God bless America, and how's everybody?
I disagree with some of Rand Paul's more libertarian positions, especially on social issues. And I'm certainly not endorsing him or anyone else to be the Republican nominee for president at this time. But Sen. Paul of Kentucky did two things recently that won my favor. He showed the 2,500 conservative activists at the CPAC conference last weekend that he understands what the GOP must do if it wants to take the Senate this fall and win back the White House.
If you keep up with social justice issues, you've no doubt heard of the "Ban Bossy" campaign (banbossy.com) spearheaded by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and other prominent females.
Did you ever think you'd see the day when decrying low-income kids who get free school lunches would become a political battle cry, coupled with the suggestion that parents who sign up their kids for free lunches love them less than parents who send their children to school with brown bagged baloney sandwiches?
There's a reason why the U.S. Senate has long been nicknamed the Cave of Winds. Typically, its denizens are all talk, no action.
In 2003, I opposed the Medicare prescription drug bill, in large part because I expected that - like all other government entitlement programs - it would end up costing far more than initially projected. I was wrong.
I happened to be doing a 20-hour road trip in a rented car when Apple announced CarPlay, a system that will soon allow motorists to text, check email and be entertained via their mobile devices, while roaring down the highway.
CPAC-the political convention that is to conservatives what ComicCon is to nerds-did not sort out the Republican field for 2016, but it did reveal something much scarier. Unlike most years when Republicans insist they should fight for ideals they never define, this time conservatives sketched out a frighteningly radical agenda. Taking CPAC speakers at their word, the next Republican generation will make us pine for the comparatively bi-partisan moderation and restraint that characterized the George W. Bush administration.
Is it really a surprise that the governors of all 50 states are pushing back against President Obama's push to cut their National Guard troops?
Janet Murguia, the National Council of La Raza's Chief Executive Officer, recently made an explosive charge against President Barack Obama. Murguia called the president the "Deporter- in-Chief," a reference to what many Hispanic lobbying organizations allege is Obama's record number of deportations.
Mr. Putin's quick takeover of the Crimean peninsula was no surprise to me.
Exclusive Excerpt from: "Comical Sense: A Lone Humorist Takes on a World Gone Nutty!" by Tom PurcellFIRST Step Toward America's Future
Russian President Vladimir Putin has held up his hand, clenched his fist and given "half a peace sign" to the Ukraine, Europe and especially to President Barack Obama. And so the debate has begun:
Has it really been 10 years since I wrote a heartfelt letter to my newborn son, Gideon Lewis Tyree? (See my blog at www.dannytyree.blogspot.com for a collection of Gideon columns.)
Boy oh boy, the President of the United States is such a wimp!
Brian Williams probably isn't a liar. Based on recent revelations, amplifications and clarifications, he appears to be a serial exaggerator.
Ah, the middle of February. We all know what that means: Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue has arrived.
Barack Obama is living in his own dream world.
Just guessing here, but I imagine forecasters at the Weather Channel are embarrassed about having to give winter storms names like "Juno," "Kari" and "Linus." Juno is what they called the almost-big one that hit the Northeast in late January. My radar says marketing gurus, not meteorologists, are behind this nonsense.
The full-court press is on from every organ of enlightened liberal opinion: the Supreme Court must not decide this term's big Obamacare case, King v. Burwell, on the actual legal merits, which are a slam-dunk for the plaintiffs. Instead, supporters of the government want the case decided on the consequences of the Court stopping the flow of illegal subsidies. And they want to ignore the fact that stopping the subsidies will actually free millions of people in opt-out states from the individual and employer mandates. They only want to talk about people who would lose subsidies.