Brazil and Columbia are natural allies of the U.S.  Brazil has felt ignored (rightly) and Columbia insulted (staunch in support of the drug interdiction program and cold shouldered on a free trade agreement).  We run guns into Mexico to change our Second Amendment attitudes. Do we know how huge opportunies are south of the Rio Grande?  110 million in Mexico, 205 million in Brazil and another 50 million in Columbia; these three countries alone have more than 85% of the population of Europe. 

Brazil is the 5th most populous country (China, India, U.S. Indonesia).  It is a treasure trove of resources, hard working people and sophisticated leaders, many of whom have graduate degrees from American universities.  It is closer geographically than China, India and Indonesia and shares much cultural history with the United States.  Mexico and Brazil probably contribute more legal and illegal immigrants (many hard workers) to the U.S. than anyone else  and deserve our attention. 

They (and Columbia) should be on the top of our list for friends to embrace. Democracies all.  Don't confuse Argentina and Venzezuela with the heart of Latin America.  We have friends there waiting to be respected and befriended. 

Mitt will make us proud and do what he says he will do.  Thank heaven he had  the courage to run and that Ann  supported his decision. 

Mitt offers a stark contrast to the government-centered Obama.  He is a man of accomplishment against a Chicago pol who did nothing but speechify to get where he is. 

It's time to rev up the enthusiasm and do all we can to win the White House and the Senate.

As for Islam, if one really educates himself about what the Koran says and Muhammad commands the likelihood of a jihadist emerging, that is, following the true faith, is bound to be much higher.

Thank you for this.

Romney has too many of his old Massachusetts advisers who don't seem to have any common sense.  Fehrnstrom is one.  That statement is as much of a self-imposed knife wound as one can imagine.

Is Reagan's well intentioned mistake (?) at the root of today's dilemma?. Romney was dealing with a real problem. How can hospitals (and states, to which hospitals appeal) handle the "freeloaders"? Chronic gaming of the system gets expensive for all. Add the bureaucratic cost imposed by the Leviathan and we all choke.

What can hospitals and states do if FEDERAL law mandates that they must care for everyone regardless of ability to pay?  Are unfunded mandates unconstitutional?  Shouldn't they be?

What are states to do?  Should not the federal mandate for care be repealed first and then states and hospitals can make their own judgments on who they can serve? 

If the federal mandate were funded by the federal government, what would people think if all the options were still of private insurance, involving competition and individual choices?

Questions.

Romney and Santorum are far superior to Obama and our job is to get the Republican nominee elected. Obama's destruction of the economy, enlargement of government control and bureaucracy and attacks on the Constitution, especially on freedom of region, should be enough of a starting base to take him down.

For those who didn't read Murray's essay, Murray confined himself to whites to leave out any racial distinctions.  He developed two groups with statistical analysis and posited them in two fictionalized neighborhoods.  Such class isolated zip codes do in fact exit.  The difference in cultural deterioration over the years in the pillars he cites is dramatic.  That the elites "cling" more to religion, marriage and family as well as hard work is somewhat of a surprise, to me, anyway.  He acknowledges the government policies that started or accelerated the decline of the "American Way of Life" will not be scrapped and makes some simple but worthwhile suggestions as to how the decline might be halted and reversed.  Niall Ferguson in his review of Murray's book (in the Daily Beast) believes the welfare programs can be dumped and suggests tax code changes to create work incentives and expanded school choice.

This is an important point for the future economic health of the society. It is costly for a two-parent family to raise several children, but all of society benefits.  Asking whether there is a  way to recoup some of those costs from those who don't contribute children to tomorrow's sociey is a good question. For the implications, see this very  interesting article by David Goldman, "Demographics and Depression." 

This has been the law in many if not most states for years.  It has origins in common law, I believe.  It can be first-degree, as here; whether a jury will go that far remains to be seen.  More likely, there will be a deal.

Clearly, games are now played at Harvard Law.   The only way Obama could have graduated with the mcl he got was because he had the favor and support of two influential HLS professors, not because of his grades on tests.  Kennedy went to very liberal Stanford (the undergrad is worlds apart from the Hoover institution), which is a feeder for Harvard Law.  Speaking as an HLS grad, I would indeed probably flunk at math.

 Senator Brown will be opposed by a Marxist from the Harvard law faculty Elizabeth Warren, who could not get confirmed by the Senate for the consumer regulatory agency she helped create.  Even Democratic senators thought she was too much.  In socialist Massachusetts, Brown will have a tough time winning. 

As for the prospect of yet another Kennedy, Barney Frank has his most difficult race in years the last time around.  Sean Bielat may run again; he will announce his decision on January 17th.  The district has been substantially reconfigured (Mass. lost one Congressman), but retains about half of the district Bielat ran in.  Bielat is a very attractive candidate. 

The Boston media are giddy at the prospect of another Kennedy.  His  father, former Congressman Joe Kenned,y now runs a nonprofit providing poor seniors with cheap fuel oil (from Hugo Chavez) and his free TV ad (featuring Joe himself) runs frequently.  In fact, his ad ran up right up to the lead of the 6 p.m. news tonight.  And guess what the lead was.  All about Joe's son forming an exploratory committee.  Coincidence?  Maybe.   

The campaign will be war.  Whoever the Republican nominee is, he or she will be bombarded with slick attack ads.  The Republican has to play just as hard and be as creative, articulate and financed to not only defend, but to attack.  Just think of everything McCain could have said about Obama's criminal associates and the great Reverend Wright that he didn't.  People still don't know Obama and why he seems so un-American.  There is plenty of ammunition.  We just have to make sure, as best we can, we have a nominee who can and will fight the war.  Ads like this Armco one were used against Romney in his losing campaign for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, so he is quite aware of what will be coming and with his team will have worked out how to respond.  The Republican will have the better side of theeconomic argument, but will have to sell hard what it will take to make America competitive so we will create and keep jobs here, such as building Boeings in South Carolina.  Non-unionized workers building cars in the south are quite happy, I'm sure. 

 COEXIST:  The priceless Mark Steyn:

I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood... [in world trouble spots it's] Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.

 The attacks on Tebow are just part of the media  assault on Christianity and morality.  The idea that there is a God, good and evil, right and wrong is so passé and interferes with their promotion of anything goes in human behavior and programming.