Ralph Northam: Proof That Liberals Excuse Racism If You’re One of Them

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam came under a firestorm of scrutiny last February when a photograph surfaced from his college yearbook page depicting two men dressed in racist costumes. One man wore a KKK robe, the other man wore blackface.

Northam immediately apologized, saying, “I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in the photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now.”

Yet less than 24 hours later, Northam retracted his apology and said he was not either man in the photo. So we are to believe that his admission of guilt the day before was just him misremembering being part of an extremely racist photo.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page from medical school. (Photo: The Washington Post/Getty Images)

In the months since, private law firm McGuireWoods conducted an investigation into whether Northam was in fact in the photo. It determined there was no conclusive way to confirm or deny whether Northam was one of the two men. The firm interviewed more than 52 people. Now, Northam is sticking to his ridiculous story of misremembering.

So, is this investigation the last word for residents of the Commonwealth? Is it time to move on and let the governor serve out the rest of his term in office with no more talk of blackface photos?  

If Northam were a Republican, we know without question what the answer would be. The mainstream media would not stop until Northam packed his bags and left the governor’s mansion. He would be gone.

It doesn’t take a four-month investigation to see through Northam’s deception. One does not admit to a wrong so deplorable as dressing up in blackface or a KKK outfit, only to realize he misremembered. Such behavior is extremely damaging to any politician, and Northam had no earthly reason to admit any wrongdoing unless he was actually guilty.

Ida B. Wells-Barnette, an African-American investigative journalist who uncovered the injustice of lynchings in the early 20th century, said, “The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” So it is in this case.

As Bible-believing Christians, we believe in forgiveness. But forgiveness does not mean letting a man keep his public office if he denies the wrongdoing that he clearly committed. The fact that Northam refused to take responsibility for his actions is reason enough to ask for him to leave.

When the photo was taken, Northam was a 25-year-old medical student. Does he really expect us to believe he cannot remember dressing up in a KKK outfit, or blackface? He really can’t remember if he or a buddy stood smiling in a picture with shoe polish all over his face to demean African-Americans?

Does he remember that his nickname was “Coonman”? Were these actions so run-of-the-mill for Northam that behaving in such a manner was not significant enough to remember?

When Northam finally is able to own up to his actions from 30 years ago, he should also own his actions during the 2017 governor’s race. He had the audacity to label his opponent, Ed Gillespie, a racist, with far thinner evidence than being caught in a photo dressed as a clansman. Northam routinely cast Gillespie a racist because of his opposition to sanctuary cities.

Modern-day “woke” liberals weaponize race when it suits their interests, and ignore actual racism when it cuts against their narrative. The same liberals who would call Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., sellouts are now mum over blackface and KKK photos.

The left is sending a clear message: Be one of us, and we’ll overlook the worst of your sins.

The post Ralph Northam: Proof That Liberals Excuse Racism If You’re One of Them appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Liberals Seeking to Jail Top Trump Administration Officials Face Big Obstacles

Some congressional Democrats want nothing more than to hand Attorney General William Barr and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (among others) a “GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL” card like the ones you find in the game of Monopoly. But calls to lock them up are unjustified and uncalled for.

What would jailing two Cabinet members be based on?

The attorney general’s handling of the report by special counsel Robert Mueller has been in accord with federal law, the federal rules of criminal procedure, and Justice Department regulations.

There is no “cover-up” by President Donald Trump going on, as wrongly claimed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Nor are Cabinet officials engaged in a cover-up.

Congressional leaders have all but 2% of the Mueller report, which was redacted to comply with grand jury secrecy rules and protect material that could threaten national security if disclosed.

And the Justice Department has even agreed to give the House Intelligence Committee highly confidential counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials from the Mueller investigation.

Mnuchin’s refusal to violate the right of a taxpayer (Trump) to the privacy and confidentiality of his tax returns by handing them over to a congressional committee is also based on a credible and legitimate legal claim.

Numerous federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that the oversight and investigative authority of Congress is limited to inquiries that have a legitimate legislative purpose.

There is “no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,” said the Supreme Court in 1957 in Watkins v. U.S., a case involving a subpoena issued to a target of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Mnuchin has told Congress that its demand for the Trump tax returns serves no legislative purpose.

Whether that is a valid claim in this particular case is a question that only the courts can decide, as they have in past instances where the targets of congressional investigations have claimed that Congress has overstepped its constitutional authority.

Some Democratic members of Congress are also angry that the White House refuses to allow the president’s former White House counsel, Don McGahn, to testify about the Mueller report. Reps. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, and Diana DeGette, Colo., claim that this is grounds for impeaching the president.

But as pointed out in a May 20, 2019, memorandum by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, under the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution, Congress has no authority to “compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

Janet Reno, who served as attorney general during the Clinton administration, said in 1999 that “subjecting a senior presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress,” something everyone acknowledges that Congress has no authority to do.

Congress can’t demand the president’s testimony “in a congressional committee room” any more “than the President may command Members of Congress to appear at the White House,” said former Assistant Attorney General Ted Olson in 1982 in a similar Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

It has long been recognized that a president can assert executive privilege to protect his advisers from congressional demands for testimony, information, and documents.

The “President and his advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee,” said another Justice Department opinion in 1977, during the Jimmy Carter presidency. This opinion was reaffirmed by the Obama Justice Department in 2014.

Based on this privilege doctrine, the Obama administration refused to allow David Simas, an assistant to the president and director of the Office of Political Strategy Outreach in the White House, to testify in 2014.

No Democrats called for President Barack Obama’s impeachment for that action. In fact, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.,—who today is the chair of the House Oversight Committee—criticized the subpoena, claiming that Republicans had not set forth an adequate justification for issuing it.

“We do not simply haul in one of the president’s top advisers at will,” Cummings said in 2014.

Yet Cummings has now subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm for financial records—a subpoena that the president’s lawyers are fighting in court, so far unsuccessfully. Two separate federal judges have refused to block the subpoenas.

So what happens if the House of Representatives votes to hold an executive branch official in contempt for refusing to respond to a subpoena?

Under federal law (2 U.S.C. §194), the speaker of the House can certify the matter to the “appropriate United States Attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” An individual can be punished by a criminal fine of up to $1,000 and spend up to a year in jail.

Of course, obtaining a criminal conviction for such a violation requires the cooperation of the Justice Department. And the Justice Department says that the principle of prosecutorial discretion applies.

In other words, U.S. attorneys have the power to decide whether to present the contempt citation to a grand jury. The Justice Department exercised that discretion when the House held Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder and Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner in contempt.

In both instances, the Justice Department refused to enforce the contempt citations.

There seems little doubt that those in the current Justice Department would refuse to enforce any contempt citation against Barr, Mnuchin, or McGahn.

Alternatively, the House can file a civil action in federal court to enforce the contempt citation and ask a judge to order an individual to comply.

Some members of Congress are saying that the House should bypass the Justice Department and the courts entirely and use its inherent contempt authority to jail Barr and other Trump administration officials.

Pelosi says the House has “a jail in the basement of the Capitol,” which led Barr to jokingly approach Pelosi at an event honoring slain law enforcement officers and ask her if she brought her handcuffs.

The inherent contempt authority that critics are referring to, as a 2017 Congressional Research Service report explains, is the “constitutional authority to detain and imprison” an individual inside the Capitol until he or she complies with congressional demands.

This is considered a “dormant” power because Congress hasn’t exercised it since 1935 and only in a very small number of cases before then.

What is interesting in relation to the tax return and financial records controversy is that the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1881 in Kilbourn v. Thompson that Congress could not enforce a contempt citation against an individual who was arrested and detained by the sergeant-at-arms of the House when its investigation was undertaken to pry into the personal finances of that individual.

The high court said Congress does not “possess the general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen.”

How the courts—and potentially the Supreme Court—will ultimately decide these issues, if that is the avenue the House takes, remains to be seen.

But there would obviously be very negative political consequences if, as Barr joked, the House actually tries to arrest and detain in the U.S. Capitol building the attorney general, the secretary of the Treasury, or McGahn.

There seems little doubt that the public would see that as an extremely partisan, unjustified, and unfair act by the party that controls the House.

The question is, will House Democrats realize that?

This article originally appeared on Fox News.

The post Liberals Seeking to Jail Top Trump Administration Officials Face Big Obstacles appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Electoral College Opponents Attempt to Have It Both Ways

Electoral College foes have been trying to get their way in Nevada
for a decade. Have they finally succeeded?

Nevada’s state Senate approved National Popular Vote legislation on Tuesday. The measure is now awaiting approval from Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat.

The governor’s signature will add Nevada to a growing movement to
ditch the Electoral College. Worse, Maine
and Oregon
could be close behind: National Popular Vote’s plan has already been approved
by both states’ senates.

After years of stagnating, National Popular Vote has obtained
support from four states in just one short year—or five states, if you count
Nevada.

If Hillary Clinton had won the Electoral College in 2016, would this be happening? So far, National Popular Vote has been approved by blue states—and only blue states. Many Democratic state senators seem driven by Clinton’s loss: Democrats couldn’t win the Electoral College. Now the system must go.

Straightforward change has proven difficult, so they resort to dishonest tricks: In Minnesota, National Popular Vote’s compact was hidden in an elections omnibus bill. That didn’t work, so it was hidden, again, in an appropriations bill.

In many states, committee hearings are scheduled at the last minute, making it difficult for Electoral College defenders to testify. In Maine, National Popular Vote supporters resurrected a bill, despite the “ought not to pass” vote it earned in a legislative committee. Other state legislators and journalists have been invited to junkets in Hawaii, Aruba, or Key West, Florida.

Somehow, Electoral College defenders are never invited to these “educational” sessions. In fact, the fight over America’s presidential election process is beginning to more closely resemble kindergartners bickering on a playground—and the process has about as much integrity.

“That’s not faaaaiiir! I don’t like those rules. I’m better than
you. I’m taking my ball and going home.”

Even the structure of the National Popular Vote legislation is
dishonest.

The Constitution provides that America’s state-by-state presidential election system cannot be changed without the consent of three-quarters of the states (38).

Nevertheless, National Popular Vote seeks an end run around this process. It wants states to sign a simple interstate compact instead.

By the terms of that agreement, states agree to give their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome within a state’s borders. The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electors (enough to win the presidency) have signed on.

To date, 14 states plus the District of Columbia have agreed to the compact’s terms. Taken together, these states hold 189 electors. Nevada adds six more, bringing the total to 195—just 75 electors short of 270. If Maine (four electors) and Oregon (seven electors) join the cause in the next few weeks, National Popular Vote will be only 64 electors short of its goal.

National Popular Vote’s compact would radically change the
presidential election system, even as it pretends to leave America’s current
state-based Electoral College untouched.

National Popular Vote must be laughing all the way to the bank. It relies on the state-based aspects of the system when convenient, but then switches to reliance on a national tally when that’s convenient.

Consider what is happening on another front: California legislators are working to prevent President Donald Trump from appearing on their state ballot in 2020.

Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, how could he possibly win the national popular vote when he will be unable to win even a single vote from the largest state in the Union? With the National Popular Vote Compact in effect, the election will be over before it begins.

California is entitled to omit candidates from its own ballot in
America’s state-by-state election process. Indeed, many presidential candidates
have been omitted from state ballots in the past, including Abraham Lincoln,
Harry S. Truman, and Grover Cleveland. But it’s dishonest, at best, to seize
the rights of state sovereignty for one purpose but then to pretend that a
national tally can work for another.

Don’t worry. Red states such as Texas are likely to omit the
Democratic candidate from their own ballots in self-defense.

And so the race to the bottom begins.

Everything I need to know, I learned in kindergarten. One important rule? You don’t change the rules of the game just because you lost. Instead, you work on your weaknesses, improving so you can win next time.

The post Electoral College Opponents Attempt to Have It Both Ways appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

FNC Panel: Media Have Embraced Pelosi, Hoping She Has ‘The Magical Combination for the Rubik’s Cube That Will be the President’s Undoing’

On Friday’s edition of The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld reacted to the media’s embrace of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she has gone toe-to-toe with President Trump: "it is another lesson for American viewers about the media and…the direction the media takes," asking "who do they mimic?

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Gutfeld Torches Media and Democrats as ‘Incestuous’ and ‘Interchangeable’

On Friday’s edition of The Five, the panel weighed in on the feud between President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as the media’s reaction to it.  After playing clips of media figures exulting about how Pelosi got under the President’s skin, co-host Greg Gutfeld described how the montage showed that "the media and the Democrats are almost…they’re incestuous, they’re interchangeable," adding "you don’t know which one’s on the leash and which one’s pulling the pet." Co-host Jesse Watters cited the media’s embrace of the p

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Bozell & Graham Column: Jeff Daniels and the Boundless Arrogance of the Left

Actor Jeff Daniels is lecturing the racist pro-Trump "mob" is devaluing decency and honesty. It’s a little rich when the Hollywood Left itself as the guardian of decency and respect and honesty. They all lined up with Bill Clinton in 1998, and nobody in their company rewrote a literary classic to lecture him on ethics, honesty, and decency.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Clooneys Pay Price for Rabid Anti-Gun Stance as ISIS Begins Posing Threat to Their Family

If you’re a celebrity and your life is threatened by any major terrorist organization, what’s the safest way to protect yourself? Guns, of course — whether it be a gun on your person or in the hands of trained security guards.

Whose lives are possibly being threatened by a terrorist organization? Those of actor George Clooney and his wife Amal, unfortunately. Amal is an attorney specializing in international law and human rights who has brought a court case against the Islamic State in a French court. That’s bound to attract attention from the group, and it’s making George rightfully nervous.

Which celebrities have been conspicuously against guns? George and Amal Clooney, of course, who were major supporters of the March for Our Lives; Amal has blamed mass shootings in America on “guns, and how widely and easily available they are.”

So, let’s start with the basics. According to the U.K. Daily Mail, George Clooney told a podcast that his family was in danger due to the case Amal was bringing on behalf of Nadia Murad, who claims Islamic State group terrorists captured her back in 2014.

The Yazidi woman says that the group trafficked her as a sex slave. If the case succeeds, those who were responsible could face justice in an international court.

TRENDING: Trump Tells Reporters Just How Far His Declassification Goes: ‘We Are Exposing Everything’

No matter what you think of the Clooneys, this is a pretty noble cause, I think anyone would admit. However, it comes with a certain amount of danger.

“My wife is taking the first case against ISIS to court. We have plenty of issues,” Clooney said on the podcast. “Real, proper, security issues that we have to deal with on a fairly daily basis.

“We don’t want our kids to be targets, so we have to pay attention to that. But we also live our lives, we don’t hide in corners.”

And, as Clooney noted, it’s difficult to hide when you’re one of the most recognizable couples on the planet.

Do you believe in the constitutional right to self-defense?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“My wife and I wanted to walk with our kids in Central Park and that’s just not possible,” he said. “We’ve tried. We walk out the door and everyone surrounds us. There’s a bounty on my kids heads for a photo.”

So, how do you manage that kind of risk? Protection. But Clooney and his wife have both come out with the one constitutionally protected form of protection there is, the firearm. Last year, Clooney and his wife gave a half-million dollars to the March for Our Lives, the series of pro-gun control protests after the Parkland shooting.

“Our family will be there on March 24 to stand side by side with this incredible generation of young people from all over the country, and in the name of our children Ella and Alexander, we’re donating 500,000 dollars to help pay for this groundbreaking event. Our children’s lives depend on it,” a statement from Clooney read, according to Reuters.

While Clooney declined to be interviewed by Parkland students for the event, he went on to co-sign the aims of young activists in a letter published in The U.K. Guardian.

“The fact that no adults will speak on the stage in D.C. is a powerful message to the world that if we can’t do something about gun violence, then you will. The issue is going to be this, anyone you ask would feel proud to be interviewed by you, but it’s so much more effective if it’s young people,” he wrote.

RELATED: Smug Amal Clooney Now Blaming Trump for Violence Against Journalists in Other Countries

“Amal and I stand behind you, in support of you, in gratitude to you,” he said. “You make me proud of my country again.”

The two attended the march, however, and Amal Clooney made it clear to Vogue that she believed guns were to blame for violence in America.

“I’ve seen lots of commentary where people have tried to say, ‘This isn’t about having too many guns or allowing semiautomatic and automatic weapons to be purchased too easily — surely this is about mental health, or about violence and movies,’” she said. “The fact is, there are violent movies all over the world, and there are mental-health issues in other countries. But this doesn’t happen in other developed countries. The difference is guns, and how widely and easily available they are.”

Statistics don’t bear this out, but whatever. The point is that the couple is in grave danger, the kind of danger where self-defense would be highly useful.

Of course, the Clooneys could be availing themselves of protection of the armed sort, which would be better for them but profoundly hypocritical. They wouldn’t be the only ones who believe in protection for me, but not for thee — as if your safety didn’t matter.

One would hope that this threat would shake Clooney out of his anti-gun stance. Then again, the ability of Hollywood stars to handle cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Former CNN Pro-Trump Contributors Unload: They ‘Openly Despise Conservatives’

Wade Heath of Mediaite got an exclusive blast of anger from a set of former pro-Trump contributors at CNN. They have been the "fig leaf" of balance on an overwhelmingly anti-Trump lineup of anchors, correspondents, and pundits. These men say the same thing conservatives viewers do: CNN thinks the only good Republicans is a Never Trumper. 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Jon Voight Declares Donald Trump ‘Greatest President Since Abraham Lincoln’

Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight declared President Donald Trump the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln, insisting that his “every” political move has been correct.

In the first of two videos entitled “To my fellow Americans,” the Ray Donovan star praised Trump’s efforts to combat the political left and their “absurd words of the destruction.”

“People of the Republican party, I know you will agree with me when I say that our president has our upmost respect and love. This job is not easy, for he is battling the left, and their absurd words of destructions,” the veteran actor began. “I’ve said this once and I’ll say it again, that our nation has been built on the solid ground from our forefathers. And there is a moral code of duty that has been passed on from President Lincoln.”

In the second part, Jon Voight goes on to argue that America is “witnessing triumph” despite claims from the political left that it is in crisis.

“The country is stronger, safer, and with more jobs, because our president his every move correct,” Voight says. “Don’t be fooled by the political left, because we are the people of this nation that is witnessing triumph. So let us stand with our president, let us stand up for this truth that President Trump is the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. God bless America, and may God continue to guide this nation. Much love.”

Last month, the 80-year-old star, who is also the father of actress and activist Angelina Jolie, sent a similar message of support to Fox News host Laura Ingraham against attempts by left-wing activists to pressure advertisers into boycotting her show The Ingraham Angle. 

“You know the truth is very important–right now most especially,” the Ali star said. “And those who believe in the truth are to be cherished. People like Laura Ingraham. They’re wonderful people who we need very much at this time, when our president is being attacked with lies and slanders from the media.”

“So I have a message for Laura, I want to send her my love, and I want to thank her for all that she does. God Bless Laura,” Voight said.

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Heritage’s ‘Blueprint for Balance’ Has Real Fixes For Our Spending Crisis

Among the many things that frustrate Americans about Washington,
D.C., is the unwillingness–not inability, but unwillingness–to solve problems.

One of many examples is the U.S. national debt, now more
than $22 trillion and counting.

As Heritage Foundation President Kay Coles James has
written, “The federal budget is at the core of our political system.
Everything the federal government does, from taxing, to regulating, to
providing services, to protecting our very freedoms, it does through the
federal budget.”

Liberals might dismiss the foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for Fiscal 2020,” but they shouldn’t. The document is based on verifiable facts. If implemented, Heritage claims, it would save trillions of dollars compared to projections by the Congressional Budget Office and produce a budget surplus by 2025.

Everyone knows “entitlements” are the main drivers
of debt and that politicians don’t want to reform them because they fear
attacks by the media and by their political opponents.

The “Blueprint” summarizes the problem:

Entitlement programs in the United States have expanded more than tenfold since their inception, but workers are nowhere near 10 times better off as a result … they often make them worse off, depriving them of autonomy, personal choice, and higher incomes and saddling them with a mountain of debt. Medicare and Social Security carry $70 trillion worth of unfunded obligations over the next 75 years–the equivalent of a $445,000 credit card bill placed on every U.S. worker.

Ponder that for a moment as you look at your credit card
statement.

Most people appear ignorant that the amount they pay into
Social Security and Medicare does not come close to covering the programs’
actual costs.

“According to the Urban Institute,” says the
Blueprint, “the average worker retiring in 2020 will have paid $135,000 in
Social Security taxes and will receive $193,000 in Social Security benefits.
The gap for Medicare is even larger; the average retiree in 2020 will have paid
$36,000 in Medicare taxes and will receive $229,000 in Medicare benefits
(excluding premiums paid by the retiree). This means that the average retiree
in 2020 will receive about 2.5 times as much in benefits as he or she paid into
the systems.”

There’s much more and members of Congress should read it,
along with the proposed fixes, which are as follows:

— Increase Social Security’s retirement age and index it to
life expectancy so that Social Security’s benefits would automatically adjust
to reflect individuals’ longer life spans and additional work capacity. This
would save $32 billion over 10 years and reduce Social Security’s 75-year shortfall
by 29 percent.

— Shift toward a flat antipoverty benefit so that the
program could better align its resources with individuals’ needs and help to
prevent more elderly people from living in poverty. This would save $645
billion over 10 years and reduce Social Security’s 75-year shortfall by 84
percent.

— Modernize the program’s spousal benefit to account for
the fact that most women earn Social Security benefits based on their own work
history. This would save $2 billion over 10 years and reduce Social Security’s
75-year shortfall by 3 percent.

— Use the chained consumer price index for Social
Security’s benefit calculations to provide a better adjustment for inflation.
This would save $12 billion over 10 years and reduce Social Security’s 75-year
shortfall by 11 percent.

— Reduce the payroll tax to give workers more choice in
deciding how to spend or save their earnings.

Reducing the debt and reforming entitlements is simple, but
not if you are a member of Congress. Too many prefer the issue to a solution,
because their primary goal is re-election. Sufficient numbers of voters must
demand reforms if there are to be any.

Unfortunately, too many have become addicted to government.
Their addiction, unless it is broken now, will cost future generations and risk
economic collapse.

(c) 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post Heritage’s ‘Blueprint for Balance’ Has Real Fixes For Our Spending Crisis appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/