Share This Page

Sunday pops

| Saturday, April 12, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

If you believe that Kathleen Sebelius resigned of her own volition as Health and Human Services secretary, you obviously still believe in the Easter Bunny. Insiders say her departure is all about protecting Barack Obama's “legacy.” Which more than suggests the president never has and never will own the mess that is ObamaCare. ... Attorney General Eric Holder more than intimates that criticism of his actions and policies and those of the president is racist. Speaking at a New York convention last week, he called it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges, reports Politico. Pity that the nation's chief law-enforcement officer plays the race card to cover for his many documentable incompetencies. ... Pennsylvania Democrat gubernatorial front-runner Tom Wolf's latest campaign ad repeats the myth that is the 23-percent gap between male and female wages. We have to “do better,” he insists. Yes, you do, Mr. Wolf. ... Reports CNSNews.com: “Were Medicaid a nation instead of a U.S. entitlement program it would be the 20th most populous country on Earth.” Ah, yes, life in the Dependent State of America. ... Remember Mark Witaschek, the fella found guilty of violating Washington, D.C., gun laws for possessing inoperable muzzleloader bullets — no primer, no gunpowder — that couldn't be fired from a gun not even located in the district? The Washington Times' Emily Miller reports that the district's tax gendarmes have demanded payroll and other records from his business but have made no specific allegations or filed any charges. Why don't they just draw and quarter the guy?

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.