Jay Leno, in his amusing Jay Walking adventures, interviews young Americans whose appalling ignorance of history, geography and other areas of basic knowledge has become the subject of great hilarity. Many of them couldn't tell you who was buried in Grant's tomb.
So the dictatorial Attorney General of a dictatorial administration has opined that keeping the homeland secure requires “modifying” the Miranda warning read to criminal suspects (“You have the right to remain silent…”).
Listening to America's liberals, who now prefer to call themselves progressives, one would think that free markets benefit the rich and harm the poor, but little can be further from the truth. First, let's first say what free markets are. Free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, refer to an economic system where there is no government interference except to outlaw and prosecute fraud and coercion. It ought to be apparent that our economy cannot be described as free market because there is extensive government interference. We have what might be called a mixed economy, one with both free market and socialistic attributes. If one is poor or of modest means, where does he fare better: in the freer and more open sector of our economy or in the controlled and highly regulated sector? Let's look at it.
Off the teleprompter for a few seconds while stumping for financial reform recently in Illinois, President Obama had this to say about money, incomes and success: “Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.”
Though President Obama did not actually hurl the “anti-government” epithet in his May 1 Ann Arbor speech, his meaning was unmistakable and the Associated Press was not really wrong in describing it that way. “[Obama] took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today,” said the AP account of the President’s University of Michigan commencement address.