Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, came out in favor of gay marriage in a video posted today on the Internet by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.
Timing, as they say, is everything. Next up for the The Supreme Court are two landmark gay rights cases that may make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
“I believe America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being,’’ she said.
I believe she means it.
I also believe she's campaigning...
By The Washington Times
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
In the opening summary of the report “Advertising by the Federal Government: An Overview,” analyst Kevin R. Kosar writes, “Government advertising can be controversial if it conflicts with citizens’ views about the proper role of government. Yet some government advertising is accepted as a normal part of government information activities.” Mr. Kosar notes the difficulty of calculating the amo9unt spent by the feds on advertising each year, writing that “there is no government wide definition of what constitutes advertising” and “there is no central authority to which agencies are required to report advertising expenses.”
Mr. Kosar is, however, able to estimate the federal government’s “expenditures on contracts for advertising services derived from data in the Federal Procurement Data System.” Advertising expenditures for fiscal 2011 were $750.5 million. Beyond warning us of the evils of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cyber bullying and cybercrime, we are now beseeched by government advertisements to “take time to be a dad today,” assess our flood risks and sign up for food stamps. Ads tell children they can learn how to live a healthy lifestyle by going to www.choosemyplate.gov and following links to learn about their farmers and “know” their food.
The problem here is that the government does not belong in the advertising business—and it should not be spending taxpayer money on the prospect of turning minds.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.