were to be enacted, I wouldn’t protest to less lobbyist influence because the lessening of influence would be across the political board.
10. America Will Become The New Tax Haven. There is a very good reason that people have Swiss bank accounts: they HAVE paying unfair taxes. No more unfair taxes, no more foreign tax havens. In fact, it would probably be the exact opposite! The US would become the tax haven!
I could have probably made this list go on…and on…and on…but hey, I write a weekly column here! I have to save something for me to write about!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Travis Gearhart is the host of the conservative online talk show “Matters of Opinion” based out of Northwest Indiana at www.mattersofopinion.net. He is also a contributor to one the highest trafficked conservative blog sites in the region, www.ktracy.com and also contributes to Porter County Politics (the link is found on his site). Travis works as an outside contractor at US Steel, where he spends far more time than he would like away from his wife Sandee and son Gage. He attends online classes majoring in Government and Political Science, and is in the process of working on a book with other area “political creatures” that are in the same age group (18-25), about the youth’s vision for the Republican party. You can contact him at mattersofopinion@yahoo.com if you have any questions or would like to suggest/be a guest on his show.
Cross-posted at www.infairtax.ning.com
First, let me get this out there: this isn’t a post to rip on Huck and I don’t have any personal feelings towards the man one way or the other. The only thing that I have against him, on a personal level, is the fact that he gave clemency to those inmates that ended up looting, raping, and killing several people (and yes, that does factor into my decision regarding this article). I know, I know, I’ve read the plethora of comments in his defence and why it “wasn’t his fault”. Spare me, please. That isn’t that main point of this series.
That good solid point against him aside, I have other reasons why I can’t throw my support behind him.
First of all, I dislike that fact that he is in favor of trade sanctions. I feel that free trade is the best way to go, and if it were up to me we would have no sanctions on trade period. I’ve went further into this topic in past posts, so I won’t bore you all, but his trade protectionism is a sore point on my list of problems.
I also dislike his recent trip to Israel where he basically told them not to listen to President Obama regarding their construction of buildings on the Gaza strip. I’m not nearly the foreign policy stickler that Kevin is, however I do agree with him on this issue: Huck should not, under any circumstance, be doing things of that nature. However much I may agree or disagree with different things that our President is doing with foreign policy, if I were a former presidential candidate I would NOT bad mouth our nations foreign policy overseas. After all, conservatives wanted to hang that Dixie Chick that bad mouthed us overseas; this incidence and the acceptance of it stings of hypocrisy.
His abismal fundraising numbers are another factor. A realistic political candidate should be able to raise the needed funds, and for one reason or another Huck PAC just can’t do it.
And last, but not least, is the fact that he comes off as such a populous, one wonders how much flip-flopping he would do on the issues. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that part of this stems from the fact that he is a pastor and because of his strong Christian values can empathize like no other. My issue with this is just that, however: will he empathize so much that his mind could easily be changed? I know I advocate on different posts that I’m in favor of working things out and finding middle ground. However finding middle ground on issues and working towards realistic goals is one thing: flip-flopping and not being able to take a solid stance is another.
To be fair, Huckabee at least beats out a majority of the other candidates that will be examined/have been examined. I love his support of the Fair Tax, and although it took some time for me to come around, I think that his TV show could be very helpful for him. However, right now, at this point in time, I can’t throw my endorsement behind him.
Written by Travis Gearhart and cross-posted at www.ktracy.com
A couple of weeks ago, I did a post on Sarah Palin that was a part of my “Who I Won’t Support For President” series, and there was a part that I felt that I was a little vague that I wanted to clarify.
I had mentioned, in the post, that I supported her on the issues (and I still do) which led to some people asking me “Well, if you support her on the issues, why wouldn’t you support her for President?” Well, quite honestly, if she were to win the primary and I had a choice between her and President Obama, I would vote for her. I know this is contradictory to Kevin’s theory, but it’s just what I would do, personally. I just don’t think another 4 years of a Democratic administration is sustainable. Now, would her Presidency be succesful? In some ways. In other ways, she would harm the chances of keeping Congressional majorities and she would probably usher in another Democratic majority for 2016 (or possibly 2014).
Regardless, my clarification: although I support her on the issues and agree with her rhetoric, I’m not convinced that she KNOWS, truly, WHY she should be in support of conservative ideals.
What makes a good President is his ability to bargain for votes in Congress while retaining conservative/liberal ideals. For example, Obama is trying to pass health care legislation (ANY health care legislation) and is willing to sacrifice parts that he feels are important to get it passed. I disagree with the man on almost every aspect of the health care bill, but the fact is his bargaining powers to attract votes is astounding.
I can’t say that I think that Palin would be able to do that. I don’t think that she would be able to get something passed without either A)alienating moderate Democrats or B) sacrificing conservative ideals.
What the basic premise of my point boils down to is her lack of understanding as to why conservative principles are the right way to go. Anybody can say “Yes, I’m a conservative!”, but when asked why, they need to give off the reasons why conservative principles are better than liberal ones. Sure, she can get in front of a podium and energize a crowd, and that’s great! But she has proven that when she is asked the tough questions, one on one, she falters. And that, my friends, is a little clarification when it comes to my support or lack of support for Sarah Palin.
Written by Travis Gearhart and cross-posted at www.ktracy.com
Travis Gearhart sits down and gives his thoughts on the Presidents first State of the Union address. He doesn’t bore you with hours and hours of analyzation, just 20 minutes of pure political entertainment and opinion of the highest caliber. His wife, Sandra Gearhart, introduces him.
So far, Obama has had a relatively easy ride. Conservatives that have been critical of the man have either been critical about the wrong things half the time (look, he’s not a damn Muslim, all right!) or have looked like sour grapes because of the humongous loss that Republicans took. The left have done all but sell perfume that smells like Obama’s musk and have repeatedly kissed his rear end over…and over…and over. Now, with the latest example of Obama’s (weak) attempt to show some kind of center movement, both sides have lobbed grenades.
His administration has proposed a spending freeze:
“- Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition, and national parks.
- Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and foreign aid.
The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3% of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.”(AP)
The right?
“Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country’s economic problems. The right-leaning blog RedState.com chided the effort, saying that it would have “virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America.” On her Twitter page, right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin compared the freeze to “promising to slow down from 250 mph to 249.9.” House Minority Leader John Boehner likened the plan to “announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest.”‘(AP)
My opinion? I appreciate the thought, to a degree, and see what he’s trying to do…but it’s too little, too late. Three percent savings…over a decade. Obama could just quite smoking and save more money than that over that period of time (yeah, I know, I’ve only been an ex-smoker for less than a month now and I’m going after smokers…sue me). If he were to be serious about saving, he would work towards reform of entitlement programs. THATS where the money goes. Entitlement programs eat up almost half of our budget EVERY YEAR. A step in the right direction, sure…but not a big enough of one for me to start using the words “moderate” and “Obama” in the same sentence.
How about the left? How are those socialist, tree hugging, nut job, pacifist, money spending, tax increasing, idiots taking this (I know, I know, I’m sounding bitterly partisan here, but I’m having some fun darn it!)?
“Liberals aren’t happy either, arguing that less government spending will slow economic growth, and that cutting government services will harm those in need. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the freeze“a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for.” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones echoed those sentiments, writing that “the liberal base has yet another reason to be disgusted with Obama.” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow went even further, saying that the “counterintuitive” plan is a “completely insane” one that violates the basic principles taught in any “101 level college econ class.”‘(AP)
First of all, I’d like to know just what Economics 101 books Maddows reading, and then question whether or not she can actually read, or if perhaps she’s retarded? I’ve read through a BOAT LOAD of Economics 101 books, as well as Macro-economics and Public Finance books (side note-have yet to take college courses in these subjects, those were the books I read for fun…yeah, I’m that much of a nerd) and have not found ANYTHING suggesting what Maddow is suggesting. In fact, it has all been EXACTLY. THE. OPPOSITE.
Maddow aside, it will be entertaining to scan through the liberal blogs to read all of the left wing whining about how “their guy is betraying them”. After all, I’m sure they all got a good kick out of reading the same stuff regarding amnesty, bail outs, stimulus bills, “No Child Left Behind”, etc. etc.
The point of this post (besides me being in one of those rare moods where I’m enjoying writing things that are going to piss off half the readers) is that Obama isn’t halfway through his first term, and he’s already done a good job of alienating both sides. He makes a weak attempt to appear centrist and the right laughs, while the left sees this tiny little step in the direction of sanity and immediately all Hell breaks loose. This is actually rather uncharacteristic of liberals. They don’t usually eat their own like this. Usually this is one spot that I credit liberals: that they do a good job of not having any scruples or solid values so that no matter what they all march lock step.
Can the President take (OH MY GAWD!)…criticism?! Diane Sawyer actually asked him some good questions the other night, and he all but bit her head off. As my title says, welcome to the hard part, Mr. President. Can you make a GENUINE reach towards the middle, or will you whimper back to the left for the lavish praise you so adore?Regardless of his decision, this shows another thing: the man is mortal. He’s a political genius, that can’t be said enough, but this was one of those decisions that have backfired like Elmer Fudd’s double barrel shotgun. Only instead of a “waskaly wabbitt”, it’s the 500 lb. elephant in the room.
Cross posted at www.ktracy.com
OK, I know that there have been too many long posts with out pictures already, but everybody is going to have to bear with me on this one. Last night, I had to write my final paper for my criminal law class. The topic that I chose, out of a long list of various topics, was Military Tribunals. I specifically analyze the reasons that military tribunals would be the best bet, and look at the different reasons that trying terrorists in civilian courts would not. I hope that you all enjoy, I’ve taken off the cover and reference page for ease of reading, if anybody REALLY wants to see the reference page, just shoot me an email (mattersofopinion@yahoo.com) and I’ll be sure to send it.
Terrorist Trials
After the Revolutionary War, George Washington used military tribunals. They were also used by Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812, and also by Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II. Following precedent, after the devastating attacks on September 11th, then President George W. Bush signed an executive order for the use of military tribunals to be used to try suspected terrorists. The reasons for this were made very clear: those that brought terror onto our soil would be punished swiftly and efficiently. This didn’t really break any other past war-time practice (and in fact in comparison is relevantly tame), and was seen as the best way to avoid the legal windings that would interfere. These windings included everything from whether or not a suspected terrorists had been read his rights to sensitive and classified information that would be difficult to use in a court room.
What, exactly, made up the group that would qualify for such tribunals?
1If they are or were al Queda members.
2If they engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism.
3If they have harbored such individuals. ( Davenport, page 189)
Those that satisfied the above criteria could either be tried in the United States or over seas as long as the following conditions were met.
1The military commission sits as trier of fact ans law; roles usually split between the jury and judge.
2The presiding officer can admit any evidence that has “probative value to a reasonable person.”
3The secretary of defense designates the prosecutor, and the defendant may have an attorney.
4Conviction need not be unanimous, but can by vote of two-thirds of the commission, and sentencing agreed upon by two-thirds of the commission.
5Any appeal goes to the president or the secretary of defense, and their decision is final. The order specifies that those tried by military tribunal can’t appeal to any court in the United States, foreign country, or any international tribunal.
With President Obama agreeing to the use of military tribunals three six months ago combined with his commitment of closing Guantanamo Bay, it appeared that Americans would have the opportunity to see these tribunals in action and in mass amount. This, rationally, leads to a question of how effective these military tribunals are when actually applied to the terrorist suspects. Would the detainees be tried accordingly, or would rhetoric and here-say be used to determine guilt? There are many who believe that civil courts are not only better equipped to try these detainees, but that the civil courts are the only “right” way to try them. ( Hasian, pg. 338)
From the list of the many people that believe this, Eric Holder, the Attorney General for the Obama administration, has been the most recent person to argue this case. His argument is that the city of New York is the best place to try those that committed the horrible crimes. He is absolutely positive that justice will be met through these means.
There are a great many, however, that are not so sure, and much of that concern is based on the fact that the past administration made so many mistakes regarding their method of accumulating the methods used to prosecute the terrorists they felt was the best means possible. These can help to ensure that a killer will be let go, free to kill again. The mistakes made were rookie law mistakes that should never have happened, and could come around to haunt the previous administration.
For example, an ideological focus on bolstering executive power and a consequent lack of pragmatic flexibility in choosing tactics that would maximize the chances of gaining public and judicial acceptance of its framework for detention, interrogation, and trial of terrorists as well as surveillance of individuals resident in America ensured that many cases would be brought before the Supreme Court questioning the Constitutionality of these decisions. Granted, many in America would agree that it is better to see a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent person put in jail, the fact remains that guilty men will probably be walking free. Not just guilty men, but men who planned out the worst attack on American soil our nation has ever seen.
Also, the administration failed to take into account the fact that so much of Americans’ daily lives are litigated through laws and court decisions that the slightest suggestion of abuse or over-use of power would be either blown out of proportion or micro-analyzed. This leaves very little wiggle room when writing out policy and enforcing said policy. This combined with the length of time it took to actually try detainees through military tribunals helped to make the average citizen weary. (Frakt pg. 315)
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, was a general naivety that Americans would not tire of the wars. Of course, the Abu Ghraib incident and the failures in Iraq could not have easily been foreseen, but those incidents still play on the average citizens trust of the government and their over all view of military tribunals and detainment. Because of these three major mistakes, there is a chance that terrorists will be given the opportunity to find their way back onto the battlefield. (McGinnis, pg.63)
Reasons why the Bush administration are to blame for this debacle aside, there are a great many reasons that military tribunals are the proper way to handle such terrorists. First, there is the fact that 9/11 was, in fact, an act of war just as much as the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan was an act of war. Al Quida is not a group of civilians but rather acts as a funded governmental body. Civilian courts are simply not set up to try such conspiracies, and the average American does not have the correct knowledge of precedents and previous wartime actions to properly persecute said criminals.
Also, there is the concern that because these citizens don’t have this appropriate knowledge, they don’t recognize that in intense field positions there often is not time to read any sort of Miranda Rights. When bombs are dropping out of the sky and other enemy combatants in the area are literally gunning for you, the last thing on a soldiers mind is whether this individual has American rights. Quite frankly, that issue becomes a whole nother topic in and of itself, because these terrorists aren’t American citizens and there are some that argue that because of this they shouldn’t be held to the same standard as those of us that are.
Accordingly, there is also the matter of enhanced interrogation. Should terrorists whom were water boarded (which has under this administration been considered a form of torture) be simply let go through the technicality that they were put under cruel and unusual punishment? This is no doubt an angle that will be used by any competent lawyer. Not only would this technicality be a problem when trying terrorists in civilian court, but the fact that they would be able to plead the fifth. This would more than likely not be as much of an issue since the terrorists will probably use this opportunity to take the stand and disparage and hate-speak about America, however it is something else to consider when examining the possibilities. (Boeving pg. 463)
There is, of course, always the possibility that organized terrorist groups may deliberately threaten jury members so the accused escapes penalty. This is more of a problem that would arise in, say, the United Kingdom because of the fact that Sharia law is much more common in Europe and subsequently encourages larger and often times more radical groups or Muslims, but it isn’t something that can be entirely ruled out here in the United States.
Second, terrorism, at heart a political challenge, may itself politicize a jury. Where nationalist conflict rages, as it does in Northern Ireland, juries may be sympathetic to those engaged in violence and may acquit the guilty. Alternatively, following a terrorist attack, juries may be biased. They may identify with the victims, or they may, consciously or unconsciously, seek to return a verdict that conforms to community sentiment. Jurors also may worry about becoming victims of future attacks. Of course, since this isn’t Ireland where terrorist attacks are, unfortunately, much more prevalent, this is also a lesser factor. However, the politicization of what should be a very bi-partisan issue, should not, again, be ruled out. (Donahue pg. 1321)
So, the reasons for military tribunals (which, of course parallel the arguments against civil courts handling such cases) are fairly clear and concise. The reasons against military tribunals, unfortunately, are not nearly as compelling, at least to me. The arguments are usually in favor of all of the problems that arise with military tribunals. The focus is generally on the abstract loopholes that were addressed earlier in this piece that are the reasons that the Bush administration is to blame for this being such a bouffant mess in the first place. Wherever each individual falls on this issue, the fact is that there will be massive amounts of precedents being set when the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are tried in civilian court in New York. The many problems that arise with military tribunals will be addressed, and loose ends that should have been tied up long ago will be finally secured. Justice, depending on which side of the argument one falls on, will undoubtedly be served.
Cross posted at www.ktracy.com
Content: Scott Brown’s winning of the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, news on Kevin Tracy’s running for Congress, the Haiti earthquake, Cindy McCains decicion to go against her husband, and much much more!
Guest: Kevin Tracy and a brief appearance from my wife, Sandra Gearhart
NOW IS THE TIME! With the election of a Republican into the Massachusetts Senate, it is apparent that America is ready for change (yes, I said change, hopefully Obama won’t sue me).
As the cartoon depicts, the Fair Tax is simple, revolutionary, and easy to comprehend…exactly why Browns message was heard with aching ears. People responded to Brown and have been responding to the TEA Parties across America because their messages have been the same: simple, revolutionary, and easy to comprehend.
America is ready for an upheaveal. That is obvious. The question is, can we, collectively, use this momentum to open people’s eyes to the injustices caused by our invasive tax system? From what I’ve been reading on this site and other Fair Tax related sites, the answer is a resounding HELL YES.
Don’t lose faith now, people! This is our chance to unite the country on this wonderful message of freedom. The Fair Tax will succeed!
————————————————————————————————
Travis Gearhart is the host of the conservative online talk show “Matters of Opinion” based out of Northwest Indiana at www.mattersofopinion.net. He is also a contributor to one the highest trafficked conservative blog sites in the region, www.ktracy.com, and also contributes to Porter County Politics (the link is found on his site). Travis works as an outside contractor at US Steel, where he spends far more time than he would like away from his wife Sandee and son Gage. He attends online classes majoring in Government and Political Science, and is in the process of working on a book with other area “political creatures” that are in the same age group (18-25), about the youth’s vision for the Republican party. You can contact him at mattersofopinion@yahoo.com if you have any questions or would like to suggest/be a guest on his show.
Cross posted from www.infairtax.ning.com and written by Travis Gearhart
Like most other conservatives, when I had heard that Scott Brown had won Ted Kennedy’s old seat (oh wait, let me correct myself, he won THE PEOPLES SEAT) I air guitared and did my pants on the ground dance. I did my fair share of “OH! IN YOUR FACE!” moments to my Democratic voting friends at work, and had a smile that stretched from ear to ear.And then I started to think (damn that hamster inside that skull, rattling around on that wheel again). WHY did he win that seat? Let us examine.
Since Obama has been President, we have seen an unprecedented push coming from the grass-roots level in the form of TEA parties across the country. Brown could not have won if it had not been for that push, and activists across the country should be patting themselves on the back for this achievement. Because of the energy that the TEA parties have created, we saw a Republican take a seat that has been Democrat since…well…since the birth defect known as liberalism has occured.
However, although that was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back, it is also important to note a few other things made this election happen. First, the fact that Massachusetts already has a form of universal health care. Different stories that I have read tell me different things, however my understanding is that the Massachusetts health care is hated by at least half of those that live there. Even if those reports are scewed, those that like their health care would still have incentive to not want to pay on double on something they already have.
This actually segways well into another main reason: the health care bill itself. Conservatives hate the health care bill for reasons named time and time again on this blog, and liberals hate it because it isn’t “left” enough for them (i.e. no public option). This creates incentives for both sides to vote for somebody that would halt the whole mess all together and start fresh, both sides hoping that starting fresh would achieve what they want.
Another very good reason for Browns winning was Coakley’s HORRIBLE campaign that wasn’t helped very much by Obama. Coakley acted arrogant and, in my own personal opinion, gave the impression that she felt she was entitled to that seat. Obama’s blunder about Brown’s decision to buy a truck and travel the area vying for votes didn’t help the publics perception of arrogance, as well as Coakley snubbing Brown for standing in the cold to shake hands. Coakley and Obama were the Republicans best campaign staff, to be honest.
Then there is always the fact that liberal voters are, well, lazy. Statistically Republicans show up to vote on just about everything. Democrats show up in large numbers for the Presidential elections, but their numbers dwindle when it comes to special elections or mid-term elections.
Now, as my past post a week ago asked, what will the Republicans do? So far McConnel has made a public statement that if Obama governs in the center, the Republicans will meet him there. Great! I applaud quotes like that (even if they aren’t honest, that is to be seen) because it at least gives the American people hope that SOMETHING will get done in the next three years. Hopefully that something isn’t an ultra liberal agenda, but hopefully Browns win and the wins that will surely be picked up this year will help to water that down enough so that I get to read angry Facebook posts by liberal friends. I would love to use my H key and my A key so much that the paint comes off.
Written by Travis Gearhart and cross posted at www.ktracy.com
The National Review Online The Wall Street Journal Kevin Tracy and Contributers Northwest Indiana Politics Indiana Fair Tax