Earliest Christian engraving shows pagan elements
Rin Tin Tin and the making of Warner Brothers
This Week’s Applied Hayek: Socialism vs. “Socialism”
Schumer and Durbin Admit Democrats Won't Vote for Obama's Tax Increases
ERIC HOLDER LIED UNDER OATH!… Documents Confirm the Obama AG Knew of Fast & Furious in 2010
Majority Expects Obama to Lose Re-Election
No Kidding… Obama Admits “The Nation Is Not Better Off”
'Durbin fee' will cost bank customers billions
Canadian gun registry and homicide
Is There Really an Environmental Benefit to Going Paperless?
Neo: The MSM’s battle plan
Consumers are spending, but nobody is investing
Tricare Folly - Control U.S. Military's Health-Care Costs
Representing the Holocaust
Michelle Obama's trip to Target
Are You Ready For The Next Solyndra?
Fun with "art": “If money is so ‘inconsequential,’ why do these parasites always expect to be given loads of someone else’s?”:
...the notion that artists might actually consider earning a living doesn’t register at all. There’s not even the briefest flickering of that possibility. The idea that artists might endeavour to produce work that their customers would pay for voluntarily, without Arts Council coercion and political vetting, appears to be unworthy, and perhaps unthinkable. Artists are much too important to waste their time making beautiful things that people want to buy. According to Laurie, their role is political and much, much grander - to “imagine a culture beyond the control of capital and the nation state.”
Tracked: Oct 04, 07:15