|
| TYPICAL |
| Wednesday, April 27, 2005 |
| DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�: "The announcer: 'A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked].'" |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/27/2005 03:59:00 PM   |
|
|
|
| OF SELF RIGHTEOUS DEMOCRATS |
| Tuesday, April 26, 2005 |
| Congressional junkets the norm
What would you like your local congressman to do for you? Would you have a better chance of getting your wish if you invited him to fly with you to the Bahamas, where he will give a speech and then play a round of golf with you and some friends before you fly him back? You'd have plenty of time to educate him regarding the merits of your idea, and it doesn't hurt that he had a good time and was made to feel important.
In the past five years, some 600 members of the House and Senate - which means virtually all of the current members plus a few who have retired since 2000 - have taken some 5,410 privately funded trips valued at $16 million - about $3,000 per trip.
The ethics rules, if I may use the term loosely, say members of Congress may not take trips funded by lobbyists, but it's okay for a lobbyist's employer to fund the trip, and the lobbyist can go along for the ride. The rule is a sham of course. It's worst than having no rule at all, because it is specifically designed to mislead the public into thinking Congress actually cares about influence peddling. The rule brazenly insults the intelligence of the voter and taxpayer.
Of the $16 million spent this way since 2000, more than half was spent by not-for-profit organizations who don't even have to disclose who is providing the money, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, an online service that provides campaign-finance and lobbying data.
Even when the financier is disclosed, only a small fraction of intensely interested voters pay any attention to such information, and the lobbyists give the congressmen snappy answers to explain why the special tax break or research funding he voted for is good for all of us, not just those who paid for his vote.
This is one of the practices for which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is in hot water, but it's laughable for Democrats to condemn DeLay for accepting junkets. According to the PoliticalMoneyLine study, Republicans took 2,375 such trips in the past five years, while Democrats took 3,025 - 650 more than Republicans. DeLay ranked 28th overall for value of trips and 114th in number of trips taken.
The unfortunate fact is that Congress is a corrupt institution full of power-hungry, self-serving egomaniacs who can't be trusted with your money, and the only thing you can do about it is to pull the level for the one who is likely to let you keep the most of what you earn.
Or, you could buy an extra ticket for your next trip to the Bahamas.
Ralph Bristol
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/26/2005 10:01:00 AM |
|
|
|
| INFLUENCE PEDDLING |
|
| Political Money Line: "Of the $16 million in privately-funded travel of Members of Congress (2000-Winter 2005) almost $8.8 million (55%) was from tax-exempt and other organizations who receive funds from others. The original donors to these organizations (and whether or not they earmarked funds for any of these trips) are not disclosed in the travel reports.
Many of these organizations are incorporated as non-profit 501c3 and 501c4 entities, which are not required to disclose their donors to the public in their IRS Form 990 reports. For example, the Aspen Institute is a 501c3 entity, and funded 344 trips for Democrats and 190 trips for Republicans. The Ripon Educational Fund is a 501(c4) entity, and funded 71 trips for Republicans and 3 trips for Democrats.
There is no legal prohibition to prevent a lobbyist from serving on the board of these organizations, and in some cases lobbyists may encourage a client to contribute to the non-profit. In some cases, serving on a non-profit's board permits the lobbyist to participate in the sponsored event or travel for Members of Congress.
In some cases, these organizations may be paying for travel to 'educate' Members of Congress on certain issues or topics. For example, The Nuclear Energy Institute has paid for Members to travel and tour facilities in Paris, France, and Barcelona, Spain, and Rome, Italy, and Las Vegas, Nevada. The Institute files lobbying reports showing they usually spend over one million dollars a year. Even British Nuclear Fuels Ltd has paid for members to travel to its Sellafield nuclear site in England.
To draw Members of Congress and to draw a membership to a meeting often requires a plush setting, nice weather, and of course free travel, meals, and other expenses. Very few reports list the name of the resort..." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/26/2005 09:55:00 AM |
|
|
|
| MORE ON BOLTON |
|
| I personally think we should send Pollyanna. That way she can get together with ranking Democrats and compare and admire the lace on their underwear.
CNN.com - New allegations hit Bush pick for U.N. ambassador - Apr 24, 2005: "'He's been a real tyrant when it came to people he worked with, who disagreed with him. This man doesn't have the temperament for this job,' the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said on 'Fox News Sunday.'" |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/25/2005 01:43:00 PM |
|
|
|
| A Fictional View of the Filibuster |
|
| Liberal group’s ad features movie hero Jimmy Stewart. But historic reality was often ugly.
Summary
A $5-million TV ad campaign by People for the American Way portrays the Senate filibuster as a noble tool of American democracy. The ad uses footage from Frank Capra's classic 1939 movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" - a famous scene in which the hero, played by James Stewart, engages in a 23-hour filibuster to prevent his expulsion from the US Senate on trumped-up corruption charges.
Real-life filibusters are another matter, however. They can be used for good or evil. In fact, segregationist Southern senators used filibusters to preserve the poll tax and block civil rights and anti-lynching legislation for generations. Among the real-life practitioners were the late Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi.
For the full article, copy and paste this link into your browser and hit "ENTER":
http://www.factcheck.org/article317m.html
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/25/2005 10:15:00 AM |
|
|
|
| ILLEGAL immigration |
|
| THIS CONTENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FROM A SPEECH BY COLORADO GOVERNOR RICHARD D. LAMM (D)
"If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.
Here is how they do it.
Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces d ifficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.
Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once
dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.
I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure th at we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship
and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature;
and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put theemphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America
as surely as Kosovo.
Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo
to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate.
Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having
established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
HAT TIP: Danny |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/25/2005 08:25:00 AM |
|
|
|
| NO, THIS ISN'T MADE UP! |
| Friday, April 22, 2005 |
| Tongue Tied: "Suffer the Doggies
An Australian parade committee wont let a woman march in a local Anzac Day parade with her German Shepherds because the dogs have a bad reputation, according to the ABC.
Annette Batchelor wants to march in Hobart�s annual parade wearing her grandparents' medals, along with her two shepherds to honor dog handlers and their animals.
But the parade committee says nein. Its members claim that because the breed was used to patrol prisoner-of-war camps, former POWs along with people from other cultures -- may be offended."
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/22/2005 02:30:00 PM |
|
|
|
| John Leo: Hating Bush |
|
| John Leo: Hating Bush: "T-shirts and bags were offered for sale last week on the Internet, then quickly removed after protests. In Chicago, a college art show featured a series of mock postage stamps showing Bush with a gun to his head. The unhinged left has long flirted with the theme of killing presidents, from the 1992 Manhattan posters urging the murder of the first President Bush to the 'that pig Bush must die' message on a fringe website last week." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/22/2005 08:36:00 AM |
|
|
|
| ARE YOU A TERRORIST? |
| Tuesday, April 19, 2005 |
| This list will ever expand. Will you be on it one day?
CQ.com |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/19/2005 02:09:00 PM |
|
|
|
| THE STONING OF DELAY |
| Thursday, April 14, 2005 |
| When I run for Congress to punish Bob Inglis for failing to renew his subscription to the Daily Dispatch, I promise I won't hire my wife or daughter to help run my campaign. But it won't be because I think nepotism is unethical. It will be because I'm not married, so I can't hire my wife, and my daughters have no interest or expertise in political campaigns.
If I had a wife and daughter who had the requisite experience, I would not hesitate to hire them and pay them the going rate - whatever that is.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political enemies are wringing their hands in glee these days over the discovery that his campaign and his political action committee have paid his wife and daughter $500 thousand dollars. Is that something that should cause ethical consternation? I don't know. Neither, I suspect, do you.
Let's look at a few more facts. The wife and daughter have earned slightly more than $500,000 since 2001. They worked for DeLay's political action and campaign committees. Unfortunately, those are all the details I have. I don't know if they have both worked full-time since 2001, or whether they have worked part-time, off and on, since then. I don't know what kind of work they did or the going rate for the work they did.
If the two of them have been paid $500-thousand since 2001, they have each received about $60 to $70-thousand a year. I don't know whether that's out of line, but I do know that the practice of hiring family members for campaign jobs is fairly routine and does not violate any established ethics rules.
Congressman Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager. According to the USA Today, she was paid $21,791 over four months. Annualized, that would be in the same ballpark as Delay's wife and daughter.
Laurie Stupak, wife of Congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., has earned about $36,000 annually during the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.
The wife of 14-term Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis of California serves as his chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000. Under House rules, lawmakers cannot hire their spouses to congressional jobs, but Mrs. Lewis is an exception because she worked for him before they were married.
It's very common for politicians to hire relatives to work on their campaigns. The USA Today names about a dozen congressional and presidential candidates who have done so, including Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney.
There should be very little mystery surrounding the question of whether DeLay's payments to his wife and daughter are scandalous. Since the practice is so common, investigators need only compare their work and compensation to that of others to see if their compensation is out of line.
If we find the payments to be exorbitant, then we denounce DeLay for abusing his position to pad his family's bank accounts. If not, we expose his critics as typical partisan hacks.
The more I follow politics and politicians, the more I find it to be a corrupting influence on otherwise honorable people. It would not shock me to find that DeLay has yielded to that influence. But, the accusations presented in the press so far have been all heat and very little light.
The public stoning of Mr. DeLay is at best, a bit premature.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/14/2005 11:21:00 AM |
|
|
|
| TAXES |
|
| A young man who quit working "for the man" last year and started his own business has now discovered taxes - or, more accurately, marginal taxes.
He was flabbergasted when his accountant told him he owed $6,000 in taxes on what he considered modest income. His previous employer had withheld taxes from his income for the first part of the year. His wife's employer did the same for the full year, but he hadn't paid taxes on the income he earned in the last six months of the year. On that alone, he owes $6,000.
He is now getting over his marginal tax shock. And, he's in for a bigger shock when his business grows. Marginal taxes are the taxes you owe on the last dollar you make. The last dollar is not taxed at the same rate as the first, unless your taxable income never passes the first tax rate threshold.
In 2004, this particular young man and his wife (he's married, filing jointly) paid a federal income tax of 10% on the first $14,300 of their income. They paid 15% on the next $43,800.
After that, his marginal federal income tax rate is 25%, plus 7% state income tax and a self-employment tax of 15.3% -- a total of 47.3%. As his business grows, his marginal tax rate can grow to 50.3%, 55.3% or 57.3% under current federal and state law.
My young friend was unaware that once his income reaches a certain level, a level he doesn't consider "rich," the state and local government would be his business partner, taking nearly half of every next dollar he makes, but doing none of the work and assuming none of the risk. Needless to say, he's not too happy with this particular business arrangement. Neither are millions of other entrepreneurs. That's why some of them don't report all of their income.
The IRS has just published a study that finds people "underpaid" their taxes by about $300 billion in 2001. The IRS believes 80 percent of the underpayments are due to underreporting - people who don't report all of their income.
About a week before my young friend discovered marginal tax rates, he proudly proclaimed that he doesn't cheat on his taxes - he reports every penny, even though some people pay him in cash. After his discovery, he had a talk about taxes with his dad. He tells me his dad suggested he reconsider his decision to report all of his income. He says he's rejecting his father's advice and will continue to report all of his income, but he now has a much better understanding why many people make a different choice.
The reason is simple. The income tax burden on small business people is in fact oppressive and it turns many an honorable businessman and woman into criminals. It is a national disgrace.
Ralph Bristol |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/11/2005 10:28:00 AM |
|
|
|
| REVISIONIST HISTORY IN THE MAKING... |
|
| Tongue Tied: "Another One Bites the Dust
Robert E. Lee High School in Baton Rouge, La. is retiring its Colonel Rebel mascot this year because the bearded gentleman is just a little too Southern for some folks� taste, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate.
The mascot�s racist connotations were described as �divisive,� so henceforth the school teams will be known as the Patriots.
The Rebel logo usually includes an icon commonly known as Colonel Rebel, a man dressed in an old-fashioned tail coat with a cravat and a Panama hat. The image is supposed to evoke a gentleman of the Old South." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/11/2005 10:24:00 AM |
|
|
|
| GOV. SANFORD SPEAKS WITH WISDOM |
| Friday, April 08, 2005 |
| Sout h Carolina taxpayers will send an additional $600 million into state government this year, and the question is what do we do with it? To a great degree there are basically two choices:
A) Add new spending and programs.
B) Hold the line on spending increases so we can first pay off money borrowed in tough times, and if there is left over money return some to the taxpayers sending it.
In the real world of business and family life people pay back money borrowed from the cookie jar in tough times before they make a bunch of new financial commitments. It strikes me that a big part of putting a state's financial house in order lies in doing the same and not ramping up our state's spending at the first glance that the economy may be improving.
We have proposed doing each of these things in the budget process, and to date we are not getting a lot of reception with budget writers in the House and Senate. The budget is now in the Senate and if you want them to hold the line on spending, leave more money available for tax relief and pay off a larger part of the almost $500 million that was borrowed from trust funds over the last few years, now is the time to make your voice heard.
Click this link for an approximate breakdown of our budget versus the House and Senate budgets as of this week: http://www.scgovernor.com/uploads/upload/compchart.jpg
Our Executive Budget made $160 million in spending cuts. The House cut $44.5 million and the Senate cut $32.7 million. We proposed repaying $359 million in trust and reserve funds. The House and Senate budgets repay $117 million. Spending in our proposed budget increased by $93 million, the House's by $457.5 million and the Senate's by $483.7 million.
The full Senate will be debating the budget soon. You can click the link below to read for yourself a copy of my budget letter to the Senate. More importantly, you can contact your Senator directly by logging onto http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe or calling 803-212-6700 to find out their contact information.
Thanks again for your continued support.
Take care,
Mark
Gov. Sanford's Budget Letter to Senate:
http://www.scgovernor.com/uploads/upload/Senate_Letter_final.pdf
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/08/2005 03:58:00 PM |
|
|
|
| PRAYER APPRECIATED |
|
| Just to let you know. Regarding the helicopter crash in Afghanistan. I think 16 people died (the most in one crash since the war). One of the ones missing is (name omitted) niece. His brother is pretty shaken up about it. They don't know if she was one of the ones whose bodies were burned bad or one of the ones missing. They should know something today. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/08/2005 08:00:00 AM |
|
|
|
| FIRST TO SPOOF |
|
| The Snipet wanted to be first to spoof on this headline:
JALAL TALABANI SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT OF IRAQ
But everything I thought of was too corny... |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/07/2005 08:04:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Social Security debate highlights false charge |
| Wednesday, April 06, 2005 |
| I didn't expect much when I tuned in to the "mock Social Security debate" in the U.S. Senate last evening, featuring Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina and three of his colleagues. I got more than I expected - one very valuable and correct argument for establishing personal accounts in the system.
One of the worst hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people is something Bob Dole (R) cited as his "greatest accomplishment" when he ran for President in 1996. Dole, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, led a commission in 1983 that crafted a plan to extend the solvency of Social Security into the middle of the 21st Century.
They did so by slowly raising the baby boomer retirement age to 67, raising payroll taxes for the 19th time, and beginning to stuff IOUs into a file cabinet in the Bureau of the Public Debt. That file cabinet is what we know as the Social Security Trust Fund. It creates a formal debt obligation to continue to fund the Social Security system long after payroll taxes - even at the new, higher level - are sufficient to meet current benefits.
It also helped mask the deficit that was starting to appear troublesome at the time, without actually reduce the accumulating debt. In short, Dole, Greenspan, et al raised taxes, reduced benefits and set about to borrow record amounts of money. They did not solve the Social Security solvency problem. They only created an intricate mask of debt to conceal the problem.
Former Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) of South Carolina has for years been telling anyone who will listen that the Social Security Trust Fund is "nothing but a drawer full of IOUs." He was exactly right of course. Where he was 180 degrees off the mark was his proposed solution. He wanted to raise taxes to solve a problem that was created by raising taxes. Congress created today's Social Security mirage by raising the payroll tax to a height that produced a massive surplus in Social Security funds that Congress was legally obligated to borrow now and pay back later. They did not address the question, "Where will get the money to repay the debt?"
Any corporate management team that perpetrated such a hoax on its stockholders would face serious criminal charges and class action lawsuits.
Now, back to last night's Senate debate. Democrats have been arguing ad nauseam, and continued the same tact last night, that it is insane to think you can fix the Social Security solvency problem by "draining money from Social Security" to finance personal accounts.
This time, the Republicans (DeMint and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania) were alert enough to knock that argument out of the park. Actually, it is the personal accounts that keep the money in the system. Congress has been draining money from the system for years, and simply promising to pay it back without having a plan or resources to do so. The personal accounts will be an intricate part of the new system, and the money that is now being spent elsewhere will instead stay in the system, inside the personal accounts, where Congress can't touch it, can't borrow it, can't spend it for other things.
This needs to be the message the President Bush and other Social Security reformers need to drive home every day for as long as the debate continues.
One more point, just to demonstrate the level of ignorance that exists among some participants in the Social Security debate. One of the four Senators chosen by their respective leaders to engage in the mock debate last evening, Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, in her closing arguments, claimed that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the administration of the personal accounts would cost a whopping 20% of the money funneled into the accounts. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of money management knows that such a charge is outrageous and impossible.
Fortunately for the audience that could have been seriously misinformed, Sen. Santorum corrected her. What the CBO actually said is that the administration would cost 20 basis points - that is two-tenths of one percent
|
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/06/2005 09:30:00 AM |
|
|
|
| WHO SAID... |
|
| "There's no one in our modern political history who has used his religiosity more deliberately and actively and falsely in campaigning than George Bush, second only to. . .Bill Clinton."
? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/06/2005 07:40:00 AM |
|
|
|
| John Leo: Some final notes on the Terri Schiavo case. |
| Monday, April 04, 2005 |
| John Leo: Some final notes on the Terri Schiavo case.: "The behavior of liberals. Mystifying. While conservative opinion was severely splintered, liberal opinion seemed monolithic: Let her die.
Liberals usually rally to the side of vulnerable people, but not in this case. Democrats talked abstractly about procedures and rules, a reversal of familiar roles. I do not understand why liberal friends defined the issue almost solely in terms of government intruding into family matters. Liberals are famously willing to enter family affairs to defend individual rights, opposing parental-consent laws, for example. Why not here? Nonintervention is morally suspect when there is strong reason to wonder whether the decision-maker in the family has the helpless person�s best interests at heart." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/04/2005 07:56:00 PM |
|
|
|
| WHERE ARE THE LIBERAL BLOGGERS?! |
| Friday, April 01, 2005 |
| I have searched 25 Liberal blogs and news sites and I have YET to find anything about Sandy Berger? Aren't you guys curious about what he destroyed? Where's your militant curiousity? HELLO! Anybody awake out there??!!
Democratic Underground |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/01/2005 09:34:00 PM |
|
|
|
| WHOOPIE! |
|
| ABC News: Berger Pleads Guilty to Taking Materials: "However, under a plea agreement that Robinson must accept, Berger would serve no jail time but instead pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. Security clearance allows access to classified government materials. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/01/2005 09:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
