Lois Lerner defiantly sat before congressional representatives Wednesday, made a statement regarding her integrity, then abruptly invoked her 5th amendment right not to self-incriminate avoiding any additional questioning regarding IRS targeting of conservative, religious and political groups and individuals from 2010 to 2012. Lerner was the head of the IRS Tax Exempt department during this time period.
As more groups and individuals come forward with details about their experience with Lerner’s department, a pattern seems to be emerging.
Many of the people claiming to have been targeted for special treatment have also claimed they were asked inappropriate questions regarding their political affiliation, religious affiliation, and other personal matters. Some were even asked to divulge the content of their personal “prayers”.
Well, it appears this isn’t the first time such odd questions have been asked of political or religious conservatives by Ms. Lerner’s “people” during her years of government service.
As you read the following report from TheBlaze consider this: Lois Lerner is now in charge of the IRS department that will oversee the enforcement of the ”tax element” of Obamacare.
Chew on that for a bit.
- Lois Lerner, the embattled director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, served as head of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) enforcement division from 1986 until 2001.
- While there, the FEC sued the Christian Coalition for allegedly conspiring with political candidates.
- During the case, representatives for the FEC asked intrusive questions on religion of several people involved, including Lt. Col. Oliver North.
- At one point, a representative demanded to know details regarding Pat Robertson praying for North after reading a letter from North to Robertson indicating as much.
- The group’s attorney also noted that during the investigation third parties were required to comply with “burdensome FEC document requests,” reminiscent of the IRS/Tea Party requests.
- The Christian Coalition’s attorneys adamantly objected, and the group eventually rebuffed the charges.
New questions are being raised today about Lois Lerner and the attitude she’s taken in the past regarding conservative and Christian groups. The Weekly Standard is pointing to the questioning of people related to the Christian Coalition in the 1990s when Lerner was the head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In short: the FEC was investigating if the Christian Coalition was “coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office,” the Weekly Standard explains, and the questions they were asking became ridiculously intrusive — especially about faith and prayer.
The Christian Coalition successfully fought off the allegations, but not before investigators took nearly 100 depositions.
“We felt we were being singled out, because when you handle a case with 81 depositions you have a pretty good argument you’re getting special treatment,” the Christian Coalition’s attorney at the time, James Bopp, Jr., told the Weekly Standard. “Eighty-one depositions! Eighty-one! From Ralph Reed’s former part-time secretary to George H.W. Bush. It was mind blowing.”
And “mind blowing” may be the only way to describe what he detailed in a 2003 testimony before the United States Committee on House Administration [emphasis added]:
FEC attorneys continued their intrusion into religious activities by prying into what occurs at Coalition staff prayer meetings, and even who attends the prayer meetings held at the Coalition. This line of questioning was pursued several times. Deponents were also asked to explain what the positions of “intercessory prayer” and “prayer warrior” entailed, what churches specific people belonged, and the church and its location at which a deponent met Dr. Reed.
One of the most shocking and startling examples of this irrelevant and intrusive questioning by FEC attorneys into private political associations of citizens occurred during the administrative depositions of three pastors from South Carolina. Each pastor, only one of whom had only the slightest connection with the Coalition, was asked not only about their federal, state and local political activities, including party affiliations, but about political activities that, as one FEC attorney described as “personal,” and outside of the jurisdiction of the FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act]. They were also continually asked about the associations and activities of the members of their congregations, and even other pastors.
But it doesn’t end there. Bopp’s testimony includes a transcript of questioning between the FEC and Lt. Col. Oliver North to illustrate Bopp’s point. In that transcript, the FEC representative started prying into why the Lt. Col. thanked Pat Robertson for prayers in a letter. See it below (Q stands for the FEC rep, A denotes North’s response, and O is the objection raised by Christian Coalition attorneys), and note the questioner’s befuddlement at the objections raised to the line of questioning [emphasis added]:
Q: (reading from a letter from Oliver North to Pat Robertson) “‘Betsy and I thank you for your kind regards and prayers.’ The next paragraph is, ‘Please give our love to Dede and I hope to see you in the near future.’ Who is Dede?”
A: “That is Mrs. Robertson.”
Q: “What did you mean in paragraph 2, about thanking -you and your wife thanking Pat Robertson for kind regards?”
A: “Last time I checked in America, prayers were still legal. I am sure that Pat had said he was praying for my family and me in some correspondence or phone call.”
Q: “Would that be something that Pat Robertson was doing for you?”
A: “I hope a lot of people were praying for me, Holly.”
Q: “But you knew that Pat Robertson was?”
A: “Well, apparently at that time I was reﬂecting something that Pat had either, as I said, had told me or conveyed to me in some fashion, and it is my habit to thank people for things like that.”
Q: “During the time that you knew Pat Robertson, was it your impression that he had – he was praying for you?”
O: “I object. There is no allegation that praying creates a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act and there is no such allegation in the complaint. This is completely irrelevant and intrusive on the religious beliefs of this witness.”
O: “It is a very strange line of questioning. You have got to be kidding, really. What are you thinking of, to ask questions like that? I mean, really. I have been to some strange depositions, but I don’t think I have ever had anybody inquire into somebody’s prayers. I think that is really just outrageous. And if you want to ask some questions regarding political activities, please do and then we can get over this very quickly. But if you want to ask about somebody’s religious activities, that is outrageous.”
Q: “I am allowed to make-’’
O: “We are allowed not to answer and if you think the Commission is going to permit you to go forward with a question about somebody’s prayers, I just don’t believe that. I just don’t for a moment believe that. I ﬁnd that the most outrageous line of questioning. I am going to instruct my witness not to answer.”
Q: “On what grounds?”
O: “We are not going to let you inquire about people’s religious beliefs or activities, period. If you want to ask about someone’s prayers-Jeez, I don’t know what we are thinking of. But the answer is, no, people are not going to respond to questions about people’s prayers, no.”
Q: “Will you take that, at the first break, take it up- we will do whatever we have to do.”
O: “You do whatever you think you have to do to get them to answer questions about what people are praying about.”
Q: “I did not ask Mr. North what people were praying about I am allowed to inquire about the relationship between-’’
O: “Absolutely, but you have asked the question repeatedly. If you move on to a question other than about prayer, be my guest.”
Q: “I have been asking you a series of questions about your relationship with Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition. . . . It is relevant to this inquiry what relationship you had with Pat Robertson and I have asked you whether Pat Robertson had indicated to you that he was praying for you.”
O: “If that is a question, I will further object. It is an intrusion upon the religious beliefs and activities of Dr. Robertson. And how that could – how the Federal Government can be asking about an individual’s personal religious practices in the context of an alleged investigation under the Federal Election Campaign Act, I am just at a complete loss to see the
relevance or potential relevance, and I consider that to be also intrusive.”
Q: “Was Pat Robertson praying for you in 1991?”
O: “Same objection.”
A: “I hope so. I hope he still is.”
- Lois Lerner’s Lawsuit Crusade Against Christian Coalition? (blogs.cbn.com)
- Breaking: Lois Lerner Sued Christian Coalition In Largest FEC Action in History – Then Was Promoted to IRS Where She Targeted Conservatives (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
Not too long ago there was a fun little thing going around Twitter where conservative minded folks decided if they put a (D) next to their name they could pretty much say and do anything they wanted on social media or anywhere else for that matter, without repercussion or reproach. The idea being, if you’re a Democrat you can get away with anything and the media won’t call you out on it.
Whether there is a lot, little, or no truth to that assumption is up for debate and opinion, but it seems as we read, listen, and watch our mainstream media to have at least some validity.
Example: Former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted today on 24 counts of racketeering and other federal corruption charges. Witnesses in the five-month trial said Kilpatrick steered city contracts toward a friend for a share of the spoils. He also used political donations and a non-profit fund for personal spending. Kilpatrick could get 20 years in prison. He already served 14 months in an unrelated obstruction of justice case.
Kilpatrick’s political career has been a mess of corruption, scandal, indictments, and prison time. One would think he would be a national laughingstock by now — especially given that he’s the son of a former congresswoman — and if he were a Republican, he may very well have become one of the most ridiculed men in America. But because of the “D” that follows his name, the liberal media hold back on the venom, opting instead for either the kid gloves treatment or complete silence.
Ironically this story has not generated the kind of interest a story like, say, Todd Akin (R) and his rape remarks got, or Marco Rubio’s awkward sip of water during the State of the Union rebuttal, and neither of those were criminal acts!
The CBS Evening News and ABC World News both broadcasted from the Vatican and focused most of their attention on the pending election of the next pope. But even when they got around to other news, there was not a peep about Detroit’s ex-mayor.
PBS, to their credit, did mention Kilpatrick on the NewsHour. However, the story was condensed into a 25-second blurb and stuffed into the “Other News of the Day” segment. What’s more, PBS failed to mention that Kilpatrick is a Democrat even though we have seen party affiliation of Republicans in trouble with the law reported before.
Perhaps they were busy with what are clearly weightier matters. Monday’s NBC Nightly News, for example, found time to mention Justin Timberlake’s recent appearance on Saturday Night Live, the ten worst places to retire in America, and the plight of penguins in Antarctica, but doggonit, no time for Mr. Kilpatrick’s conviction.
Maybe that (D) thing has something going for it after all.
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential cause of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.”–Will Durant
If the United States were the first in history to experience a debt crisis with deficits that are about to bring this nation to its financial knees, government officials might have some excuse for what they’ve done.
The most frustrating thing about this mess is that our elected leaders knew where this would end from the beginning and if they didn’t know they have no business running a lemonade stand let alone a nation. If it’s ignorance that got us here we have a bone to pick with our education system and its failure to teach history. Because historical precedents for what we are now experiencing are many and should be part of every high school curriculum
Every country that has spent beyond its means has spiraled to disaster. The crash the US is about to experience has been experienced many times before.
Three successive Roman emperors, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, all emptied their treasuries to pay for lavish ceremonial feasts, luxurious villas, elaborate temples, servants who never served, and bribes to the army and praetorian guard to ensure loyalty. When the money ran out, these arrogant rulers raised taxes, seized the assets of wealthy citizens, or expanded the money supply by remitting old coins using more base metal and less gold and silver.
What they got from this manipulation was severe inflation. In one thirty-year period during the third century A.D., the price of wheat rose 100,000 percent! A loaf of bread that cost the equivalent of $2.00 at the start of the period cost $2.000 at the end. By the time Rome collapsed high taxes had already destroyed Roman commerce. Cities and towns were reduced to ruin by lack of investment in their maintenance, the population was impoverished and dwindling, and riots and rebellion were commonplace.
Thirteen hundred years later, Spain, which had been one of the mightiest countries in Europe, began running huge deficits to pay for wars, a bloated civil service, and endemic corruption. By the end of the sixteenth century, revenues covered only half the state’s spending. Sound Familiar? Repeated currency devaluations, growing inflation, and a murderous tax burden killed off Spanish industry and agriculture. Impoverished, Spain lost its global influence as its empire contracted to a fraction of former size.
America In Ruins
Some economists think if the U.S. is very, very lucky it can fix its debt/deficit and suffer no more in the process than Great Britain has in the last thirty years. Great Britain’s economy didn’t so much crash as run aground. In 1976, the British government had to ask the IMF for help in servicing its debt, an acute embarrassment to the once mighty kingdom. In 1979, with inflation nearing 14%, British elected Margaret Thatcher to right the ship. Her platform stressed fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, and a reduced public sector. Thatcher’s unpleasant task was to remind Brits that though the public might make unlimited demands on the government for services, the government’s resources were still finite.
If the United States has its own Margaret Thatcher, We haven’t elected him or her to national office yet.
One thing is certain in these troubling times: What we do now will determine what happens to us later, both as individuals and as a nation. Little time remains for us to act, and, even then, our actions must be decisive, bold and radical if they are to prove effective. Forestalling the demise of our country requires the commitment and participation of all of us.
And it has to start now.
Heard on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program today and had to share. I think we should have a Rewind Y2K Bash and see what happens in the morning. ‘Cause tonight we’re gonna party like its 1999!
- Fox & Friends Tears Into Obama’s ‘Scare-Quester’: ‘Unbelievable’ GOP Let Themselves Be Labeled ‘Rich’ Party (mediaite.com)
- The Sky-quester is Falling! (longversion.wordpress.com)
President Obama proposed the soon to be enacted sequester, demanded it be part of the debt deal, signed it into law and angrily promised to veto the GOP efforts to repeal it. Now, like Dr. Frankenstein, he’s running from his own creation.
It is an intentional untruth to say sequester cuts must come from police officers and schools. It’s a tiny cut that barely moves the needle on federal spending. You can meet sequester targets by instead eliminating a small amount of waste. $84 Billion in spending can be cut without touching critical programs like police, schools and NASA.
House Republicans have passed two different bills to replace Obama’s plan to cut critical services. Senate Democrats refuse to hold a vote on it and Obama once vowed to veto any plans to stop his sequester. Republicans have provided alternative spending reductions, but Democrats have rejected them and seem committed to blind, across-the-board cuts to scare people. We need to “encourage” Democrats to support intelligent cuts.
Here are five simple spending cuts suggested by Rep. Steve Stockton which meet Obama’s sequester reduction targets without cuts to essential programs.
- Eliminate the government’s “free cell phone” plan that has ballooned into the ObamaPhone giveaway, 41 percent of which goes to people not even eligible (sorry but a cell phone is not essential to survival): $2.2 billion in savings
- Eliminate ObamaCare’s “Public Health Slush Fund,” which even Democrats want to eliminate: $10 billion in savings
- Require food stamp recipients, the numbers of which have exploded under Obama, to actually be eligible for food stamps: $26 billion in savings
- Eliminate overpayments for ObamaCare exchange subsidies: $44 billion in savings
- Eliminate Obama’s “renewable energy” fund in the Energy Department: $1.8 billion in savings
The “sky is falling” approach to the sequester the President and democrats have taken after THEY created it is the height of hypocrisy.
I say let the sky fall and watch as the sun rises in the morning.
- Will the Sequester Kill Us All? (rushlimbaugh.com)
- The Sequester: Absolutely everything you could possibly need to know, in one FAQ (washingtonpost.com)
- Dayton News
The gun control debate is accelerating.
On one side historical background, statistical evidence, and an amendment to the constitution of the United States.
On the other side raw emotion.
Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine school shooting in 1999, penned a letter to President Obama outlining in great detail his thoughts on gun control and how they were shaped by his experience. Todd was shot by one of the gunmen that day and watched as 12 of his fellow students and a teacher were murdered. His letter covers key aspects of the current gun control debate and why the arguments coming from the left are ineffective and dangerous to the rights of all American citizens.
Here is the letter. Don’t expect to read, see, or hear about it in any major news publication or network and don’t expect to see a reply from the President. This simply doesn’t comply with the narrative they have put forward about guns and gun control. It would derail their propaganda machine.
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
- Columbine Survivor Pens Bold Open Letter to Obama Rejecting Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’ (12160.info)
- Columbine Student Survivor to Obama: “Whose Side Are You On?” (grumpyelder.com)
- Columbine Survivor Pens Bold Open Letter To Obama Rejecting Gun Control:’Whose Side Are You On?’ (libertycrier.com)
A Louisville, Kentucky newspaper has lost its lone conservative voice.
Columnist John Dyche has resigned as a conservative contributor to the Louisville Courier-Journal, said to be Kentucky’s most influential newspaper, citing the paper’s refusal to publish his most recent opinion piece which suggested imbalanced reporting and apparent liberal bias at the Courier-Journal.
Dyche explained his decision to resign in an interview with The Daily Caller. He told The Daily Caller he had written columns for the Courier-Journal for 10 years without a single rejection, until last week. He got the news from the paper’s editorial page editor, Pam Platt, in a voice mail. Platt explained Dyche’s column would not be published because, ”it goes sort of off of what your column is supposed to be.” To which Dyche replied, “Indeed, your refusal to run this column vividly illustrates the very issues about which I write!”
The newspaper apparently has a history and reputation of being decisively left leaning and has been accused of going after conservative political figures in Kentucky with more vigor and harshness than their liberal counterparts.
Below in bold italics is the full transcript of the rejected column. It makes you wonder what the Courier-Journal was so afraid of? It’s hardly a scathing indictment and seems to be more of a suggestion box for a balanced approach to news and editorials. Considering the plight of newspapers around the country and their dwindling readership, one of them might do well to consider Dyche’s ideas and see how the marketplace responds.
But that would require liberals to put their faith in the free market of ideas and put their ideas in jeopardy.
In an obvious oversight, The Courier-Journal’s new publisher, Wesley Jackson, has not contacted this columnist for suggestions on saving the newspaper from the fate of the New Orleans Times-Picayune (which produces a paper edition only thrice weekly) or worse. Jackson has implemented reforms related to financial viability rather than content, but the latter affects the former. So here, free of charge, are some ideas to promote this publication’s prosperity.
Balanced Opinion Pages. The Courier-Journal opinion pages are stridently liberal. Journalistic jihads against Kentucky’s Republican U. S. Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, and crusades for gun control and higher taxes, are in full force and frequently fill almost the entire editorial and op-ed pages. Such one-sidedness neither works in the marketplace nor serves the public interest.
Make the current editorial page (i.e., the page on the left) into a “Left Page” and there continue presenting hopelessly liberal columns, cartoons, and letters. Convert the op-ed page (i.e., the page on the right) to a “Right Page” and present conservative/libertarian columns, cartoons, and letters now largely absent from Louisville media. Give each page equal resources, and let the competing philosophies battle it out in the marketplace of ideas. The community would benefit from real, vigorous debate, and subscribers who deserted the paper due to its liberal bias might return.
Disclose Editors’ and Reporters’ Politics. Like the rest of the press, The Courier-Journal claims to play an exalted role in public affairs. But while righteously demanding absolute openness and full disclosure from every other entity and person involved in government, the press does not apply the same standard to itself. Change that by disclosing the party registration and voting choices of all editors and reporters.
Journalists believe that they, unlike mere mortals, can transcend their personal opinions to be basically fair and objective in presenting the news. Perhaps, but readers should be the ones to judge. To do so, they need information about the personal political views of the editors and reporters who decide what gets reported, and how, when, and where it gets reported. If a Courier-Journal editor or reporter is a registered Democrat who has voted twice for Barack Obama and Steve Beshear, advise the readers of that fact and let them make their own evaluation about whether those political preferences are influencing the coverage.
Open Meetings and Records. The Courier-Journal not only demands, but often litigates to ensure, full and open public disclosure of meetings and records of government bodies. It should apply the same standard to itself given the prominent role the press proclaims for itself in the political process. So live stream the meetings of editors and reporters and post the written communications and directives between them regarding assignments, policies, and stories.
Let the public see how and by whom decisions are made as to what to cover, who should cover it, and what headlines, photographs, and placement it receives. For example, the recent confirmation hearing of secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel received only two sentences of coverage below the fold on A3 in The Courier-Journal. The paper presented no hint of the bumbling, confused, and altogether incompetent performance by the potential head of the Pentagon.
A three-sentence dispatch about a sacrificial skull mound in Mexico dating to 660 A.D. ran below the dispatch about the Hagel hearing! And a few days later a much longer article entitled “Pentagon to extend benefits to partners” appeared above the fold on A2. Peculiar priorities.
Newspapers indignantly proclaim that their editorial and news departments do not coordinate. Perhaps there is no explicit conspiracy, but the hand-in-glove relationship between such ideological soul mates is undeniable. Opening up the process might not prevent such slanted presentation of news in the service of liberal objectives, but it could deter and expose it.
Publish Value of In-Kind Contributions. The Courier-Journal decries the influence of corporate money in politics and demands better disclosure of political contributions. However, The Courier-Journal, Inc. and Gannett Company, Inc. are corporations that try to influence politics. Presumably their efforts have some value. The newspaper should therefore quantify and report how much its in-kind contributions in the form of editorials, endorsements, etc., would be worth if valued at the rate of comparably-sized advertisements.
Finally. Replace Fort Knox and Jump Start with Mark Trail and Mary Worth in the comics. These soap opera strips are much funnier, albeit unintentionally. And if you do nothing else recommended here, enlarge Peanuts so one can more easily read its often profound social commentary. Good grief!
- Struggling Leftist Louisville Courier-Journal Fires Longtime Conservative Columnist (breitbart.com)
- US columnist quits after paper refuses to publish his latest piece (guardian.co.uk)