In the week leading up to Mother’s Day this past Sunday, Rush Limbaugh, the bombastic radio host, interjected his program with in-show advertisements for ProFlowers. However, on his May 5th show, Limbaugh exhorted his listeners to buy Mother’s Day roses not just for their mothers, but “mistress[es]” as well:
LIMBAUGH: Mother’s Day coming up Sunday. Make sure the mother in your life, the mom, mother-in-law, wife, girlfriend, mistress, whatever, knows how much you care about her. And how thankful you are to have her. It’s one of these holidays they have the expectation, it’s there. It just is.
Watch it:
Limbaugh’s advice hasn’t exactly fallen on deaf ears among conservatives. It would be an understatement to say that Republicans have had a mistress problem of late. Indeed, in the past year alone, three Republicans in Congress – former Sen. John Ensign and former Reps. Chris Lee and Mark Souder – have resigned amidst sex scandals. Limbaugh himself remarried for the fourth time in June 2010.
This morning in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, former Vice President Dick Cheney stridently defended Bush era torture programs, calling harsh interrogation tactics “the most important steps we took that kept us safe for 7 years.” He also advocated reinstating waterboarding, telling Wallace that enhanced interrogation “worked, and provided absolutely vital pieces of information.”
Cheney resurrected an old GOP talking point in insisting that waterboarding was not torture, despite testimony of people like CIA Director Leon Panetta to the contrary. “It was a good program, it was a legal program, it was not torture,” Cheney maintained. Watch it:
Many former Bush administration officials have falsely credited torture tactics with leading to the raid on Osama bin Laden, but Cheney went further by insisting that torture was the key policy that has kept the country safe for a decade after the September 11th attacks.
Cheney also echoed former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and chastised Obama for “prosecuting” the intelligence officers who tortured detainees. “These men deserve to be decorated, they don’t deserve to be prosecuted,” he told Wallace, calling it “an outrage that we would go after the people who deserve the credit for keeping us safe for seven and a half years.” While the Obama administration in fact decided long ago not to prosecute any CIA agents involved in torture, Cheney nevertheless suggested Obama has been so relentless in going after those responsible that “these guys…have to look over their shoulder.”
Finally, Cheney had tough words for the Obama administration when it came to Libya. He smirked when Wallace mentioned the policy described as “leading from behind,” and admonished Obama for turning over operational control of the mission to NATO. He further tried to suggest weakness on the president’s part by telling Wallace, “the policy of the administration has been to hope for Gadaffi’s departure but not be prepared to do enough to make sure it happens.” Most gallingly, one week after Obama took decisive action to eliminate the world’s most notorious terrorist, Cheney said “it’s not clear to me that this administration is up to the task” of taking out Gadaffi.
In the last few months, conservatives in several states have moved to limit unemployment benefits, even with the national unemployment rate at 9 percent and more than 40 percent of the unemployed having been out of work for six months or more. Conservative lawmakers in Utah falsely claimed that cutting jobless benefits would be “motivation for people to get back to work,” while Michigan gutted its unemployment insurance system despite having one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
Florida Republicans this weekend also succeeded in reducing their state’s unemployment benefits, sending a bill to Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) for his signature:
A bill that would establish some of the deepest and most far-reaching cuts in unemployment benefits in the nation is heading for the desk of Gov. Rick Scott…The legislation would cut maximum state benefits to 23 weeks from 26 when the jobless rate is 10.5 percent or higher. If lower, the maximum would decline on a sliding scale until bottoming at 12 weeks if the jobless rate was 5 percent or less.
As the National Employment Law Project pointed out, with this bill, Florida will “go further than any other state in dismantling its unemployment insurance system.” The Republican sponsor of the bill, state Sen. Nancy Detert (R), relied on the same false assumption as the lawmakers in Utah, saying that cutting benefits “encourages people to get back into the job market.” Research by the San Francisco Federal Reserve has found that workers who qualify for unemployment benefits stay unemployed just 1.6 weeks longer than those who do not qualify for such benefits.
Even before this legislation, Florida’s benefits were amongst the stingiest in the nation. Once it becomes law, Floridians will not receive the national standard of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits unless the state’s unemployment rate, currently at 11.1 percent, tops 12 percent. As the Miami Herald pointed out, the bill also makes it “easier for companies to keep former workers from collecting benefits.”
Adding insult to injury, the money saved from cutting unemployment benefits will be used to reduce business taxes in a state where the corporate tax rate is already exceedingly low. Scott had been looking to cut corporate taxes even further, but was rebuffed by the legislature.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
In the lead-up to the 2010 election, Citizens Against Government Waste, an anti-spending front group based in Washington D.C., released an ad designed to provoke xenophobic fears about Chinese holding of a portion of our national debt. The ad, titled “Chinese Professor,” depicts a fictional Chinese classroom in the year 2030 where a Chinese professor recounts the economic downfall of the United States and notes, “Of course, we owned most of their debt, so now they work for us”:
Last week, during a Fort Lauderdale town hall, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) cited the Chinese Professor ad in his warning about “serious” threats facing the United States. West referenced the ad as the one “about the Japanese professor”:
WEST: This is historically what our debt looks like. You can see from 1970, foreign holdings, 5 percent, to where we are today, foreign holdings of our debt is at 47 percent. Next slide. And that is who holds our debt. 29 percent to China, Japan, and you can see the rest. I don’t know if you all have seen that commercial that’s been running on TV about the Japanese professor in the future that’s making fun of the United States of America. This is really serious stuff.
Watch it:
Thursday, in a little-noticed move, the House of Representatives “passed legislation Thursday that would require the U.S. government to offer up offshore areas for oil and gas leasing,” with all but two Republicans and 33 Democrats voting for the bill.
During a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee hearing yesterday, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) claimed that the vote was responsible for Thursday’s sharp drop in oil prices. “What happened yesterday?” the congressman asked rhetorically. “Oh, the House passed a bill“:
BURGESS: Another area of concern already mentioned by other people on this dais is high commodity prices. Consumers across the coutnry face higher oil and food prices. If we don’t want an economic revival to stall these prices have to come down. Good news yesterday was that oil prices did come down under a hundred dollars a barrell. What happened yesterday? Oh, the House passed a bill.
Watch it:
Burgess’s argument is based on a flawed premise. It assumes that increasing drilling would increase supply and thus lower oil prices. But supply is already high. It’s also worth debunking the myth that opening up more supply in the U.S. would cause any significant dip in oil prices over the short term. “In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices,” says the Energy Information Administration analyst Phyllis Martin.
What actually explains the drop in oil prices is a very different combination of factors. The drop, as Reuters notes, came largely from poor macroeconomic indicators — showing that demand is actually dropping, not that supply is increasing. Another factor was an exodus of speculators from the commodities market.
What is most clear is that a bill that was going nowhere that would open up a tiny amount of land for drilling for oil that may reach the market many years in the future was not responsible for the drop in prices. (HT: The Hill)
Last night, two Muslim men were removed from a plane departing from Tennessee and set to arrive in Charlotte, North Carolina. Both the men were dressed in traditional Muslim garb, which made the pilot uncomfortable and caused him to refuse to fly them to their destination:
Two Muslim men were removed from a plane headed to North Carolina…the Council on American-Islamic Relations said. The incident occurred Friday on a flight from Tennessee to North Carolina.
Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul were wearing the traditional Muslim attire, CNN affiliate WCNC reported.
The irony is, both men, as a local news affiliate reported, were on their way to Charlotte to attend “a conference of imams, where they would be discussing ‘Islamophobia,’ the fear of Islam.”
Local station WBTV’s interviewed the men about their predicament. One of them compared his situation to African Americans who were refused seats on public buses. Watch the station’s report about the incident:
According to WBTV, the US Attorney’s office and the Department of Justice are both planning to get involved in the case, and both men have hired a local attorney to also investigate the event.
Yesterday, the Texas Legislature passed legislation requiring doctors to perform a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to describe what the sonogram shows. Only in cases of rape, incest, or fetal abnormality is a woman allowed to bypass that requirement. Texas is facing it’s worst budget crisis since World War II. But apparently, with the nation racing to restrict women’s rights as much as humanly possible, Gov. Texas Perry (R) dubbed this anti-abortion bill as an “emergency priority” to fast-track its passage:
Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, stands behind the controversial measure. While different versions of the proposal were under debate earlier this year, Perry regarded the legislation as an emergency priority.
“Ensuring Texans have access to all the information when making such an important decision is a critical step in our efforts to protect life, and I look forward to this legislation reaching my desk very soon,” said Perry in a statement earlier this week, lauding the state legislature for advancing the measure.
“I think it’s very demeaning to women and I think we have more important things to do like balance the budget without hurting families and make sure we can fully fund education and healthcare and take care of things that are important to our economy and not political partisan issues,” said state Rep. Carol Alvarado (D). Unfortunately, it’s appears that putting anti-abortion efforts ahead of a struggling economy is the chief GOP priority.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court declined to review the case of a recent Texas high school student who was kicked off her school’s cheerleading squad after she refused to chant the name of a basketball player who had allegedly raped her. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the country, ruled last November that the victim — who is known only as H.S. — had no right to refuse to applaud her attacker because as a cheerleader in uniform, she was an agent of the school. To add insult to injury, the Fifth Circuit dismissed her case as “frivolous” and sanctioned the girl, forcing her family to pay the school district’s $45,000 legal fees.
According to court documents, H.S. was 16 when she was raped at a house party by one of her school’s star athletes, Rakheem Bolton. Bolton was arrested, but by pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault, he received a reduced sentence of probation and community service. Bolton was allowed to return to school and resume his place on the basketball team. Four months later, H.S. was cheering with her squad at a game when Bolton lined up to take a free throw. The squad wanted to do a cheer that included his name, but H.S. refused, choosing instead to stand silently with her arms folded.
“I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she later told reporters. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”
Several school officials of the “sports obsessed” small town took issue with H.S.’s silence, and ordered her to cheer for Bolton. When H.S. refused again, she was expelled from the cheerleading squad. Her family decided to sue school officials and the district. Their lawyer argued that H.S.’s right to exercise free expression had been violated and that students shouldn’t be punished for not complying with “insensitive and unreasonable directions.”
Leading legal scholars have pointed out that this case is about more than justice for one purported rape victim — it’s a civil rights issue that goes to the heart of students’ right of free speech under the First Amendment. Though it might seem obvious to most people that H.S. had every right to sit out that cheer, the lower court insisted that as a cheerleader, she was speaking for the school and as such had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud her alleged rapist. The court explained in its decision:
As a cheerleader, HS served as a mouthpiece through which [the school district] could disseminate speech – namely, support for its athletic teams…This act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, HS was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.
It’s unclear to many court watchers how H.S.’s silence was disruptive, or how the school’s right to “disseminate speech” through cheerleading outweighed the needs of a sexual assault victim.
The Firth Circuit has repeatedly illustrated its hostility to first amendment rights and victims seeking compensation claims. Texas too has a bad track record when it comes to high-profile rape cases. A recent case involving the gang-rape of an 11-year-old girl by at least 18 men, including several student athletes, caused national outrage after many in the community tried to blame the victim. For years Texas has forced women to pay for their own rape kits. Two months ago, the Texas House approved a bill that would require victims of rape who became pregnant to get an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus before getting an abortion.
One reporter summed up the miscarriage of justice this way: “The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case is a devastating rejection of students’ rights to speak out against school officials, and a disturbing affirmation of a culture that punishes rape victims instead of perpetrators.”
During a Fort Lauderdale town hall last week, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) warned his constituents about “serious threats to our country,” including Iran and Hezbollah. However, one of the examples West used repeatedly, was not just overblown; it was demonstrably untrue.
Warning the crowd about the economic and national security dangers that China poses to the United States, West declared – twice – that “China is in control of the Panama Canal”:
WEST: I had the opportunity to go down to the United States southern command which is headquartered in Miami, Florida. There is a huge threat coming up out of South America through Central America, through Mexico, and into the United States. Iran is in South America. Hezbollah is in South America. I already talked about how China is in control of the Panama Canal. And even about 50 miles away from here in the Bahamas, building a port there. You know, there is some serious threats to our country.
Watch it:
The notion that China controls the Panama Canal is patently false. The United States handed control of the canal over to Panama on December 31, 1999 and it has remained in Panamanian hands ever since. This false claim was even debunked by the conservative news outlet Newsmax back in 2006. In fact, rather than owning the Panama Canal, China is currently proposing a rival railroad in Colombia that would allow goods to bypass the canal.
West is certainly no stranger to outlandish statements. He made a name for himself over the past year with comments like endorsing the censorship of news agencies that “enabled” Wikileaks, arguing that nobody is getting laid off in Washington D.C., saying that liberal women are “neutering American men,” and calling President Obama a “low level Socialist agitator.”
The for-profit higher education industry, known as subprime schools for their rampant abuses and systematic fraud, is fighting back aggressively against proposed regulations from the Department of Education. The rules call for schools to show that a higher percentage of their students actually gain employment after graduation in order for for-profit school companies to qualify for taxpayer money. As we have reported extensively, subprime colleges have hired an army of lobbyists and have declared “war” against reform advocates.
House Education Committee Chairman Rep. John Kline (R-MN) has been the industry’s best friend. Kline repeatedly slipped provisions into House spending bills to restrict the Department of Education from implementing more oversight over subprime schools. Kline pushed the effort, essentially a bailout to a multi-billion dollar industry that receives ninety percent of its money from the government, while industry lobbyists astroturfed support on Capitol Hill.
With the release of first quarter campaign donations, an examination of Federal Elections Commission disclosures by the Wonk Room has found that Kline received nearly $50,000 from for-profit colleges so far this year. Notably, on March 15, 2011, two days before the House passed his amendment against the Department of Education, Kline received $21,200 from the same companies:
Mark Perry, President of San Joaquin Valley College: $2,500 on 03/15/2011.
Rex D Spaulding is President of North American Trade Schools Inc: $1,000 of 03/15/2011.
Alva R Sullivan is President And CEO of Sullivan University: $2,400 on 03/15/2011.
Robert F Herzog is VP at IN Business College: $1,000 on 03/15/2011.
Daniel M Hamburger is CEO at DeVry Inc: $1,000 on 03/15/2011.
Lawrence D Earle is CEO of Carrer Point College: $1,000 on 03/15/2011.
Corinthian Colleges Inc. PAC: $4,000 donation to Kline for Congress on 3/15/2011.
Education Management Corp PAC: $2,500 on 03/15/2011.
NELNET Higher Education Access PAC: $2,400 on 03/15/2011.
Westwood College Fund: $1,000 on 03/15/2011
Duncan M Anderson, CEO of Education Affiliates Inc: $2,400 on 03/15/2011.
Kline, who received another $100,000 from the industry last year, also hosted a brazen fundraiser with subprime college lobbyists on March 8th. That means for two straight weeks, industry lobbyists funneled cash to Kline so he could help them drain more taxpayer money without properly educating their students.
This morning, the Justice Department announced that it is joining a whistle-blower lawsuit against Kline donor Education Management Corporation (EDMC), a for-profit college company owned partially by Goldman Sachs. The company, which owns the Art Institutes and other private colleges, has been accused of defrauding students in several states.
Former ThinkProgress intern Paul Breer contributed valuable research for this post. Cross-posted on Wonk Room.
Since President Obama’s surprise announcement Sunday night that American forces had killed Osama bin Laden, conservatives and Bush loyalists have been trying to claim some of the glory and redeem the discredited torture policies of the Bush administration.
Potential GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum took this line of attack to its logical conclusions today on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show, saying “9/11 families” should be “furious” with Obama for claiming any credit for the successful Bin Laden raid:
SANTORUM: 9/11 families and everybody else in America should be furious at this president that he’s walking abound taking credit for, you know, getting Osama bin Laden. He didn’t get Osama bin Laden! … The president of the United States simply said — courageous act, give him credit for saying yes — but that’s all he did, is say yes. He didn’t do the hard work. The people he’s going after did the hard work. And that is an outrage.
Listen here:
Santorum is referrering to his claim that Attorney General Eric Holder is “going after” CIA agents who used enhanced interrogation tactics under President Bush. But perhaps Santorum is too fixated on his Google problem to remember that Obama said two years ago that he wouldn’t prosecute CIA agents who engaged in torture. As ThinkProgress has noted, there is no evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques contributed to catching Bin Laden.
Moreover, as Michael Hirsch writes today in the National Journal, President Obama was sucessful in catching Bin Laden precisely because he broke with Bush’s terror policies. The conservative “assessment couldn’t be further from the truth,” Hirsch writes. “Behind Obama’s takedown of the Qaida leader this week lies a profound discontinuity between administrations — a major strategic shift in how to deal with terrorists,” from Bush’s bombastic and overly expansive “war on terror,” to Obama’s “covert, laserlike focus on al-Qaida and its spawn.”
Last night, during a contentious interview with Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell wondered if Saddam Hussein “was the same threat to New Yorkers that Osama bin Laden was.” With the obvious answer being, “No,” Rice had to come up with something. Similar to President Bush’s “You forgot Poland” line during the 2004 presidential debate, Rice said the threat from, and thus invasion of, Iraq was justified by the coalition Bush put together. O’Donnell noted that the so-called “coalition of the willing” didn’t exactly represent the full support of the international community, but in the fog of the interview’s back and forth, Rice just started adding countries that weren’t even part of the coalition:
RICE: So the Georgians who went there and the Japanese who went there and others –
O’DONNELL: Actually had soldiers firing weapons on the ground?
RICE: This was not part of the coalition. The people who — the British and the Australians and the Poles and all of those who — the Canadians, all of those who were ultimately in Iraq, these were not part of the coalition?
Watch it, starting at 5:22:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This must be news to the Canadians. While Canada did participate in reconstruction projects after the war began, the Canadian government led by Liberal Party Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did not support the decision to invade. But seeing that Dr. Rice has never made a mistake in her life, perhaps it’s the facts that are wrong in this case.
Last year, in perhaps the “most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades,” the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) invalidated a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate and union money directly funding individual candidates in federal elections. The SCOTUS decision sent shockwaves throughout our democracy, with many fearing that it would lead to an overwhelming amount of corporate money flooding out the voices of ordinary people.
Now, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has put out a comprehensive analysis to assess the flood of campaign money in last year’s election. One of the most shocking results of the analysis finds that the decision appeared to have a sharply partisan and ideological result. The group found that spending by Super PACs and all outside spending strongly tilted towards conservatives, and that spending by undisclosed donors actually was eight times higher for conservatives than liberals, with conservatives spending $119.6 million to liberals’ $15.7 million:
Not only did this money help elect a more conservative Congress, but it also is having a lingering effect on our campaign system. Last week, Democratic strategists announced that they will be forming Priorities USA Action, an Independent Expenditure PAC that will be relying on a strategy of collecting unlimited funds from undiclosed donors similar to the one that conservative groups used in 2010.
What this means is that federal elections in 2012 may include an unprecedented flurry of corporate and secret cash that would drown out the voices of Main Street America in a way never seen before in modern history. Ultimately, the only way to deal with this threat to our democracy is to enact a system of public financing, much like the one enshrined in the Fair Elections Now Act.
The embarrassing manner of “Craiglist Congressman” Christopher Lee’s (R-NY) downfall failed to shake the GOP’s confidence in holding onto New York’s 26th congressional district. The overwhelmingly Republican district, which hasn’t been represented by a Democrat since early last decade, led the New York GOP to count “well-liked” state assemblywoman Jane Corwin as a “shoo-in” for the seat. Then, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dropped a bomb — his budget plan. The plan that essentially eliminates Medicare and forces seniors to pay thousands more for health care is now driving a stake through Corwin’s lead.
With numerous polls noting a majority of Americans oppose cuts to Medicare, democratic opponent Kathy Hoschul has started putting Corwin on the defensive over the contentious plan that is already fracturing House Republicans. Instead of listening to the public, Corwin is “vigorously” defending Ryan’s plan and watching her lead evaporate because of it. The New York Times reports:
But even as some House Republicans have started to express doubts about the wisdom of trying to push the Ryan plan this year, Ms. Corwin has vigorously defended it, arguing it places Medicare on sound financial footing. “This protects the Medicare program and ensures that there are benefits for future generations,” she said during a recent stop last month in Rochester, according to The Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester.
Still, Ms. Hochul’s message seems to strike a chord in the district, where the race has become much closer than experts in either party had expected. A recent Siena College poll of likely voters, for example, indicated that Ms. Corwin and Ms. Hochul are in a tight race. Ms. Corwin leads by only five points, within the poll’s margin of error.
The Seina College poll was taken a week ago. A new internal poll from Hochul’s campaign shows the race is now a dead heat. In a Global Strategy Group survey, Corwin only leads by one point. “The Republican vote to end Medicare has moved the needle in this race,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), chairman of the DCCC.
Corwin’s camp insists that the need to rein in the national debt at the expense of Medicare “will ultimately win the day.” “They are trying to scare seniors,” her spokesman said. But Marsha Sherris, a senior and registered Republican living in the 26th district, isn’t buying it. Troubled by Ryan’s proposal, Sherris said, “We have to worry about the seniors. They are the ones who supported this country all this time.” Standing — incidentally — on Main Street in Williamsville, NY, she said, “Maybe I would go Democrat.”
The special election will be held on May 24.
Facing pressure from Republican primary voters, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attempted to apologize during last night’s GOP debate for his past support of cap and trade, the climate change legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While mainstream news outlets accepted Pawlenty’s apology and wondered if primary voters would do the same, it largely went ignored that Pawlenty never actually apologized for supporting climate legislation. In fact, in an attempt to duck, bob, weave, and explain away his previous support for cap and trade, Pawlenty only apologized for supporting researching cap and trade, ignoring his support for the legislation itself:
WALLACE: You now say that that was a ‘dumb mistake,’ but weren’t you in fact far more committed to cap and trade over those years than you now let on?
PAWLENTY: Chris, what I said to you on that day, and what I’ve said many other times, is this: We did consider and sign into law legislation in Minnesota that would study cap and trade, but we didn’t impose it. We signed up to look at it, to review, to study it, to join with other states, to look at it. And we did. And what I concluded subsequently is it’s really a bad idea. And this is not in the last six months. I sent a letter to Congress I think about two years ago, and at other times have said, ‘I was wrong, it was a mistake, and I’m sorry.’ It’s ham-fisted, it’s going to be harmful to the economy. […]
I just admitted it. I don’t try to duck it, bob it, weave it, explain it away. I’m just telling you, I made a mistake. I look the American people in the eye and say I made a mistake. And I’ve opposed that cap and trade approach since.
Watch it:
Pawlenty is attempting to convince voters that, upon receiving studies about cap and trade, he “concluded subsequently” to oppose the policy. The reality is, he only concluded he needed to oppose cap and trade much later, when the GOP platform no longer included room for supporters of a policy that was originally a Republican idea.
As ThinkProgress has reported, Pawlenty has an extensive record of actively supporting cap and trade and other climate change initiatives. He signed multiple pieces of legislation calling for greenhouse gas reduction, including one that called for an 80 percent reduction in Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In 2008, he recorded a radio ad in which he declared, “Cap greenhouse gas polution now!” It wasn’t until 2009, when Pawlenty was busy trying to make a name for himself on the national scene, that he backed away from his support for the policy.
Pawlenty failed to address any of this last night, misleading voters to believe his support for cap and trade ended in the exploratory phase. His apology, it turns out, really wasn’t an apology at all.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
