I have a major problem with this Romney endorsement. Ann is acting like the Bruce to William Wallace. She's deserted conservative principles in favor of being able to climb into bed with the GOP establishment. I guess maybe a book contract is more important to her than principles. I could see doing it when approaching the convention and we need to solidify behind a candidate, but her endorsement looks more to me like a personal vendetta against Newt and an ego trip than it does like a well-considered endorsement. No more Coulter books for me.

It is so easy for a man to lose his integrity. He can never gain it back. What is worse is that this one man's departure from the Bachmann campaign has not only hurt himself. It hurts both the Bachman and the Paul campaign. I wonder if it will end up showing how extreme Paul is. He campaigns on outspoken integrity, but if the allegations here are true, when combined with the recently publicized Ron Paul newsletters, it would be hard for anyone who is not an extremist to be able to continue to support him. Here's to hoping this comes true.

Interesting article. The thing I find decidedly lacking in this and almost all other articles regarding the "top 1%" is that they, generally speaking, are not truly the wealthiest people. Those people are the ones who have their fortunes invested and the income is hidden until they choose to sell it off. The income comes in the increase of value of what they have invested in. "Taxing the rich" as defined by the Democrats is taxing those who declare their income and are on top. As Michael Tanner points out, they tend to be "first generation wealth". So the Democratic concept of taxing the rich has the net result of taxing those who are not truly wealthy, but are upwardly mobile. It inhibits non-wealthy people from being able to become wealt