March 4, 2021

"If a state decides to prematurely lift rules against the guidance of CDC, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result?"

Asks NYT columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin (on Twitter). 

 A good answer: "Does your state allow steak to be served medium rare? No Medicare for you!"  

A terrible answer: "What Biden should do is make clear now: Do what Texas and Mississippi are doing, lose ALL your federal funding. With the threat of loss of highway funding, that's how the legal drinking age went from 19 to 21 in 1985...."

101 comments:

Levi Starks said...

Better question, if a state fails to lift restrictions in a timely manner should it not be denied federal funds designed to offset the economic costs of shutdown?

Unknown said...

I believe 18 should be the age to legally purchase alcohol. Great job convincing me the feds using the power of the purse leads to bad law.

dbp said...

Another answer:

Should the states which unnecessarily remain locked-down, lose Federal economic help?

Unknown said...

Fascists all the way around.

Gusty Winds said...

Rich, Fat, Liberal Michael Moore and psycho Keith Olbermann took to twitter yesterday to say Texas and Mississippi should be banned from vaccine distribution. Who really gives a shit, but this is how liberals think. These dudes are worse than feminists.

If you don’t do what they say, they want you dead.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

If ya dont let the Feds get yer $$ in the first place, then ya dont has ta beg, bow, scrape, and wait and hope to get some small bit of it back.

I blame the voters.

D.D. Driver said...

Andrew Ross Sorkin has America's most punchable face and attitude. He is the nanny state villian from every 80s movie that forces you to have the prom in the loading dock at the train station. Everything about him is detestable.

I'm not proud of it, but when its his turn to be cancelled, I will laugh pretty hard.

Nicholas said...

If a State decides to disregard and even frustrate the enforcement of Federal immigration law, should it be eligible to receive funding for the law enfrcement and social assistance programmes that it later needs as a result?

Masscon said...

I say bring it on but then Texas residents should be exempt from federal tax.

Unknown said...

Is this the same CDC that said we should NOT be wearing masks during the 15 days to flatten the curve a year ago?

Yea, let’s start allowing the CDC to pass laws on budget allocations.

Gusty Winds said...

If the State and the Democrat Governor kill your mom and dad by contaminating nursing homes to save money and spike the death toll can you sue them for damages after they grant themselves “immunity”?

What about if your Wisconsin Beta-Cuck Governor lets a town like Kenosha burn for political purposes? What can you do about it?

“We’re from the government. We’re here to help”.

gilbar said...

Serious Questions
How many states need to call for a new constitutional convention, for us to have one?
Does the "For the People Act of 2019, House Bill 1" change this number?
If a Majority of votes counted in California are against the new constitution, what happens?

wendybar said...

Now do Sanctuary cities ignoring federal laws.

Temujin said...

Time for an Article 5 Convention of the States. Seriously. How did we get to this point where we accept every edict out of Washington DC as a law. The CDC does not make laws.

It is a curiosity of the left that they are constantly in a mode to drag everybody to the lowest possible denominator. If New York, Virginia, Michigan, and California have done a terrible job during covid, that is OK because (a)they are Democrat run states, and (b) they are following in line with whatever is decreed out of Washington. If Texas and Florida have done a good to great job during covid, it's terrible and they should be penalized because (a) they are Republican run states, and (b) they are asserting their Federalism.

We're not constructed to be a top-down society. We have to stop taking our orders and direction from Washington. It's supposed to be the other way around: We, at the local and state level, make our laws for our communities. We put pressure on Washington when we know we need changes done to meet our needs. We've allowed this thing to get completely out of hand.

GDI said...

CDC guidance is not law. Sanctuary cities and states choose to not enforce the law and still receive federal funding.

Gusty Winds said...

If you’re from a debt ridden blue state, you can lock down your economy over false fear, lock kids out of schools, destroy small businesses, increase drug use, suicide and murder rates….and the Pelosi and the Democrats will try and bail our your state in a COVID “relief” bill.

But we’re worried about Texas and Miss listening to the CDC.

Why are they expected to when the Teachers Unions refuse???

BUMBLE BEE said...

Used to say, "If you scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds." Should Texas withhold federal taxes for releasing undocumenteds into their state? Each one, probably a $million+ life long liability?

Joel Winter said...

I wonder what the appetite is for raising state taxes as states methodically withdraw from their dependence on federal funding for the variety of mandates. It's probably too difficult to explain (and the public probably wouldn't trust the promises that state politicians would be making about this)--but it's worth considering.

Same with colleges. At some point is the federal money worth it, and is there some other way?

Both those approaches would require some tough decisions, and some real leadership.

lgv said...

If the CDC says it is safe to re-open school, should all federal education funding be denied if they don't open the schools?

If COVID infections rates in a state are .00001%, but the CDC guidelines remain unchanged, then states must remain in lockdown/masks?

Lucien said...

Didn't take long for the folks here to figure this one out.

Eleanor said...

The CDC says schools should be open. Should states that don't open their schools lose federal school funding? Folks on the left who vowed they'd never take a vaccine fast tracked by the Trump administration now want everyone to need a card saying they've been vaccinated by those vaccines to be allowed out in public. I used to think inconsistency was a failure on the left. Now I know it's a baked in the cake feature.

Sebastian said...

"A terrible answer: "What Biden should do is make clear now:"

Why is that a terrible answer? It's the right prog answer, and the feds have "made clear" to states what they need to do for about a century now.

Michael K said...

Blogger Unknown said...
I believe 18 should be the age to legally purchase alcohol. Great job convincing me the feds using the power of the purse leads to bad law.


When I was a teen in IL, the age for drinking was 21 for males and 18 for females. Guess who went into the liquor store to buy the beer ?

Howard said...

Darwinism is feature.

I'm Not Sure said...

"If a state is fiscally irresponsible in passing out public pensions, should it be eligible to receive federal help if it later needs it as a result?"

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Michael K: "When I was a teen in IL, the age for drinking was 21 for males and 18 for females."

In those days it was easier to distinguish between males and females.

Iman said...

Dementia Joe and the rest of these grifting dog-fuckers can go take a flying roger at a Greyhound Bus.

alfromchgo said...

Every morningthe call goes out in government offices: "How can we f__K with them this week?"

Whiskeybum said...

When the Federal Income Tax system was implemented back in 1913, I wonder how many people at the time thought that one of the main purposes for collecting these taxes was to act as a sword of Damocles to be held over the States for any and every reason that Federal bureaucrats wanted to force the States to comply with.

tim in vermont said...

All of these examples that Chuck gave, the Democrats claimed were illegal. We can see now that it was never about legality, only about the wrong ox getting gored.

jaydub said...

Andrew Ross Sorkin is one reason why I limit my involvement with the NYT to crosswords.

Harsh Pencil said...

The law that got the states to push through the 21 year old drinking age withheld only 10% (if my memory serves correctly) of highway funds. Our robed Supreme Court masters held that this was not high enough to coercive, but 100% probably was. In the Obamacare case, where the federal government threatened to withhold 100% of Medicaid funds if the states didn't toe the line regarding eligibility, they ruled that 100% definitely was coercive and struck it down.

They got it wrong the first time. 1% is too high. If we are to have a federal system, the federal government can't say to the states "Gosh, one of your laws isn't exactly how we would like it to be. Nice state you have there. Would be a shame if anything happen to it."

Mr Wibble said...

Go ahead and cut funding. The secret is that threat only works if you don't use it. Once you do, people quickly learn that they don't need you.

MacMacConnell said...

Sorkin knows nothing of any part of America outside NYC. Grew up rich in Scarsdale, NY Westchester county. Went to Scarsdale public HS where the average teacher's salary is over $100,000 per year, student to teacher ration 12- to one. Did I mention he went to Cornell?

Forty four years old lefty journalist know nothing. He completely misunderstands the Texas opening as described by the Texas Governor. But WTF, hair on fire articles get attention.

tim in vermont said...

You know what would have been good? The FDA not delaying the approval of the vaccine in order to “fortify” the election of Biden.

At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday.[The day after the election.] When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/

Amexpat said...

With the threat of loss of highway funding, that's how the legal drinking age went from 19 to 21 in 1985

That was South Dakota v. Dole. A 7-2 1984 decision written by Rehnquist that upheld the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Before then each State could decide it's own drinking age laws. New York was 18 when I was a teenager there, but you had no problem buying beer at gas station convenience stores if you drove a car younger than that.

Back to South Dakota v. Dole. That was a decision that really irked me at law school. How could an avowed federalist like Rehnquist support that decision? It became clear to me that, with a few exceptions (like Scalia with Freedom of Speech), legal philosophies are chosen to get the desired result. Federalists, Judicial Activists, Originalsts, etc, will generally abandon their legal philosophy if it leads to a result they don't like.

tim in vermont said...

Why not test the samples as they came in? Why leave them in storage? So there was no chance that the fact that the vaccines were effective would leak.

anonymous said...

If "guidance" is mandatory, then it really isn't guidance - it's an edict on par with the Pharaoh's "So let it be written, so let it be done"

rehajm said...

Andrew Ross Sorkin has America's most punchable face and attitude. He is the nanny state villian from every 80s movie that forces you to have the prom in the loading dock at the train station

OMG I'm stealing this and not giving you credit

The only reason Sorkin has a job at CNBC is because the prick in the Obama administration responsible for monitoring the media wanted a foil for Joe Kernan talking sense.

daskol said...

Should the states which unnecessarily remain locked-down, lose Federal economic help?

This is the better question. The perpetually locked down states, not the ones who have reopened, are the ones who require bailouts. The question as asked is in the preferred narrative frame, but not the one that makes any sense.

JAORE said...

"What Biden should do is make clear now: Do what Texas and Mississippi are doing, lose ALL your federal funding."

I guess tactical nukes are off the table.... for now.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tim in vermont said...

Nobody give a shit about the utterly predictable and predictably obtuse shit you write Chuck.

mockturtle said...

It might be a good idea if states began weaning themselves from the federal teat, freeing themselves to make their own policies.

MadTownGuy said...

Benefits are a means of control.

Joe Smith said...

People on welfare get to spend tax dollars eating Big Macs, smoking cigarettes and weed, drinking beer, and watching TV all day.

They still get free government healthcare.

Maybe we fix that first.

Howard said...

I agree! We should stop the bankrolling of backwards welfare gobbling Red states by the wealthy modern coastal elite Blue states.

Oso Negro said...

Chuck, I hope you don't pay a therapist. If so, your money has been wasted. What kind of human being REPEATEDLY returns to a place where he has been REPEATEDLY told he is unwelcome?

Howard said...

Tim in Vermont: you always seem to care what what's his face has to say thereby encouraging more input from him. I understand you do it hoping Drago and the other mean girls will invite you into their clique.

Howard said...

Oso: If you really want to appear Woke, you should photoshop blackface onto your new Avatar.

Joe Smith said...

There is nothing at all 'elite' about the coastal, blue states.

Have you been to San Francisco?

The 'elite' have turned it into a huge outdoor toilet and used-needle depository where men fuck each other in public in broad daylight.

Look up 'Folsom Street Fair' in your browser (turn off safe browsing) and try to hold down your breakfast.

The 'elite' at City Hall issue a permit for this kind of perversion.

You're welcome.

Mike Litoris said...

Howard: You're still an inconsequential semi-retarded laughingstock.

mikesixes said...

Given the CDC's and Fauci's record of incompetence, I think states that open up should be applauded for sticking their necks out so that we can see if it's safe.

DarkHelmet said...

Howard, how about you let us 'backwards welfare gobbling Red states' go? As in return to federalism and stop the process of 'wealthy modern coastal elite Blue states' telling everybody else what to do?

In the main, we conservatives really, really don't care how you want to live your lives. Seriously, we don't. Would you consider extending us the same courtesy?

rcocean said...

I thought the SCOTUS had ruled that a state could pretty much do anything. Remember when Calf refused to enforce the immigration laws and Trump tried to withhold funds? The Left-wing judges decided that Trump had ZERO authority to do that.

Of course, a little thing like consistency, won't prevent the SCOTUS from turning around and saying "This is different". Because what they do, is just politics by other means.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
Nobody give a shit about the utterly predictable and predictably obtuse shit you write Chuck.


Rest assured; I want Althouse's intelligent, educated, reasonable readers (and there are at least a few of those) to see what I have posted as comments, and to see how they are taken down out of personal spite, and not as a result of any cognizable "rules" for commenting.

And I also want those same readers to see what unhinged, vile and even threatening comments get aimed at me, and how they are allowed to stand.

rcocean said...

So, let me get this straight. If CV-19 goes up in Texas we should let people die or go bankrupt. Sounds reasonable to me.

Of course, the texas government is tracking the disease, and if it truly gets out of control, they will go back to lockdown. But Lets not talk about that.

rcocean said...

Just ignore the left-wing troll. You constantly enable him. You do it deliberately and lie about how much you "hate" Him. If you did "hate him" you wouldn't give him attention. What a clown show!

Joe Smith said...

"In the main, we conservatives really, really don't care how you want to live your lives. Seriously, we don't. Would you consider extending us the same courtesy?"

I pay taxes in San Francisco.

I care if the filth is played out in public while being sanctioned and subsidized by government.

I don't care what adults do in private.

But if you want to have massive, gay orgies, do it on your own time and in private, not in the middle of the street.

Dogs fuck each other in the middle of the street. People should know better.

MSOM said...

There may be some good reasons for the federal government to collect a pool of money from the people of every state, and then distribute it to various states based on various factors.

Here's a terrible reason:

"We're taking your money and we'll give it back if you do what we tell you."

I'm Not Sure said...

"In the main, we conservatives really, really don't care how you want to live your lives. Seriously, we don't. Would you consider extending us the same courtesy?"

Never happen. Liberals really, really do care how you want to live your life. And they expect to be the ones to make your choices for you. Just don't you go getting the idea you'll have anything to say about how they live their own lives.

DarkHelmet said...

Here's a puzzler: the 'wealthy modern coastal elite Blue' folks really, really hate the rest of us. Just despise us. I'm fine with that. Life ain't a popularity contest. And yet as much as they hate us, they absolutely insist on getting in our faces every day and telling us we must do this, we mustn't do that, etc. ad infinitum. But if we suggest that perhaps a peaceful dissolution is appropriate they refuse to consider it.

Don't know about you all, but I'm beginning to feel like a battered spouse. Every day the Blues smack us around a little, but if we think about leaving they say they'll kill us rather than let us walk.

It's pretty sick, really.

320Busdriver said...

I love watching Rick Santelli ripping soy boy Sorkin a new one on CNBC. I’ll bet Sorkin is an elite product of one of the ivy’s. Middle name H for hubris.

dbp said...

Howard said...
I agree! We should stop the bankrolling of backwards welfare gobbling Red states by the wealthy modern coastal elite Blue states.

This is a sort of deception by misaggregation error. The Federal money consumed by red states is mostly consumed by clients of the welfare state and public education workers, who are primarily Democrats. The funding coming from blue states in the form of income tax, is being paid by the upper middle class, which is mostly Republicans.

Leland said...

Considering New York’s dismal record with COVID, New Yorkers might consider spending more time figuring out what Texas did so much better.

NC William said...

Chuck:

It may be that your posts get removed because you have been repeatedly banned and lack the good manners to leave, as well as being a troll. Your comments are also witless.

320Busdriver said...

As a frequent visitor to left coast blue cities I will say without equivocation that I would no longer have ANY desire to visit the downtown areas of LA, SF, Portland or Seattle. San Diego is pretty raw as well. Much less offer to bring along a family member who may have never been there. They are not even safe for walking about any longer. The question is which way does the trend go? I think I know.

Leland said...

"What Biden should do is make clear now: Do what Texas and Mississippi are doing, lose ALL your federal funding. With the threat of loss of highway funding, that's how the legal drinking age went from 19 to 21 in 1985...."

Isn’t that an impeachable offense?

Matt said...

Yeah, well, if the CDC tells you to stop being a jerk, will you be breaking the law? You know, cause you're a jerk. Jerk.

Nailed it.

DarkHelmet said...

Leland, this is 2021. For the next four years there are NO impeachable offenses. Also the Logan Act has gone back into hibernation.

Howard said...

I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi in a white grease stained tank top bitch slapping you Trump Cucks silly. Any minute now you're going to really really get mad, grow brass and take back your country. Maybe tomorrow or next month... but soon very very soon.

Joe Smith said...

"Leland, this is 2021. For the next four years there are NO impeachable offenses. Also the Logan Act has gone back into hibernation."

But the 25th amendment is warming up in the bullpen...

Joe Smith said...

Go back to sucking cock behind the 7-11, Howard...it's what you're good at.

DavidUW said...

Better answer. All federal “aid” to states for crap of their own making (lockdowns) shall end. Now.

Larry J said...

In addition to cities and states ignoring immigration laws, there's also the matter of them legalizing marijuana. If they are demanding states that go their own way on COVID lockdowns (which are not federal law) should be denied all federal funding, then it stands to reason the same thing should happen for those who refuse to comply with federal drug laws. How about those cities and states that refused to protect federal property from rioters?

Of course, that would require thinking and consistency, both of which are not Democrat strong suits.

Howard said...

So many Cucks, so easily triggered.

320Busdriver said...

Just don’t ever expect to travel by commercial air without wearing a mask from the moment you enter the terminal to when you exit on the other end. EVER!

RMc said...

I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi in a white grease stained tank top bitch slapping you Trump Cucks silly.

You need professional help.

Howard said...

That's a good idea 320busdriver. Too many people get sick on flights.

bleh said...

Better question, if a state fails to lift restrictions in a timely manner should it not be denied federal funds designed to offset the economic costs of shutdown?

Yes, exactly. That's why I'm so opposed to the current effort at bailing out the states. The federal government shouldn't be incentivizing/paying for economically ruinous policies. It's a sneaky way of federalizing the pandemic response. It alleviates the pressure to reopen.

DarkHelmet said...

"I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi in a white grease stained tank top bitch slapping you Trump Cucks silly."

Yes, I imagine you are. That was sort of my point. Behind the facade of humanitarianism so many Lefties are just vicious, abusive bullies. And like many bullies I think their aggression is often motivated by their deep-seated feelings of inferiority.

If they felt okay about themselves they wouldn't be compelled to order everybody else around.

"Any minute now you're going to really really get mad, grow brass and take back your country. Maybe tomorrow or next month... but soon very very soon."

Take back my country? This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. Yes, some people on the right say that sort of thing. But do any of us really want to 'take back' San Francisco, New York or Chicago? I know I don't. I lived in Chicago for a number of years. I used to enjoy short visits to SF and NYC. At this point I don't care if I never seen any of them again in my life. Seattle used to be a great city. I wanted to live there back in the '80s. At this point there isn't enough money the world to induce me to put down roots in King County, Cook County or San Francisco County. There's never been enough money in the world to induce me to put down roots in LA.

No, I don't want to 'take back' those places. Nor Atlanta, nor Philadelphia, nor Detroit. I want the people in those places to lives their lives as they see fit. That seems to involve electing and re-electing corrupt useless scum who provide them with substandard schools, high taxes and dangerous streets. But hey, if that's what they like, fine.

I have no illusions that conservatives are going to 'take back' anything. The educational and cultural rot has gone to far. We can look for enclaves that provide partial shelter. That's about it. Until and unless the Blue Dystopia implodes and the scales fall from the eyes of the majority.

Once we had the Constitution as a protection against the mindless tyranny of the majority. Ninety years of craven betrayal by the courts have left the Constitution as a sort of tattered memento of liberty.

But at least Howard can enjoy rubbing faces into the mud, electorally speaking.

Chuck said...

NC William said...
Chuck:

It may be that your posts get removed because you have been repeatedly banned and lack the good manners to leave, as well as being a troll. Your comments are also witless.


Do you think I should aim higher with the content of my comments? Something like Joe Smith's unmoderated 10:10 AM and 10:38 AM comments?

Or is it a matter of personal attacks? Should I avoid comments like Iman's unmoderated 8:52 AM comment?

One of my removed comments was nothing more than quoted headlines of stories in which Donald Trump explicitly and personally threatened federal funding from particular states, cities and institutions that he didn't like.

Another of my removed comments more or less simply asked if President Biden had actually made any threat to withhold federal funding, or if instead this story was simply floating in the blogosphere, without any involvement by Biden.

Help me figure out which commenting rules I violated.


I'm Not Sure said...

"I want the people in those places to lives their lives as they see fit."

And the people in those places want to make the place you live like theirs. Easier to disguise the nastiness of it all, when there's nothing left to compare it with.

wendybar said...

Joe Smith said...
Go back to sucking cock behind the 7-11, Howard...it's what you're good at.

3/4/21, 10:38 AM

THIS!

Iman said...

Look up 'Folsom Street Fair' in your browser (turn off safe browsing) and try to hold down your breakfast.

The 'elite' at City Hall issue a permit for this kind of perversion.

You're welcome.


Teh Infamous Scrotum Inflaters will open for Sausage Gobblers...

Francisco D said...

Help me figure out which commenting rules I violated.

Rule #1: Thou shalt not be an insufferable asshole.

mockturtle said...

Rule #1: Thou shalt not be an insufferable asshole.

Right, Francisco. While we have numerous sufferable assholes here, being insufferable is a permanent DQ.

GMay said...

How about if the feds cut off funding for a state for exercising their constitutional prerogatives, the state declares its residents no longer need to pay federal income tax.

Problem solved.

NMObjectivist said...

This certainly helps Republicans win the House in 2022.

Skippy Tisdale said...

A question for NYT columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin:

When did you stop having three-way incestual relations with your mother and grandmother?

Chris of Rights said...

What if you didn't "change" your rules, you just didn't enforce them all summer long when rioters and "peaceful protestors" ignored them. Should you be eligible for federal help?

KellyM said...

My home state of Vermont was one of the last two states to blink and raise the drinking age to 21(the other was Louisiana). And they didn't do it as one would expect, going with the end of the calendar year. No, they went by fiscal year, which ends June 30. This was 1985/1986, my senior year of high school. I turned 18 and graduated with just 10 days' to spare. Many of my classmates didn't fare so well in that endeavor.

paminwi said...

AndrewRossSorkin is a whiny liberal.
Have you ever watched SquawkBox?
He’s the guy that promoted the idea that credit card companies should stop processing transactions from places that sold guns.
He thought that would stop another Sandy Hook.
He promoted this relentlessly on Squawk Box.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

Joanne Jacobs said...

The Biden administration plans to release immigrants claiming refugee status within 72 hours. I wonder if they'll have to test negative for coronavirus before being sent to their destinations across the U.S. Even then, the person who wasn't infected when he crossed the border may be infected by the time he walks out the door and gets on the bus.

JeanE said...

I grow weary of the federal government using tax dollars collected from citizens to extort the states to follow federal mandates on x, y and z. How about all federal tax dollars from citizens in Texas go into a sort of escrow account held by the state and only released to the federal government if authorized by the state legislature? If the state legislature doesn't think the federal government is doing it's duty to the citizens of the state, the funds are returned to the taxpayers.

Russell said...

What if the state 'followed the guidelines' or were even more restrictive and still had outbreaks worse than states accused of not following the guidelines? Why should they get rewarded? Looks like we have another round of everyone's favorite game: fair-weather federalism.

hombre said...

Even more troubling than the ignorance and stupidity of the leftmediaswine is that they are out of control as also, apparently, are the Democrats in Congress.

Alphaeus said...

If I don't get MediCare then I'm not paying for MediCare. Duh.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

End all federal education funding and all police funding. States are responsible for those two types of policy. Why is the Federal government involved in the first place?

I'm sure there are many more "revenue sharing", I mean "deficit spending" opportunities that could be terminated. Less federal authority, more state.

Hercules, not that one though said...

Every Free State should be doing everything they can to reject all Federal Funding. My State is having a debate right now over The US Dept of Ed dangling $8 million if we will give them our 3 year olds. The Progs from CA and Seattle that have infested our State are AOK with Fed pedophilia. The Feds admit they want to groom them for LGBT. The public Schools already do that to the 5 year olds, but the Feds want younger.

Too soon to tell if the tolerant Progs outnumber the Americans here.
Buwaya was right to leave when he did.

Phelps said...

The USA needs Texas' taxes more than Texas needs the USA's funding. What do they do if Abbott just says that no one can be prosecuted by the IRS in Texas?