I am still waiting for Linda to write a column on the blatant discrimination in American immigration policy that allows an incredibly disproportionate number of Hispanics into the U.S. based solely on geographical proximity, when the vast majority of the world's poor are not Hispanic.

By 1993, when President Bill Clinton was readying his major health care overhaul bill, the Heritage approach — subsidizing and facilitating the purchase of private health plans, while using the individual mandate to maximize participation — had jelled as the natural Republican alternative. Then-Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) formally proposed it in a bill that attracted 19 other Republican co-sponsors; the bill foundered once Clinton's effort unraveled. But the idea of the mandate gained currency in the ensuing years as Democrats chastened by the failure of the Clinton plan began considering new solutions more likely to attract bipartisan support. ... Indeed, during the 2008 Democratic primary race, candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Obama all proposed health care overhaul plans that shared some features of the Massachusetts system. But while Clinton and Edwards included an individual mandate, Obama did not (although he did propose requiring parents to get coverage for their children). Excerpts from: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120327/news/703279952/ Yep, that's right. The individual mandate was originally a conservative Republican idea. (I suggest reading the entire article.) So we are now seeing the Heritage Foundation was spot on when they opposed their own idea based on the fact it could not be adequately funded. So do you think Heritage might be wrong here? In the long run, likely not.

This morning on NPR they had a piece about reality shows stereotyping whites as dumb, hillbilly redneck types. These shows are very popular (beyond my explanation). However, when a reality show comes out they portrays any minority in a negative stereotype, activists quickly have it shut down. Yes, so why are white's OK with negative stereotypes?

People want smaller government — and they think Mitt Romney does too The debate isn’t even close. Nearly six in 10 registered voters pick a “smaller government with fewer services” while just over a third want a “larger government with more services.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/27/people-want-smaller-government-and-they-think-mitt-romney-does-too/ And according to a Gallup poll: The majority want to make second and third term abortions illegal, 64% and 80% respectively. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx And from an Intelligence Squared debate: “And the truth of the matter is that that's not just at the gubernatorial level. The Republicans elected over 700 state legislators in 2010. They controlled both Houses of 24 legislatures to only 13 for the Democrats.” … “…27 percent of the electorate is self-identified evangelical Christian, 10 percent are frequently mass-attending, pro-life, pro-family Catholics. They voted 75 to 25 percent for Mitt Romney. That constituency is larger than the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, and the Union vote combined.” http://intelligencesquaredus.org/images/debates/past/transcripts/041713%20gop.pdf

State Governments Viewed Favorably as Federal Rating Hits New Low Even as public views of the federal government in Washington have fallen to another new low, the public continues to see their state and local governments in a favorable light. Overall, 63% say they have a favorable opinion of their local government, virtually unchanged over recent years. And 57% express a favorable view of their state government – a five-point uptick from last year. By contrast, just 28% rate the federal government in Washington favorably. That is down five points from a year ago and the lowest percentage ever in a Pew Research Center survey. The percentage of Democrats expressing a favorable opinion of the federal government has declined 10 points in the past year, from 51% to 41%. For the first time since Barack Obama became president, more Democrats say they have an unfavorable view of the federal government in Washington than a favorable view (51% unfavorable vs. 41% favorable). Favorable opinions of the federal government among Republicans, already quite low in 2012 (20% favorable), have fallen even further, to 13% currently. http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/15/state-govermnents-viewed-favorably-as-federal-rating-hits-new-low/1/

Fournier: "...second-guessing decisions made in the fog of war." Some people can't see the forest for the trees. If that is in fact what happened, which it's clear now it wasn't, and if Obama were as smart as his supporters claim, he would have simply came out and said something to that affect, "decisions made in the fog of war." The press would have given kudos for being humble and honest. Bill Clinton, also claimed to be one of the smartest presidents we ever had, could have done the same thing with the Lewinski debacle. Just come out and said, ""I made a mistake and hurt Ms. Lewinski and my family. It's a personal matter we will deal with it in private. I have no further comment." The press would have lauded him for being honest and humble, making him out to be some kind of saint for confessing while reducing the original transgression to the equivalent of forgetting to put out the garbage, as many of his followers do to this day. The press would have done the same for Obama. But then, he's not as smart as many think.

This morning on Bloomberg, the pundits were saying they really couldn't build adequate models for prediction for the U.S. economy because "quantitative easing" (printing money) on the scale it's being done today has never been seen in this country. Every time Obama prints money, the money in your wallet, bank account, savings and investments are worth less. How can one plan for the future?

Market is at an all time high. What happened to buy low, sell high?

You best trust someone only to the degree they have as much to lose as you do. If the market crashes and you lose 40% of your investments (common in 2008), what exactly does that hurt your broker. None. The guy will feed you lines about being in for "the long run" and "you'll get your money back". And people who don't understand investing will believe the fool.

It's just a shame Sowell is too smart to run for President.

The Democrats couldn't put up any one to beat Sanford? That is a reflection on the quality of the Democrat opponent.