I would have shot him at 39 seconds

Via LH  

A better man than I.

'I don't wanna shoot you man' Ohio cop refuses to open fire on murder suspect begging to be shot: 'I Wanted to Be Absolutely Sure', New Richmond Police Officer Jesse Kidder Refuses to shoot man asking to be shot.

A rookie Ohio cop is being praised for "great restraint and maturity" after he held off using deadly force against a double murder suspect who charged at him, his police chief said.

In a confrontation Thursday with a man accused of killing his fiancee and his best friend, New Richmond Police Officer Jesse Kidder is heard on his body-camera video yelling, "No man, I'm not going to do it!" and ordering the suspect to get down on the ground.

The suspect rushes toward him shouting, "Shoot me, shoot me!"

"Back up!" screams Kidder, holding his gun out. The man finally crumples to the ground just feet away from the officer in the video taken in the Cincinnati suburb of Elsmere, Kentucky.

Investigators say Michael Wilcox killed his fiancee in their Brown County, Ohio, home, then killed his best friend in Elsmere, reported NBC affiliate WLWT in Cincinnati, which first obtained the body-camera video. A Brown County investigator spotted Wilcox Thursday night at about 8 p.m. and attempted to stop him, but Wilcox claimed he had a gun and drove away, officials said.

He was then followed by New Richmond police on a car chase through multiple counties on the Ohio-Kentucky border before Kidder caught Wilcox and arrested him.

The nonviolent confrontation caught on video has been highlighted as a positive example of police officer encounters nationwide. Their actions have been blemished by shootings of unarmed men, including a deadly officer shooting earlier this month in South Carolina.

Officers' use of force has been the subject of protests since last August, when white police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Wilson was not wearing a body camera, which raised questions about what exactly led him to shoot and whether all police officers should be outfitted with the tiny video recorders.

In the Kentucky case, the suspect was believed to be armed and is heard threatening the officer on the video.

"For him to make the judgment call that he did shows great restraint and maturity," New Richmond Police Chief Randy Harvey told WLWT about Kidder, who's been on the force for a year. "This video footage, it eliminated all doubt that this officer would have been justified if in fact it came to a shooting."

Kidder, who did two tours of duty in Iraq as a Marine and is a Purple Heart recipient, told WLWT that a relative had given him a body camera to use at work after the Ferguson shooting.

During the confrontation Thursday, 911 dispatchers told Kidder that Wilcox could have a gun under his seat and may be threatening suicide-by-cop, according to WLWT. Kidder said since he knew backup was coming shortly, he held off shooting Wilcox.

"I was trying to open a dialogue with him. 'I don't want to shoot you, get on the ground,' but he wasn't having it. He kept repeating, 'Shoot me.' At one point, he said 'Shoot me or I'll shoot you,'" Kidder told WLWT.
The situation escalated: Wilcox put his hand in his pocket and again charged at Kidder — who is seen on the video tripping and falling backwards.

"He got towards my face right as I lost balance," Kidder told WLWT. "I'm thinking at this point that if he goes into attack me, that I'll have to use deadly force to defend myself."

But he waited.

"Law enforcement officers all across the nation have to deal with split-second decisions that mean life or death. I wanted to be absolutely sure before I used deadly force," he said.

Backup arrived just in time, and Wilcox surrendered.

Harvey said he hopes to obtain funding to get body cameras for the rest of the police force.

Dwayne Wenninger, sheriff in Brown County, said in a statement that Wilcox confessed to and has been charged with murder for the death of his fiancee, Courtney Fowler, and is also under suspicion for the friend's death. Fowler died of gunshot wounds, the statement said.

On Social Justice

Comment by JWMJR on French Experiment with Equality.

As always our leftist friends fail to understand the differences between the success of the American Revolution and the failure of the French Revolution and how it pertains to the current (dis)order of things. It comes down to the fundamental fact that in order for the seeds of individual liberty to grow into a healthy tree of sovereign self-government it requires the fertile soil of personal responsibility.

The American Revolution and the system of government that grew out of it was successful because we already had a long history of self-government that evolved from the conditions of the 17th and 18th centuries wherein the distance to Europe was great and communications were slow. These conditions necessitated the creation of systems of self-government. They flourished and grew in spite of the economic restrictions placed upon the colonies that we solely in place for the advantage of the financial and royal elites of Britain. When the restrictions became more onerous and disadvantageous to the colonists the seeds of rebellion began to grow. Our Revolution, like all revolutions, grew more out of economic conditions than social ones. The Founders recognized that our economic success grew from individual liberty not some vague notion of social equality.

By contrast the French Revolution was a failure, not because of any lack of inspiration created by the American success, but because it quickly devolved into these vague notions of social equality rather than individual liberty and personal responsibility. Quite simply, what the French lacked was any history of self-government. So among the seeds of the tree of liberty were sown the the weeds of egalitarianism. Unfortunately these weeds flourished on the wonton bloodlust of the Jacobins. They produced the pretty but inedible flowers of emotionally appealing rhetoric but not the delicious fruits of a sustainable political economy. In the end, after all the chaos and carnage all they were left with was another tyrant who mouthed the words of liberty and made of himself an Emperor and an empire that resulted in nearly two decades of war and uncounted deaths. Then after Napoleon was gone, and the continent had been bleed of money and lives, the very same institutions and families that the revolution had sought to over throw were back in power. The great hopes of Goethe, Schiller, Von Humboldt and Beethoven for a German Constitutional Republic based on the American model were crushed at the Congress of Vienna and Russia was the dominant power on the European Continent.

Egalitarianism, such is the breeding ground of tyranny and the demagogue, be they 18th century Jacobins, 20th century fascists or our 21st century advocates of “social justice” and jihadists. 

Tom Cotton Heated Over Gitmo: Only Problem There is Too Many Empty Beds, Terrorists Can Rot In Hell

Via Carl

French Experiment with Equality

 

The French Revolution’s promise of equality ended with anarchy and Bonaparte in France; the lofty experiment of equality in St. Domingo terminated not in freedom, but military despotism after a fearful destruction of human life. After all the horrors of their bloody revolution, the blacks in Haiti only effected a change of masters. “The white man had disappeared, and the black man , one of their own race and color, had assumed his pace and his authority.”
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com

French Experiment with Equality

“[We shall quote] from the language of Dr. [W.E.] Channing, the scholar-like and the eloquent, though visionary, advocate of British [slave] emancipation. Even as early as 1842, in an address delivered on the anniversary of that event, he burst into the following strain of impassioned eulogy: “Emancipation works well, far better than could have been anticipated . . . Freedom, simple freedom, is in my estimation just, far prized above all price.”

In these high-sounding praises, which hold up personal freedom as “our proper good,” as “our end,” it is assumed that man was made for liberty, and not liberty for man. It is, indeed, one of the fundamental errors of the abolitionist to regard personal freedom as a great substantive good, or as in itself a blessing, and not merely as a relative good.

It may be, and indeed often it is, an unspeakable benefit, but then it is so only as a means to an end. The end of our existence, the proper good, is the improvement of our intellectual and moral powers, the perfection of our rational and immortal natures.

When freedom subserves this end, it is a good; when it defeats this end, it is an evil. Hence there may be a world of evil as well as a world of good in “this one word.”

The wise man adapts the means to the end. It were the very height of folly to sacrifice the end to the means. No man gives personal freedom to his child because he deems it always and in all cases a good. His heart teaches him a better doctrine when the highest good of his child is concerned. Should we not be permitted then, to have something of the same feeling in regard to those who Providence has placed under our care, especially since . . . they stand in utmost need of guidance and direction?

Few of the abolitionists are disposed to offer any substitute for our method. They are satisfied merely to pull down and destroy, without the least thought or care in regard to consequences.

But what is meant by the freedom of the emancipated slaves, on which so many exalted eulogies have been pronounced? Its first element, it is plain, is a freedom from labor – freedom from the very first law of nature. In one word, its sum and substance is a power on the part of the freed black to act pretty much as he pleases. Now . . . would it not be well to see how he would be pleased to act?

This kind of freedom, it should be remembered, was born in France and cradled in the revolution. May it never be forgotten that the “Friends of the Blacks” at Boston had their exact prototypes in “les Amis des Noirs” of Paris. Of this last society Robespierre was the ruling spirit, and Brissot the orator. By the dark machinations of the one, and the fiery eloquence of the other, the French people . . . were induced, in 1791, to proclaim the principle of equality to and for the free blacks of St. Domingo. This beautiful island . . . thus became the first of the West Indies in which the dreadful experiment of a forced equality was tried.

The authors of that experiment were solemnly warned of the horrors into which it would inevitably plunge both the whites and the blacks of the island. Yet firm and unmovable as death, Robespierre sternly replied, then “Perish the colonies rather than sacrifice one iota of our principles.”

The atrocities of this awful massacre have had . . . no parallel in the annals of human crime. “The Negroes,” says Alison, “marched with spiked infants on their spears instead of colors; they sawed asunder the male prisoners, and violated the females on the dead bodies of their husbands.” The work of death, thus completed with such outbursts of unutterable brutality, constituted and closed the first act in the grand drama of Haytian freedom.

But equality was not yet established. Equality had been proclaimed, and anarchy produced. In this frightful chaos, the ambitious mulattoes, whose insatiable desire for equality had first disturbed the peace of the island, perished miserably beneath the vengeance of the very slaves whom they had roused from subjection and elevated into irresistible power. Thus ended the second act of the horrible drama.”

(An Essay on Liberty and Slavery, Albert Taylor Bledsoe, J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1856, pp. 269-278; available from www.confederatereprint.com)

Good Kill | official trailer

Via panzerbar

The STEM Scam. Corruption, Negligence, or just Stupidity?

 

 The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

National Data: STEM Wages’ Shocking Stagnation Destroys Case For Increased Immigration.

Mike Scruggs

Were you thinking that a degree in science, technology, engineering, or math would be a good opportunity for you, your children, or your grand children to get a good paying job?

Not as long U.S. technology firms can import great numbers of STEM workers from abroad at cheaper wages. 

There is no STEM worker shortage,  There are more than enough American STEM graduates to fill the jobs. Too many in fact. Many STEM graduates wind up waiting tables, washing cars, working as a retail clerk, or general clerical jobs that waste their education and talents and are low paid.

U.S. and International technology firms continually lobby Congress for more
foreign STEM workers, flooding the market with STEM workers who will do the jobs for about 30 percent less. The best and the brightest? That is a big part of the Tech companies' sales pitch, but it applies to very few people. Staple Green Cards on the diplomas of foreign student STEM graduates of U.S. colleges?  Given the existing surplus of American STEM graduates, stapling a Green Card to a foreign student's diploma automatically knocks an American STEM graduate out of a job.

Most voters know little about our immigration system, except that our borders are not secure and our laws are not enforced, and it is politically incorrect to protest.    In fact, most political candidates, even for President, have not done their homework on immigration issues. Most members of Congress don't do their homework on immigration issues.  They just vote in favor of whatever the technology corporations' lobbyists say they need or will make the economy grow. Technology corporations are also generous donors to political campaigns. But does the economy grow when lower paid foreign workers result in a net displacement of jobs or job opportunities for Americans? No, it actually weakens the economy, even more so, if the American workers resort to unemployment or welfare benefits.

I have been a political fund raiser, so I know well how hard it is for most candidates to raise money. That makes them especially vulnerable to various lobby groups who are looking out for corporate interests, which frequently do not coincide with the interests of American workers and taxpayers, nor the common good of the American people

Our immigration system is not broken; it is corrupt. Corrupt government leads to corrupt businesses and a corrupt society. Immigration is like wine or chocolate. It is beneficial in moderation but disastrous when overindulged. We are positively corrupt in our overindulgence.

The Schumer-Rubio Senate Amnesty bill of 2013 would have given amnesty to about 11 million unlawful immigrants, but the reason it was popular with high tech corporate executives was that it would have allowed an immigration surge of 20 to 30 million more legal immigrants into the United States over the next 10 years. Amnesty would be terrible for U..S. workers and taxpayers, but the immigration surge would multiply severe damage  to American workers. I would call this unconscionable corruption, but many of our Congress members don't look past the the next election in their economic "analysis." 

Immigration has become such a sacred cow that it is being allowed to destroy the country and the hopes of all Americans for a prosperous economy, just government, responsible freedom, reverenced Constitutional liberties, public safety, and national security. Immigration has been a road to prosperity at times, but too much un-vetted immigration is a road to national disintegration and destruction. We are now on the latter road, driven by corruption, poor judgment, foolish ideologies, and totalitarian lusts for power and levels of political correctness. We may not have much time left to change course.

We need to pay more attention to integrity, intelligence, wisdom, courage, and a high sense of duty, honor, and patriotism  in electing our political leaders. They should be able and willing to do their homework on issues and unshakable in their determination to do the right thing for the common good. They should be good at understanding people and issues, but electing leaders based merely on secondary charm and crowd-pleasing  abilities has brought us to the rim of disaster.

                                    Read this Vdare com article  by a U.S. economist.

Hiding Behind the BAR: Why Attorneys are not lawyers

Via Brian

In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another? What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney?" This credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State Bar License number. As we are about to show you, an attorney  not a lawyer yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.

In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it's necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S. courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning. It's important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.

The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word "bar" is of British origin:

                                                         More @ Angel Fire

Seductive Promises of Equality

 

The late Southern conservative M.E. Bradford understood that the centrality of freedom was the core of Southerners’ insistence on their right to govern their private and local affairs in their own way, and the same for citizens of all other States. He held that “the only equality Americans can universally approve is accidental, a corollary of liberty or simple equality before the law with limited scope.” Bradford made his readers aware of Lenin’s belief that the only way to make men equal is to treat them unequally.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com

Seductive Promises of Equality

“The wrath [Bradford] directed against Lincoln, like the wrath he directed against Julia Ward Howe, the authors of the Reconstruction amendments, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and all those who had imposed the teleological will of an instrumental government and judiciary upon an unsuspecting nation, had little to do with personal animosity.

It stemmed from his indignation against people he viewed as so intellectually blind as to be incapable of understanding the enormity they had wrought or so morally blind as not to care, provided only that they accomplished their immediate ends. Such attitudes, for Bradford, embodied the reverse – indeed the repudiation – of the obligations of stewardship and amounted to the despoiling of the children as well as the desecration of the fathers.

Bradford refused to apologize for the severity of his message – that the Northern victory had extracted a terrible cost from the country and its culture. Rejecting the cult of equality as the opiate of the intellectuals, Bradford rejected the fashionable identification of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, referring to “the Great Divide of the War Between the States.”

He explained: “it has been more and more the habit of our historians, jurists, and political scientists to read the Continental Enlightenment, and the Age of Revolution that was its political consequence, back into the beginnings of our national beginnings by way of an anachronistic gloss upon the Declaration of Independence.”

He constantly reminds his readers that the Constitution, not the Declaration, embodies the country’s law, which it exists to articulate and protect. Thus, he argues in an uncharacteristically optimistic vein, the “Constitution makes it difficult or even impossible for us to alter our political identity on whim or when momentarily carried away by the adjuration of demagogues.”

By the time Bradford died [in 1993], he had reason to know that the American political identity he cherished was under formidable assault, primarily at the hands of the Supreme Court justices – those supposed custodians and interpreters of the Constitution itself.

Experience and history taught Bradford, as he believed they had taught the Framers, that in politics one must conjoin the “caution of David Hume and the pessimism of Saint Paul,” especially with respect to the seductive promises of demagogues. In the time of the Framers, as in our own, he insisted, caution and pessimism should lead to a deep mistrust of the myths of equality with which demagogues love to seduce the more gullible of the citizenry, and he approvingly quoted Rufus King of Massachusetts, “the unnatural Genius of Equality [is] the arch Enemy of the moral world.”

(M.E. Bradford’s Historical Vision, EF & ED Genovese; A Defender of Southern Conservatism, M.E. Bradford and His Achievements, Clyde N. Wilson, editor, University of Missouri Press, 1999, pp. 79-82)

Northern Opponents of Lincoln’s Jacobins

 

 Marcellus Emery 

Though abolitionists found much of their strength in New England, Democrats in that region sided with the South in its determination of be free of the North. After this editorial of the Bangor Democrat appeared, a pro-Lincoln mob burned the news offices and printing presses. The editorial was re-printed in the New York Evening Day-Book of 18 April 1861.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com

Northern Opponents of Lincoln’s Jacobins

“Throughout the broad land of the fair South, the rising sun is no longer welcomed with the cheerful song of the husbandman wending his way to the toil of his peaceful field, but is greeted with the drum-beat that summons to arms the gathering hosts of war. From Carolina to the Rio Grande all is hasty preparation for a fearful conflict of arms.

There, to-day, are no peaceful, happy and quiet homes, for the invader is on their soil, and the government which was created to protect and defend them, has ruthlessly turned its guns against their altars and firesides.

Gray-headed fathers, stout-hearted husbands, and fair-cheeked youths, are taking a tearful adieu of their wives, their children, their mothers and their sisters, and buckling on their armor, and hastening away to the battle-fields from which many, many may never return to gladden their homes again.

This, reader, is no fanciful picture; it is a stern reality. To-morrow, in thousands of homes, wives, mothers, daughters, and little children will gather in mournful silence around the family board no longer cheered by the presence of their natural guardians and protectors.

Why is all this?

It is because that old Tory party, which under a multitude of names and disguises, first resisted the independence of America, and after its Government had become an established fact, has been unceasing in its efforts to get possession of it, and after having gained possession of it, by hypocritically assuming the garb of freedom, it has undertaken to convert the Government into an instrument of tyranny, and to use all its powers to overturn the very bulwarks of liberty itself – the Sovereignty of the States.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln, a Tory from his birth, is putting forth all the powers of government to crush out the spirit of American liberty. Surrounded by gleaming bayonets at Washington, he sends forth fleets and armies to overawe and subdue the gallant little State which was the first to raise its voice and arm against British oppression.

DEMOCRATS OF MAINE! The loyal sons of the South have gathered around Charleston as your fathers of old gathered about Boston, in defense of the same sacred principles of liberty – principles which you have ever upheld and defended with your vote, your voice and your strong right arm. Your sympathies are with the defenders of the truth and the right. Those who have inaugurated this unholy and unjustifiable war are no friend of yours – no friends of Democratic Liberty. Will you aid them in their work of subjugation and tyranny?

When the Government at Washington calls for volunteers or recruits to carry on their work of subjugation and tyranny under the specious phrases of “enforcing the laws,” “retaking and protecting the public property,” and “collecting the revenue,” let every Democrat fold his arms and bid the minions of Tory despotism [to] do a Tory despot’s work.

Say to them fearlessly and boldly in the language of England’s great Lord, the Earl of Chatham, whose bold words in behalf of the struggling Colonies of America in the dark hours of the revolution, have enshrined his name in the heart of every friend of freedom, and immortalized his fame wherever the name of liberty is known – say in his thrilling language:

“If I were a Southerner, as I am a Northerner, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms – never, never, NEVER!”

(Abraham Lincoln: A Press Portrait, Herbert Mitgang, editor, UGA Press, 1989, pp. 256-257)

Camp Lone Star — The Setup – Get Massey

There were always bits and pieces that pointed toward a rather unpleasant picture; however, they amounted to nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence has always been an insufficient foundation for my articles.

Now, we are going to look at some of that circumstantial evidence. It will include statements from players, though that information has not yet been made public, nor is the government even aware that this information has come to light. One of these two sources was present the night before the arrest (October 19, 2014). The other was present at the shooting incident (August 29, 2014).

We will begin with the team of Massey, Varner, and Foerster, and the relevant events leading up to, and after the shooting incident.

In the early afternoon of August 29, Massey decided to run a patrol, and asked if anyone wanted to go. Both Varner and Foerster agreed to go. Whether Foerster made any phone calls, once he knew that Massey was participating in the patrol, is not known. It is possible that another person in the camp provided that information to an unknown investigator awaiting the opportunity and circumstance under which Massey could be charged with “Felon in Possession”. We will refer to that other person as “S”.

More @ Outpost Of Freedom

Exalting a Piratical and Murderous Fanatic

 

Confederate General Jubal A. Early

John Brown has been described by author Otto Scott (The Secret Six) as a political assassin, one who murders in order to attract attention and who would “incite and terrify as many people as possible.” Brown was a fanatic who used terror to force a new political pattern of his choosing, cared little of the carnage he was instigating, and won praise from Northern journalists who declared him a hero of the people.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com

Exalting a Piratical and Murderous Fanatic

“When the State of Virginia seceded from the Union on the 17th day of April, 1861, most of her citizens, belonging to the United States Navy, resigned their commissions and offered their services to the State of their birth. [I]t was believed by many persons that a large party at the North would oppose the prosecution of a war of subjugation.

It will be remembered . . . how strong had been the party opposed to secession in the Convention then in session at Richmond . . . [but] The call upon Virginia, by President Lincoln for her quota of troops to aid in subjugating the South, had settled the question [and] she became a member of the Confederacy.

I had visited, some months previous to the secession of the State, many of the little villages in New England, where I saw that the population [was] in terrible earnest. “Wide awake,” and other secret societies were organized; and inflammatory harangues aroused the populace. The favorite theme of the orators was the “martyrdom” of John Brown; the piratical and murderous raid of that fanatic into the State of Virginia being exalted into a praiseworthy act of heroism.

When I returned to Virginia and contrasted the apparent apathy and want of preparation there with the state of affairs at the North, I trembled for the result. Volunteers responded with alacrity to the call to defend the State from invasion; and none responded more readily, or served more bravely, than those who had opposed secession in the Convention.

It seems invidious to cite particular examples; but the “noblest Trojan of them all” will point a moral, and serve as an exemplar for generations to come. Wise in council, eloquent in debate, bravest and coolest among the brave in battle, and faithful to his convictions in adversity, he still lives to denounce falsehood and wrong. Truly the old hero, in all he says and does, “gives the world assurance of a man.” — I allude to General J. A. Early.”

(Narrative of a Blockade Runner, John Wilkinson, Valde Books, 2009, pp. 3-5)

Blinded by laser-armed cops

Via avordvet

 

Last summer’s riots in Ferguson, Missouri, prompted much talk by President Obama and certain members of Congress about the need to demilitarize local police forces. Nearly a year later, the opposite is happening.

New and more powerful weapons are flowing into local police departments daily, and still others are new to the marketplace.

One weapon about to make its debut is the “Z-Ro Retinal Obfuscation” gun. When fired, the gun allows an officer to temporarily blind his targeted subject for up to 15 minutes.

More @ WND

Machinists withdraw request for SC Boeing union vote

Via LH

The union said it had contacted about 1,700 workers but Evans said the home visits were suspended after two organizers were threatened at gunpoint and other workers reported hostile confrontations. 

***************************

The Machinists union is delaying its attempt to organize Boeing workers in South Carolina, announcing Friday that it's withdrawing a petition to hold a union vote next week because of what it called a toxic atmosphere and political interference.

Almost 3,200 production workers at Boeing facilities in North Charleston, where the aeronautics giant has a 787 assembly plant, were eligible to vote in the election that was set for April 22.

Withdrawing its petition before the National Labor Relations Board means there cannot now be another union vote for at least six months. Boeing employs nearly 7,500 workers in South Carolina.

"We've determined now is not the right time for an election," said Mike Evans, lead organizer for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "An atmosphere of threats, harassment and unprecedented political interference has intimidated workers to the point we don't believe a free and fair election is possible."

More @ MY Northwest

House Votes to Repeal Federal Estate Tax

Via Billy

On Thursday the House voted, 240-179, to repeal the federal estate tax, setting the stage for a
confrontation with the Senate and a veto threat by the president. Identical bills were presented in both houses of Congress, by Representative Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Senator John Thune (R-S.D.).

Brady’s bill passed with the support of all but three Republicans and the defection of seven Democrats. Thune’s bill is expected to die in the Senate.

Said Brady:

More @ The New American