Esta vez en las primarias en Puerto Rico, dijo que si quiere Puerto Rico ser Estado norteamericano, se debe hablar ingles como dice la constitucion:
Santorum pedazo de anormal, desde cuando aca existe idioma oficial en U.S.A?
Samtorun pedazo de imb..ec..il, el referendum para la estadida de Puerto Rico es este años, y has echado por la borda la posiblidad de que los puertoriqueños voten por la estadidad
Samtorum tiene una combinacion con la boca y los pies, cada vez que abre la boca, mete la pata
Publicado: 03-15-2012 11:45 AM
Dios nos libre si este imb..ec..il, fanatico miembro del opus Dei ganara las primarias Republicanas,
Dios mio, yo quisiera saber la capacidad en las neuronas de los que votan por Santorum
Publicado: 03-15-2012 11:56 AM
Ahora me doy cuenta porque Samtorun no hiso campaña en la Florida, odiaba venir por el area de Miami, y Hialeah, y escuchar a las personas hablar en español
Publicado: 03-15-2012 12:00 PM
ES UN RACISTA ANTILATINO, IGUAL QUE EL LIMBO,....... CUANDO ESTAMOS ENTRE FAMILIA, ELLOS HACEN LOS CUENTOS DE POR ALLA POR LOS LATE 80S, EARLY 90S, EL LIMBO ATACABA A LOS LATINOS POR LA RADIO,
, NO SE SI EL ESTARIA EN LA RADIO YA CUANDO EMPEZARON A LLEGAR LOS CUBANOS DEL MARIEL, YO NO ESTABA EN ESTE PLANETA Y ME FALTABA BASTANTE PARA HACER MI APARICION, PERO SI HUBIERA SIDO ASI, ME IMAGINO EL PURO DESMADRE QUE HUBIERA ARMADO EL BERRA LIMBO, Y NO DEJEMOS ATRAS AL LOU DOBBS, ESE ES OTRO QUE BIEN CALZA, PARA EL, LOS HISPANOS SOMOS BASURA, MENOS MAL QUE HACE MUCHO TIEMPO QUE NO LO VEO EN LA TELE, GRACIAS A DIOS.
LLUEVE Y LLUEVE POR ACA, Y DE PRONTO SALE EL SOLEIL, SE ESTARA "CASANDO LA HIJA DEL DIABLO":? JAJAJA, SALUDITOS, CAFETITO!!!!!
Publicado: 03-15-2012 02:07 PM
TODOS COMETEMOS ERRORES...SANTUROM METIO BIEN METIDA LA PATA EN PUERTO RICO... PERO MAS METEN LA PATA LOS QUE LE HACEN EL JUEGO A OBAMA Y SUS SECUACES ATACANDO CONTINUAMENTE A POLITICOS QUE SON PATRIOTAS Y PERSONAS DECENTES.
OBAMA OR AMERICA, YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!!!! PASS IT ON.
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from a friend in the Czech Republic . We have a lot of work to do.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America .
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Publicado: 03-17-2012 11:27 AM
Obama Dining With Supporters for $35,800 a Plate
By Katie Pavlich 3/19/2012
Los multimillonarios que recibieron la mayor parte de los $800 billones del estímulo a la hora de Obama repartir el botín del estímulo entre sus secuaces, ahora acuden a pagar su deuda de gratitud engrosando las arcas de la campaña presidencial de Obama, el presidente mas corrupto en la historia de U.S.
This afternoon in Washington D.C. President Obama is lunching with his wife and his most prominent supporters at the W Hotel for $35,800 a plate. They are the 1 percent.
The president this afternoon will host a private, roundtable discussion with 20 of his wealthiest supporters at the W Hotel in Washington, D.C. Tickets to the event – Obama’s 109th of the election – were $35,800 apiece, a campaign official said. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama will travel to New York City to host a colorful duo of fundraisers that include a bowling party at Chelsea Piers and cocktails with Hollywood stars.
In Michelle Obama's case, a picture is worth $5,000:
About 90 donors are expected for the reception, the campaign said, with tickets starting at $5,000 for a photo with Obama and a cocktail, $25,000 to mingle with her.
Although President Obama has been heavily campaigning and attending campaign fundraisers, his fundraising totals aren't piling up as quickly as expected. At this time in his 2008 campagin, Obama had raised significantly more money.
President Obama has many names, but this week, as he reaches 100 donor events since announcing for reelection last April, he’s the “fundraiser-in-chief.” According to several counts, the Big 100 will come Thursday when he does four fundraisers enroute to collecting and spending $750 million to $1 billion for his reelection. So far since April 2011, he has raised an estimated $82 million to $100 million at those events.
Obama may be working fundraisers as hard as former President Bill Clinton, but the numbers aren’t fantastic. In January, he didn’t raise as much as he did in 2008, with contributions to Obama and the Democratic National Committee down 30 percent, according to a Boston Globe analysis. After those numbers came out, Obama flip-flopped and pushed donors to give to his “super PAC.”
Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more — a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election. At this point in the last election cycle, Obama had received such large donations from more than 23,000 supporters, more than double the 11,000 who have given him that much this time. President George W. Bush had more than four times that number of big donations at this point in his reelection.
Publicado: 03-20-2012 01:51 PM
Algas en su depósito
Obama presume de que su mandato la extracción de petróleo ha crecido y la importación ha descendido. Es cierto, pero es ciertamente engañoso. Estos incrementos son resultado de licencias de explotación expedidas durante la era Clinton y la era Bush.
Sí, por supuesto, los presidentes no tienen ningún control directo sobre los precios de la gasolina. Pero el pueblo estadounidense sabe un poquito de este presidente y de su desprecio hacia el crudo. “El combustible del pasado”, como lo llama con desprecio. Para el obrero estadounidense que no se traslada con escolta y que semanalmente es sableado en la gasolinera, el crudo parece ser el combustible del presente de forma muy patente -y del futuro próximo.
El presidente Obama anuncia incesantemente tener apertura de miras energéticas, insistiendo en que su política consiste en “no hacer discriminaciones”. Exceptuando, por supuesto, la prospección en aguas continentales del Atlántico (como quiere, por ejemplo, Virginia), en aguas del Golfo de Florida (los hermanos Castro van a realizar prospecciones en las inmediaciones en su lugar), en aguas del Golfo de México (donde se espera que la prospección en 2012 descienda un 30 por ciento por debajo de los pronósticos pre-moratoria), en la Reserva Nacional de Vida Salvaje del Ártico (que tiene más de la mitad del tamaño de Inglaterra y donde la explotación tendría la extensión del Aeropuerto Dulles), en suelo federal de las Rocosas (donde las licencias de explotación han descendido un 70 por ciento desde que fue investido Obama).
Pero el acontecimiento que deja claro el grado de la antipatía por parte de Obama al crudo abundante, próximo y fácilmente accesible fue su veto al oleoducto Keystone. Deja clara la cuestión porque la defensa del Keystone es muy evidente y aplastante. Vetar la construcción de forma gratuita prolonga nuestra dependencia de potencias extranjeras, destruye miles de puestos de trabajo de incorporación inmediata, renuncia en favor de China a un importante recurso estratégico, daña nuestras relaciones con nuestro aliado más próximo geográficamente y envía miles de millones de petrodólares a Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin y unos jeques ya obscenamente ricos.
Obama presume de que durante su mandato la extracción ha crecido y la importación ha descendido. Es cierto, pero es ciertamente engañoso. Estos incrementos se han registrado a pesar de sus políticas restrictivas. Son resultado de licencias de explotación expedidas durante la era Clinton y la era Bush. Esto se acompaña de una fiebre del gas natural producto de nuevas tecnologías de refinado que no tienen absolutamente nada que ver con Obama.
“El pueblo estadounidense no es *****”, decía Obama (23 de febrero), haciendo mofa de la consigna “Perfora baby, perfora”. “La única solución”, afirmaba enfáticamente en otra importante intervención energética la pasada semana, es que “empecemos a consumir menos, a reducir la demanda, a bajar los precios”. Pero cinco párrafos más tarde afirmaba formalmente que con independencia del “crudo que obtengamos nacionalmente… no se va a marcar el precio del gas a nivel mundial”.
O sea: ¿que reducir la demanda estadounidense baja el precio del crudo, pero elevar la oferta norteamericana no? Esto es ridículo. O las dos cosas son ciertas o ninguna lo es. ¿Leerá Obama sus propios discursos?
Obama dice de la prospección petrolera: “No es un plan”. Por supuesto que es un plan. Importamos prácticamente la mitad de nuestro combustible, exportando de esta manera cantidades ingentes de riqueza estadounidense. Casi el 60 por ciento de nuestro déficit comercial -332.000 millones de dólares de 560.000 millones- se marchan al extranjero a comprar crudo.
Se perfora aquí y se corta la hemorragia. Esos dólares se quedan dentro de la economía estadounidense, repatriando no sólo riqueza sino puestos de trabajo y negándolos a extranjeros hostiles. Hacer prospecciones es lo más importante con diferencia que podemos hacer para estimular el crecimiento dentro del país al tiempo que se consolida nuestra influencia en el extranjero.
En lugar de eso, Obama ofrece los que presume serán los combustibles del futuro. Se diría que hoy tendría que ser mucho más modesto con sus poderes de adivinación tras la quiebra del fabricante de placas solares Solyndra, el colapso de la empresa subvencionada por el Estado Ener1 (los antiguos fabricantes de las pilas del futuro) y la suspensión de la producción por parte de GM -por falta de demanda- de otro invento de existencia promulgada federalmente, el inflamable Chevy Volt.
¿Desanimado? Ni por asomo. Nuestro resuelto visionario de las energías del futuro ha salido con su propio combustible milagroso: las algas. Sí, la lechuga de mar, en concepto de la cual el Departamento de Energía de Steven Chu se dispone a desembolsar otros 14 millones de dólares del contribuyente.
Se trata del mismo Dr. Chu que se hizo famoso por decir en 2008 que deseaba que los precios del combustible estadounidense crecieran hasta niveles europeos de 8-10 dólares el galón -y que el martes, ocho meses antes de las elecciones, se retractaba públicamente ante el Congreso, al estilo Galileo.
¿A quién creerán estar engañando? Se avecina una crisis del crudo, los precios están alcanzando nuevas cotas -y nuestro presidente anda elogiando algas. Después de Solyndra, del Keystone y de las promesas de meter algas en el depósito de su vehículo, los estadounidenses intuyen a un presidente tan antipático ideológicamente a los combustibles fósiles- de los que disponemos en abundancia -que parece totalmente falto de rigor al hablar del mundo real de los combustibles en el que vivimos el resto de nosotros.
Los elevados precios de los combustibles constituyen un importante problema político para Obama. No son solamente un problema a pie de surtidor, no obstante. Son el constante recordatorio de que tres años de políticas energéticas rígidas, estúpidas y quiméricas nos han vuelto escandalosamente dependientes y excesivamente vulnerables.
Publicado: 03-21-2012 10:01 PM
I'LL HAVE AMERICA AND OBAMA, HOW ABOUT IT, FOOL? BUTT OFF, TU ERES EL QUE TIENES QUE
SUBIRTE A UN COHETE Y DESAPARECERTE POR LA ESTRATOSFERA, ALLI SI QUE VAS A SER FELIZ PUES
NO VERAS NI OIRAS MAS DE OBAMA. ESTE VIEJO TIENE DEMENTIA PELIGROSIS, MANTENGANLO A RAYA!
Publicado: 03-21-2012 10:24 PM
Why the silence about Obama's historic scam?
Diana West whacks MSM for 'political blackout' of Sheriff Joe's eligibility probe
Warning: This column contains news of evidence of possible forgery and fraud in the long-form birth certificate of the president of the United States and – bonus – his Selective Service registration card.
I figure the warning is necessary to prevent Americans, particularly Americans who work in news media and politics, from hurting themselves on any hard, sharp facts that might poke through my discussion of what is surely the biggest scandal to emerge around the seemingly dodgy docs Barack Obama is using to verify his identity.
I refer to the logic- and history-defying news and political blackout of the March 1 press conference called in Maricopa County, Ariz., by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.
I ask you: Have you read in your local paper about the technical evidence that led the posse’s three retired criminal investigators and two attorneys to conclude that the birth certificate image White House officials uploaded at the White House website on April 27, 2011, did not originate in a paper format, but rather was created (forged) as an electronic file on a computer?
Have you seen on network or cable news the video clip (one of six posse videos at YouTube) re-creating exactly how an additional fraud might have been committed to forge the president’s Selective Service registration card? Heard even conservative talk radio discussing the posse’s discovery that immigration files in the National Archives recording overseas arrivals into Hawaii are missing from the week of Obama’s 1961 birthday? Or about the retired mailman’s affidavit attesting that the mother of ex-Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers enthusiastically told him that she helped with “foreign student” Barack Obama’s education?
I know my ears pricked up when, watching the posse’s press conference online, I heard lead investigator Michael Zullo explain that the 1961 Hawaiian newspaper listings of Barack Obama’s birth confirm nothing because the posse “can prove beyond a doubt” that these newspapers announced arrivals of foreign babies as well as native-born. Zullo also announced the posse had “documented evidence of two adopted individuals who were breathing three years prior” and were similarly listed as newborn infants. Heard anything about that?
I know the answer. You have read, seen and heard nothing – and certainly not a peep from any representatives in Congress. The unique exception seems to be poor Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, whose mere mentions (better than nothing) of “examining the evidence” get him insta-hammered by the media and White House alike. Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, one of the presenters of the birth certificate at the White House last spring, actually had the gall to call into question via tweet Stearns’ fitness to conduct congressional investigations into the Obama administration’s decision to funnel $535 million into Solyndra, the bankrupt solar company. Why? Because Stearns dared to express interest in evidence amassed by veteran law enforcement professionals under Arpaio, himself a 30-year federal law-enforcement official and five-time-elected sheriff.
“1984″-**noallow**, we mustn’t question. We mustn’t look. We certainly mustn’t look at questions that cross the narrative of authority. What are we, free people?
Apparently not. One editor told me the problem is the evidence of fraud might prove to be true! A very famous conservative figure told me that if the president were proved to be an identity thief, “that would alienate too many people” from the Republican Party!
I am reminded of Groucho Marx’s answer to the question, Are we mice or men? “Throw some cheese on the floor and we’ll find out.”
Recently, Breitbart.com’s new editor at large, Ben Shapiro, was on Mark Gillar’s radio show, “Tea Party Power Hour,” promoting his conservative media organization’s “vetting Obama” campaign. Gillar asked Shapiro if “vetting” Obama would include investigating Obama’s birth and/or Selective Service documents. Absolutely not, Shapiro replied, explaining that he didn’t believe this was an issue. “I am discouraging people from spending time on this,” Shapiro said, emphasizing once again that he himself did not believe there were irregularities in the documents since, as he put it, he knew Media Matters would be listening to the interview.
The walls have ears? Shapiro’s concern almost makes Media Matters sound like a secret police outfit with a gulag for journalists who ask too many questions. In reality, it’s an ideologically driven, left-wing attack group funded by ideologically driven, left-wing George Soros.
Shapiro continued, quite candidly: “It’s an issue on which people are being marginalized very easily and very quickly at this point.”
Marginalized by whom? The Soros-funded attack machine? The liberal-dominated “mainstream media”? Fox News-dominated conservative media? The Obama White House?
Clearly, something has us all on lockdown. That’s much, much scarier than even the amazing possibility that some con artist might be pulling off the biggest scam in history.
Publicado: 03-23-2012 03:36 PM
Is There An Imposter In The White House? An Excerpt from "Hope Is Not A Strategy"
There is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the “birthers” were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this “manufactured candidate,” whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding?
Could the “Hawaii birth certificate” be a forgery? Is there something much worse—like “sponsorship” by an unnamed special interest? I don’t know. I do know that the man in the White House now is an imposter. The only question is which kind of an imposter: an incompetent “pretender” or a genuine phony, a “Manchurian candidate,” who is a liberal, ½ black and ½ white, and an obvious Muslim sympathizer (despite claims of being a Christian—in clear conflict with his non-Christian behavior).
Will this campaign expose him as the imposter, and the pretender his behavior has revealed? Will it expose his hidden history and murky background. We know about his failures and mistakes.
For those who don’t, here is another in this series of revealing excerpts from HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency. The book is now available in paperback and Kindle versions. Other in e-book versions are available at www.smashwords.com.
Excerpt from the chapter: Beware the Pretender:
…”No matter how many times President Obama refers to the “problems he inherited,” he has now been in office three years. Certainly many of the current problems can be traced back to events that happened during the eight years that Bush held the top office, and some can be traced back to even earlier presidencies—but far from all of them.
Many of the problems are newly created (or made worse), and Barack Obama owns them. Candidate Obama stepped up and essentially said, “I want the job, and everything that comes with it” by running for president. After three years in office, the problems now belong to him and his presidency. He caused them, made them worse, or didn’t solve them. Either way, they are his now.
…In leadership, you cannot “pretend” to be a leader. You either are—or you aren’t—a leader. One or the other will become apparent very quickly.
If you want the leadership job, you must step up and take full ownership of it. A “pretender” or “poser” is like an actor who has learned all the right lines, but has no idea what they mean. Once the script has been followed (or deviated from), the actor is clueless about what to do next. This is the job of the leader. Unfortunately, in this government, the “directors” often seem clueless, having learned in academia where results and wins/losses are theoretical, or in politics where success (at getting elected) is more a matter of rhetoric than results.
If you are not ready for a pposition, or do not believe that you have what it takes to rise to the challenge (or clean up the mess even if you believe it is not your mess), then do not take the job. This was Barack Obama’s fundamental mistake. He grossly underestimated the difficulty of the pposition he was running for, and overestimated his preparedness to actually do the job. Just because he could “talk a good game” (thanks to a phalanx of speech writers and the omnipresent teleprompters) does not mean he actually knew what to do or how to do it. The presidency of the United States of America is not a place for heavy OJT (On-the Job-Training)….”
After the first three plus years of the presidency, it is painfully clear that Barack Obama was a “pretty face,” and “glib speaker” and a lightweight liberal politician with a community organizer/radical background. The American people should be outraged at this man’s behavior and even his candidacy. Why are they not? Because of the misinformation delivered by sympathetic liberal/mainstream media who loves his nonsensical form of governing.
…”Obama’s perceived preparedness for the presidency is a terrible delusion, from which it is difficult to escape. Mistakes build upon each other and result in even more complex problems. Difficult problems that are mishandled become even more difficult to fix. When you have too little experience, lack substance (other than the words of your latest speech), then leading, managing and problem solving simply don’t happen. And that is what has occurred. When you compound the problem by surrounding your self with like-minded theorists, lacking in real-world experience, things become worse yet. The theoretical solutions to problems often don’t work due to the messiness of the real world—and the reasons are almost unfathomable to these rookie executive/politicians. …”
What should Americans think about this “imposter?” Will he divulge his true background so we can all see who he is and where he came from—really? If not, is this just a man who should never have been sworn into the office of President in the first place, and who has crippled Americans miserably during his term?
Will we continue to believe his misstatements (the politically correct term for lies)? Can he simply use the media to “erase and forget the past three years of misery and missteps?” Or will we learn from his imperialistic behavior and terrible results and throw him out in November?
That is what why we wrote HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency. To learn more go to: www.hopeisnotastrategybook.com and sign up—and go to buy the book—and see for yourself! There are thirty chapters that reveal what was behind Barack Obama’s mistakes, failures and lack of leadership.
John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His newest book, co-authored with D. M. Lukas, Hope is NOT a Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency
Mariotti’s 2008 book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. His critically acclaimed 2010 novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, merges an exciting fictional thriller with the reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. Mariotti does keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies. He can be reached at www.mariotti.net .
Publicado: 03-25-2012 10:02 AM
Obamacare: The reckoning
By Charles Krauthammer, March 22, 2012
Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.
Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate.
Obamacare was carefully constructed to manipulate the standard 10-year cost projections of the CBO. Because benefits would not fully kick in for four years, President Obama could trumpet 10-year gross costs of less than $1 trillion — $938 billion to be exact.
But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt.
Beginning Monday, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.
Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.
Figure becomes ground; ground becomes figure. The stakes could not be higher.
Serendipitously, the recently issued regulation on contraceptive coverage has allowed us to see exactly how this new power works. All institutions — excepting only churches, but not excepting church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion.
Consider the cascade of arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that resulted in this edict:
(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision disguised as science. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.
(2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?
(3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary.
Today, it’s the Catholic Church whose free-exercise powers are under assault from this cascade of diktats sanctioned by — indeed required by — Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be the turn of other institutions of civil society that dare stand between unfettered state and atomized citizen.
Rarely has one law so exemplified the worst of the Leviathan (Leviathan is one of the seven princes of Hell and its gatekeeper) state — grotesque cost, questionable constitutionality and arbitrary bureaucratic coerciveness. Little wonder the president barely mentioned it in his latest State of the Union address. He wants to be reelected. He’d rather talk about other things.
But there’s no escaping it now. Oral arguments begin Monday at 10 a.m.
Publicado: 03-25-2012 08:48 PM