Wendy Davis and Elizabeth Warren are feminist heroines.  Which indicates feminists these days don't expect much from their heroines.  Call them regressive-liberal heroines. Ms. Davis, a state senator in Texas, has parlayed the attention the national news media lavished upon her 11-hour filibuster against a bill to forbid abortions after 20 weeks into a campaign for governor. She could give Democrats "real people credibility," based on "her own personal story - an absent father, a sixth-grade-educated mother, a teen pregnancy, followed by life as a single mom in a mobile home, then community college and, at last, Harvard Law School," gushed the regressives at Time magazine. "The Today Show accompanied her back to the mobile home as if it were taking Abraham Lincoln back to the log cabin where he was raised," said Rich Lowry of National Review. Unlike Time and NBC, Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News checked out the claims Ms. Davis made in her campaign biography.  He found a few discrepancies.

Without the rule of law, a civil and prosperous society cannot long endure. The annual reports of The Economic Freedom of the World and The Index of Economic Freedom show very large declines in the international ranking of the United States in the rule of law over the past decade. The Obama administration is becoming increasingly arbitrary concerning what laws it chooses to enforce or not enforce, while, at the same time, through executive orders and administrative decisions, just making up "law" outside of the constitutional process. Perhaps the clearest examples of this abuse can be found at the IRS, which increasingly acts as a rogue agency with the support of its masters at the Treasury and Justice Departments.  The IRS has a long record of ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law.  Now it's become much worse.

What George Wallace and "Bull" Connor would have decried as "miscegenation" is commonplace in America today. Ten percent of all married couples in 2010 were interracial, a 28 percent increase since 2000, according to the Census Bureau. There were 157,000 interracial married couples in 1960, 5.4 million in 2010.  Nine million Americans reported being of mixed race, a 32 percent increase over 2000. At one time or another, all but 9 states (Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin) had laws forbidding mixed race marriages.  We've come a long way in half a century.  But there are still racists among us.  Especially among regressive liberals.  Call what they espouse Regressive Racism.   Here are some revolting examples of it.

Where's the pony? Ronald Reagan was fond of describing an optimist as a kid on a farm happily digging through a huge pile of horse manure, yelling, "There's got to be a pony in here somewhere!"  What would he say about a week, or a time like this?  Knowing him, I think he'd say, "Well, sometimes there just isn't any pony." Yes, there will be days like this.  But three more years of days like this??  One thousand ninety-eight more days?  (See the Countdown Clock to the end of the Zero Presidency.) And realize there is a high probability that those 1098 days are going to be progressively worse.  With each passing day and week and month, we're going to have more fascism, more unemployment, more dependency, more cultural depravity, more corruption, more crony capitalism, more liberal hate, more Enemedia lying and cover-ups of Zero scandals, more persecution of Tea Partyers, and more surrender to America's enemies like Iran and the Chicoms. So - how can we possibly stand it?    What in the Diety's name are we going to do?  First, we'll review how grim it's been this week.  Then we'll discuss six alternatives to dealing with it.  (No fair skipping ahead, but one of them is following the advice of Josey Wales.)

Fifty years ago this month, President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared war on poverty.  We've spent nearly three times as much to fight it as on all of America's real wars combined. We haven't gotten much bang for all those bucks. At 15.2 percent in 2012, the poverty rate was the highest since 1965 (17.3 percent). The federal government spends on "means tested" programs more than $19,000 for each man, woman and child classified as "poor."  If a poor single mother with two children actually got all the money purportedly spent on her behalf, she'd have at least $6,000 more than the median income. She gets nowhere near that much.  This fact, coupled with their sheer number (83, according to the Congressional Research Service) suggest poverty programs benefit chiefly the bureaucrats who run them.  Surprised?  I think not.