- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
- GOP offer to fix VA gives $10 billion in emergency funds
- Paul Ryan offers to repair U.S. economic safety net with a single grant stream
- Kim Jong-un builds bond with Putin: $250M Russia-backed addition to key port opens
- Pope Francis meets Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death
Latest Michael Medved Items
Early in the 2012 campaign season, predictions were that a major film would reach theaters in the fall, shine a spotlight on one of the presidential candidates, and possibly influence the outcome of the election. And that's how it happened, except the movie wasn't "Zero Dark Thirty," the surefire Hollywood blockbuster about the killing of Osama bin Laden that Republicans feared would throw the election to President Obama.
It was 8:21 on a Friday night, and there I was, reading yet another book on how to reclaim the morals and principles that America used to hold dear. What a way to start a weekend. Rather prudish, don't you think?
As the debate over the Senate immigration bill has intensified in recent weeks, both the New York Times and The Washington Post have struggled to keep their pro-open-borders editorial views out of the news section. Ten days ago — just 72 hours before the immigration "compromise" disintegrated on the Senate floor — The Post ran a front-page piece titled "Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic." The Post quoted Republican supporters of the bill expressing confidence that "the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion," and that the number of anti-amnesty phone calls to congressional offices was leveling off.