Do You Want to Play a Game?

Michael Barone: “Dare I suggest,” writes the economist and blogger Tyler Cowen, “that the quality of governance in this country has taken a downward turn of late?” Or as Casey Stengel, while managing the New York Mets on their way to a 40-120 season in 1962, reportedly asked, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

In successive weeks, both Democrats and Republicans have shown a downward trend in the quality of governance and raised questions about whether anybody in Washington can play this game.

Start with the Democrats and their strikeout last week in the hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Their attacks on Gorsuch as a scourge of “the little guy” were, as liberal Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman wrote, “a terrible idea.” Judges are supposed to decide cases on the law, not the net worth of litigants.

Democrats are now lining up to filibuster the nomination, on the spurious grounds that confirmation has always required 60 votes. Actually, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were confirmed in 1991 and 2006 with 52 and 58 votes, respectively.

Democrats are still steamed that Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, last year. But the Constitution doesn’t require the Senate to hold hearings or a vote on nominees.

Joe Biden in 1992 and Charles Schumer in 2007 argued that no nominee should be approved in a presidential election year. That makes sense in an era when Supreme Court decides partisan issues like abortion, gun control and campaign finance. Give the voters a chance to weigh in.

Senate Democrats are now rounding up enough votes to sustain a filibuster. In which case Senate Republicans will almost certainly change the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees, as Harry Reid and Senate Democrats did in 2013 for other judges and executive-branch nominees — and as VP nominee Tim Kaine promised to do if Democrats won the presidency and a Senate majority.

Abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees will weaken Senate Democrats.

Doesn’t anybody know how to play this game?

House Republicans certainly don’t, judging from the debacle of their attempt to fulfill their seven-year promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Much goes to Speaker Paul Ryan, who attempted to shove through his bill in three weeks without bothering to get consensus from fellow Republicans. Ryan’s bill was tailored to pass muster under the Senate’s arcane reconciliation rules, something he probably should have left for Senate Republicans to handle.

Ryan’s initial insistence that Republicans accept his bill without changes didn’t work, and neither did White House adviser Steve Bannon’s similar ploy with a later version. If Ryan and Donald Trump had not insisted on a quick vote — Democrats, in contrast, took 14 months to pass Obamacare — they might have had time to accommodate the differences.


Or maybe not. Consider the 30-some members of the House Freedom Caucus, who reportedly found one reason after another not to sign onto a bill that at least moved in the direction of repealing and replacing Obamacare. They seem to be operating from a deep suspicion of their party’s leadership and from a purism that requires them to withhold support from any major legislation if they object to even one provision in it.

The problem is that in a large and varied country, with complex legislation with multiple ramifications, purism sets a standard that seldom, if ever, can be met. The most that legislators can usually accomplish is to shift the course of the giant ocean liner that is the federal government. Only in very rare circumstances can they reverse the course 180 degrees.

Some blame belongs to the president, as well. If Barack Obama seemed diffident about the details of public policy and their effects on people’s lives, on this issue Donald Trump seemed disconnected from them — not a good position from which to practice the art of the deal.

You may have noticed that the quality of governance has been taking a downward turn of late partly because of mistakes made by party leaders — but mostly because of the demands — and anger — of both parties’ wingers.

Left-wing Democrats are demanding all-out war — they call it “resistance” — on Republicans and the Trump administration. Right-wing Republicans are distrustful of party leaders and are coming to realize that what they have in common with Donald Trump is only attitude, not principle.

Anger and mistrust are poor guides for purposeful and rational formulation of public policy. Does anybody know how to play that game?


The Road to Repeal

See how gutless the current RINOs are. See how committed we are.

Have been saying this since the beginning…

Larry Elder
Larry Elder
Obamacare Was Designed to Explode -- Dems Want Single-Payer

There were two big winners when the House failed to take up the President Donald Trump-backed bill to repeal and replace Obamacare: Barack Obama, who saw Obamacare stand; and Dr. Ben Carson, who was smart enough to pick Housing and Urban Development over Health and Human Services.Oh, spare us the “Republicans failed to get their health care bill through” media hyperventilation. Trump, said many in the media with unconcealed glee, did not close the deal! The Trump agenda is imperiled! Had it passed, the same pundits would be shredding it as cold and heartless, the moral equivalent of signing your granny up with ISIS just to get her out of the house.

Yes, despite a Republican in the Oval Office and Republican majorities in the Senate and House, Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan couldn’t pressure that faction of “free-market Republicans” known as the Freedom Caucus to sign on to their Obamacare replacement. This must be frustrating to the businessman-turned-politician in chief.

Historian Richard E. Neustadt, in “Presidential Power: the Politics of Leadership” writes: “When contemplating General Eisenhower winning the Presidential election, Truman said, ‘He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike — it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.'” No doubt, Trump is experiencing this frustration. Reportedly, Trump recently lamented that real estate is easier than politics.

As for Obamacare, Trump is right to point out that Obamacare is on life support right now, and rising premiums, copays and deductibles were forecast even if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency. Remember, too, that Obamacare was intended to “fail,” given the Democrats’ real goal of a Canadian-style taxpayer-paid health care. Harry Reid openly said so. The Las Vegas Sun reported in 2013:

“In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

“But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

“Reid said he thinks the country has to ‘work our way past’ insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program ‘Nevada Week in Review.’

“‘What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,’ Reid said.

“When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: ‘Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.'”

Former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean also said the end game is the so-called “public option.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, Dean talked about the health care proposals of Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton: “I think while someday we may end up with a single-payer system, it’s clear that we’re not going to do it all at once, so I think both candidates’ health care plans are a big step forward.”

Obama, then a state senator from Illinois, said: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. … A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.” And later then-presidential candidate Obama reiterated his stance, that if “starting from scratch” he’d have a single-payer system.

One more thing about Trump’s new neighborhood, Washington, D.C. Trump talks about “draining the swamp” of the special-interest groups that have the city crawling with lobbyists. But the First Amendment recognizes the “right to redress grievances.” This means lobbying. Big government means a big swamp that attracts those who seek to influence legislation and regulation to their benefit. Indeed, businesses have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that a given measure benefits them or that its potential harm be minimized. If we don’t want lobbyists buzzing around, give them nothing to lobby about.

Welcome, Mr. President. You’re not in New York anymore.

Professor Orwell, I presume

I have found a Professor that embodies Orwell’s 1984 to a tee. She’s an English Professor to boot.

  • A Northern Arizona University student lost credit on an English paper for using the word “mankind” instead of a gender-neutral alternative.

A Northern Arizona University student lost credit on an English paper for using the word “mankind” instead of a gender-neutral alternative.

Cailin Jeffers, an English major at NAU, told Campus Reform that she received an email from one of her professors, Dr. Anne Scott, informing her that she had been docked one point out of a possible 50 on a recent paper for “problems with diction (word choice)” related to her use of the word “mankind” as a synonym for “humanity.”

“The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all.”   


“I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being ‘human,’ if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language,” Scott explained. “The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.”

Scott then offered to let Jeffers revise the paper to earn additional points in five categories, including diction, but noted that she is under no obligation to do so.

“I will respect your choice to leave your diction choices ‘as is’ and to make whatever political and linguistic statement you want to make by doing so,” the professor wrote. “By the same token, I will still need to subtract a point because your choice will not be made in the letter or spirit of this particular class, which is all about having you and other students looking beneath your assumptions and understanding that ‘mankind’ does not mean ‘all people’ to all people. It positively does not.”

“After our first essay we were given a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’ based off of errors my professor found in our essays. Most of them make sense, just things like ‘make sure you’re numbering your pages’ and ‘cite in proper MLA format,’ but she said we had to be sure to use ‘gender-neutral language,’” Jeffers told Campus Reform. “Included with this rule were several examples of what was and wasn’t okay to use. In one of these examples she stated that we could not use the word ‘mankind.’ Instead, we should use ‘humankind.’ I thought this was absurd, and I wasn’t sure if she was serious.”

Jeffers decided to test the policy on her next paper by including two instances of the word “mankind,” and when the paper came back with the requisite points taken off, she requested a meeting with Scott.

[RELATED: College requests ‘grammatically incorrect’ gender-neutral language]

“I stated that I agree with everything she said about my paper except my use of ‘mankind.’ She proceeded to tell me that the NAU English department, as well as the Modern Language Association, are pushing for gender-neutral language, and all students must abide by this,” Jeffers recalled. “She told me that ‘mankind’ does not refer to all people, only males. I refuted, stating that it DOES refer to all people, [but] she proceeded to tell me that I was wrong, ‘mankind’ is sexist, and I should make an effort to look beyond my preset positions and ideologies, as is the focus of the class.”

Jeffers noted that Scott informed her that she could appeal the grade to the department chair, but otherwise “refused to correct her original markdown,” elaborating on her reasoning in the aforementioned email to Jeffers.

Following the meeting, Scott also sent an email to the entire class recounting “an important discussion that I had with one of our class members today about gender-neutral language,” using the incident as an opportunity to explain why she imposes the requirement.

“In a class such as this, wherein the course goals, discussions, readings, and assignments are all focused on what makes us ‘human’ and the assumptions we make about such a concept, it is crucial that we also understand what our word choices mean a great deal and have consequences in terms of what we reveal about our assumptions about ourselves and others, and the world generally,” Scott asserted.

[RELATED: Profs threaten bad grades for saying ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ ‘female’]

She then listed several examples of rhetorical prejudice found in reading assignments, such as a father telling his son to find another woman to procreate with, calling someone “kin of Cain” to imply that they have an evil nature, and referring to a disfigured person as a “Moor.”

None of the examples directly touches on the issue of gender-neutral language, but Scott went on to elaborate that, “in a similar fashion, the words we choose to refer to humanity, to people in general, also have a history, a context, and built-in assumptions.”

Scott concluded by vehemently denying that gender-neutral language is merely a question of “political correctness,” pointing out that both the Modern Language Association and the American Psychological Association have put out guidelines promoting gender-neutral language.

“The issue goes beyond ‘political correctness,’ for my colleagues and I recognize that words help to create our reality, power dynamics, and relationships among people,” she told the class. “You are welcome to make a statement about your politics, or conscience, or beliefs by using gender-specific language in your papers, and in many cases gender-specific language is called for, when you can discern with certainty the gender of the characters and author you’re discussing. However, I’ll still have to subtract a point or two for any kind of language that refers to all people as ‘mankind’ or readers as ‘him/he’, for the reasons I’ve outlined carefully above.”

Campus Reform has reached out to Dr. Scott, as well as the Dean of the College that houses the English Department and the English Department Chair, but none had responded by press time. This article will be updated if a response is received.

Could she be more perfect an example.


False Compassion

Stephen Moore: Last week on CNN I debated a liberal commentator who complained that the problem with President Donald Trump’s budget blueprint is that it lacks “compassion” for the poor, for children and for the disabled. This woman went on to ask me how I could defend a budget that would cut Meals on Wheels, after-school programs and special-education funding, because without the federal dollars, these vital services would go away.

Did you know that in the 50+ years of the “War on Poverty” we have already spent $22 Trillion Dollars!

That’s about $60,000 for every single person in the country. And you want to have apocalyptic hysteria over Meals on Wheels

That’s the funny think about “cutting” “waste”. Someone’s “waste” is some elses “need”. So go ahead gore someone elses ox, just not mine. But they want to gore your ox and not theirs. 🙂

This ideology — that the government action is a sign of compassion — is upside-down and contrary to the Christian notion of charity.

We all, as individuals, can and should act compassionately and charitably. We can volunteer our time, energy and dollars to help the underprivileged. We can feed the hungry, house the homeless. Most of us feel a moral and ethical responsibility to do so — to “do unto others.”

And we do fulfill that obligation more than the citizens of almost any other nation. International statistics show that Americans are the most charitable people in the world and the most likely to engage in volunteerism. Whenever there is an international crisis — an earthquake, a flood, a war — Americans provide more assistance than the people of any other nation.

But government, by its nature, is not compassionate. It can’t be. It is nothing other than a force. Government can only spend a dollar to help someone when it forcibly takes a dollar from someone else. At its core, government welfare is predicated on a false compassion. This isn’t to say that government should never take collective action to help people. But these actions are based on compulsion, not compassion.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

If every so-called “patriotic millionaire” would simply donate half of their wealth to serving others we could solve so many of the social problems in this country without a penny of new debt or taxes. My friend Arthur Brooks, the president of American Enterprise Institute, has noted in his fabulous book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” that conservatives donate more than the self-proclaimed compassionate liberals.

Liberal Millionaires and Billionaires, donate your wealth. Put your money where your mouth is instead of where that other orifice on your back side is. 🙂

The liberal creed seems to be: “We care so much about poor people, climate change, income inequality and protecting the environment (or whatever the cause of the day) that there is no limit to how much money should be taken out of other people’s wallets to solve these problems.”

I have said in many blogs before: There is no one greedier on this planet than a Liberal. Period.

Let’s take Meals on Wheels. Is this a valuable program to get a nutritious lunch or dinner to infirmed senior citizens? Of course, yes. Do we need the government to fund it? Of course not. I have participated in Meals on Wheels and other such programs, making sandwiches or delivering hot lunches. And many tens of thousands of others donate their time and money every day for this worthy cause.

Why is there any need for government here? The program works fine on its own. Turning this sort of charitable task over to government only makes people act less charitably on their own. It leads to an “I gave at the office” mentality, which leads to less generosity. It also subjects these programs to federal rules and regulations that could cripple the programs. Why must the federal government be funding after-school programs — or any school programs, for that matter?

The schools and the teachers are always wanting more and more money, after all…

One of my favorite stories of American history dates back to the 19th century when Col. Davy Crockett, who fought at the Alamo, served in Congress. In a famous incident, Congress wanted to appropriate $100,000 to the widow of a distinguished navel officer. Crockett took to the House floor and delivered his famous speech, relevant as ever: “We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. … I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

Crockett was the only member of Congress who donated personally to the widow, while the members of Congress who pretended to be so caring and compassionate closed their wallets.

It all goes to show that liberal do-gooders were as hypocritical then as they are today.

Liberals are very free with YOUR Money.


Lima Charlie

Paul Ryan should walk around Congress for the next couple of weeks wearing a sign around his neck that reads, “I am a failure.” It’s not that everyone else doesn’t already know that he’s a failure – oh, that’s one message that he’s succeeded in getting out Lima Charlie – it’s that it doesn’t seem like he knows that he’s a failure. Perhaps some signage would remind him to wipe that smug, smarmy grin off his face, and inspire him to achieve something other than nothing.


Yet he’ll persist, with his unerring poor judgment, his undercurrent of condescension to anyone not in tune with his wonky nonsense, and his inability to master the most basic competencies of his job, in proving himself a worthy successor to John Boehner as the GOP’s biggest obstacle to victory.

I’d say that’s why he is a successor to Boehner. He just doesn’t lead as well, but the same results.

It’s certainly not the Democrats – those hacks spent the night of the healthcare retreat taking mass selfies celebrating Ryan’s hopelessness and convincing themselves that his running into the GOP’s own end zone was their score. It wasn’t – notwithstanding Paul’s unforced error, they are the Falcons at the Super Bowl with a halftime show featuring Nickelback.

See, the big news this week isn’t the first quarter Obamacare repeal festival of ineptitude – it’s that Neil Gorsuch is going to sail through to confirmation, leaving the burning wreckage of the SCOTUS filibuster in his wake. That’s the money right there, a win guaranteeing that the future confirmation of RBG’s replacement – who I hope is so conservative he eats raw meat off the bone – will be just a mere 51-vote technicality. And there’s other stuff too: laying the Keystone pipe, rolling back regulations, ICE booting out aspiring Democrats, and Trump wrangling new jobs. Even the fact that Team Trump was wiretapped was reaffirmed despite the NYT denying that when it reported that Team Trump was wiretapped it really meant that Team Trump was wiretapped. Slowly but surely, small win after small win – we’re moving toward victory. But thanks to kongressional klutzes like Ryan, a war of attrition is how it’s going to have to be.

Ulysses S. Grant also knew something about pummeling the stubborn Democrats of #TheResistance into submission, although his Democrats used iron chains instead of welfare and lies to keep their serfs in bondage. Grant wasn’t a big, flamboyant martial artist like George Patton – he didn’t make giant, bold strokes across the canvas of the battlefield. Grant was about brute force, not finesse. He found his Democrat enemy, fixed him in position, and beat on him until the Democrat couldn’t take it anymore and handed over his saber. That’s the right strategy for facing this intractable foe – luckily, the Democrats of today are merely a bunch of talky, whiny wusses, not the hardcore and courageous infantry and cavalry G-Dawg (and my ancestors) were called upon to regulate.

Grant had bad days too. Just ask the guys at The Crater. You don’t always win, even when you are exhausted from all your prior #winning. The enemy was delighted at the repeal screw-up: ABC News broke in with a special report, libgasmic at Ryan pulling the hapless bill, while the circle of smart over at CNN was breaking out the cuddles and cigs, certain that this was finally the beginning of the end of Trump. Nope. It’s still the beginning of the beginning. We’re are about 67 days in out of 1461, just 4.29% done, and the haters’ attempts to pronounce the Trump administration DOA are wishful unthinking. Of course, this is all now just a cliché – “Oh, Trump’s done for this time!” has been the “Oh, well I never!” of the Democrat and Fredocon Margaret Dumont Coalition since they figured out that he actually intends to do what he promised to do.


Grant had to deal with his share of failed commanders – Grant jebcanned Ambrose Burnside after the fiasco at The Crater. But Ryan is the head of half of a co-equal branch – he can’t just be cashiered, as much as everyone would like him to be. With no apparent generally acceptable replacement on the horizon, conservatives are stuck with a weakened, chastened P90X Paul. Maybe now, instead of blasting his own glutes (and ours), Ryan will start understanding that he needs to kick the glutes of our enemies. But then establishmentocons have shown zero capacity to learn from their myriad failures. Remember, these RINOs are the George McClellans of conservatism – always waiting waiting waiting for the “right time” that never comes to actually do battle with progressivism, and thereby letting it run rampant, pillaging the countryside.

We know the strategy – grind out win after win, big and small, over time until the liberals are broken. It’s the tactics that Ryan has botched; he’s shown no aptitude for the basic blocking and tackling of legislating and consistently falls back on the errors of the past. Here’s how healthcare should have gone. Paully, starting the morning of November 9th, you should have orchestrated an inclusive effort to create a bill based on a consensus that incorporated every stakeholder with the ability to icepick it (the transition team, the Freedom Caucus, the squishes, the think tanks, and most vitally, the Senate). Once you had something everyone agreed on – and 216 sure votes in the House and 51 in the Senate – you all appear with the Prez in front of the cameras to announce it before you actually put out the document, thereby cementing in the narrative about why the people should dig it before the haters can hate it into little pieces. Then you pass it and win.


But what did we get? A tactical clusterflunk. Seven years in and Ryan wasn’t ready. He putzed around with no sense of urgency until there was a sense of urgency. Who was expecting this dog’s breakfast to drop when it did?


And it just dropped on us out of the blue – one day, suddenly, there’s this whole plan out there. Surprise! I listened to Hugh Hewitt the morning after it was released; he was stunned that he couldn’t get any of the Republican House leadership [sic] on his show to talk to his conservative audience about the biggest piece of legislation in Trump’s first term.

Paully, you gave the enemy precious hours to set the narrative, and the bill never recovered. How stupid can you be to have no full court press plan to sell it, to manage the message, even though my corgi-retriever could have foreseen the media’s narrative was going to be that this was the moral equivalent of the Rwandan genocide – only without all the love?

It was almost Jim Jones of him.

Three phases? You didn’t have the credibility for one phase and you were babbling about three. Any idiot could have seen that Phase III (“The Democrats Do Exactly the Opposite of What Democrats Do”) was never going to happen. Well, apparently not every idiot.

 REPEAL IS NOT PIECEMEAL. Because inevitably Politicians get chicken-shit feet later on. Look at Immigration. We’ll grant these guys amnesty and fix the rest later. Only later, never comes. Especially, with Democrats slobbering all over the carpet.

If you had incorporated all the people you needed in the drafting, they might have alerted you that this was New Coke dumb. But you and your cronies drafted it in secret in some dark room somewhere with no input from the people who actually had to go explain their vote to their voters. “Surprise! Here’s a steaming pile of garbage! Please vote for it because I want you to!” Yeah, no.

Here’s your daily gruel, eat up! Aren’t we just the greatest!

Congrats! That’s how you manage to garner a 17% approval rating for a plan to repeal something that is about as popular as herpes.

You really coudln’t have screw this up much worse than you did.

Luckily, most people aren’t #caring about #RepealFail like us political junkies. Within 12 hours, Twitter forgot about the fiasco and was back to trending topics of the #DeformAMovieWithOneLetter sort (“Star Warts”), though enough people were sufficiently freaked out to make it a good sale day for my novel about America splitting into red and blue halves.

Ryan is still making tactical errors. Instead of saying, “Tomorrow, I am calling together all the stakeholders and we are getting right back to work on fixing this,” it was, “Well, that was sad. Let’s forget about repealing Obamacare for a while and work on tax reform because it’s important to let the media spin us as focusing all our efforts on giving tax cuts to the rich instead of cutting normal people’s premiums.” And you just know Wonky O’Tonedeaf is going to wheel out a tax reform abortion cobbled together in some Cannon Office Building utility closet that screws over Republican voters with cuts to the home mortgage, charity, and state tax deductions because why wouldn’t the GOP be stupid enough to shaft its own voters while still managing to get painted by the media as toadying to the rich?

Yeah, that’s the Ticket!

Obamacare’s getting repealed, just not today. Nor next month apparently, since the 438 members of the House can’t seem to do more than one thing at once. Of course, if Ryan didn’t have them working just eight days in April – yeah, you heard me right – maybe they could accomplish something besides managing to look both inept and lazy while currying favor with the zillionaires. You might as well wear top hats and monocles because you seem hellbent on validating every hack cliché about Republicans.


The Grant strategy is the only strategy that’s going to work against this stubborn, entrenched enemy. Grind it out, an inch at a time, until the enemy breaks. And luckily, Grant was able to win his war using this strategy even with tactically inept generals. Yet Paul Ryan, with his utter inability to competently manage legislation and, worse, with his total refusal to learn from his constant series of errors, is a real problem because Trump just can’t fire him. But the GOP caucus can, and they need to send him a message Lima Charlie. Learn or leave, Paully, because if you can’t kick some Democrat asset, you’re nothing but a liability. (Kurt Schlichter)


Notice that one is from the enemy camp… 😦


The Cowardice of Their Convictions

The gender/identity fluid Speaker Ryan self-identifies as Nancy Pelosi and we have to give him the power to Repeal before we can see his true nature. Ryan & RINOs just gave it to you in your private parts with a 2×4 and they don’t care. There number one priority is themselves, after all.

Fast recap of political history:

1. Dems shoved Obamacare down America’s neck.
2. Republicans complain they couldn’t stop it because GOP didn’t have House majority.They promise to repeal Obamacare when they have majority in the US House.
3. Grassroots get to work. We give the GOP the House majority. We remind them of their campaign promises to repeal.
4. House GOP says they can’t repeal because Obama would veto. Says they need GOP majority in the US Senate to repeal Obamacare.

1. GOP candidates nationwide promise full repeal of Obamacare if we elect them, give them majority in the US Senate and maintain GOP majority in the US House.
2. Grassroots work their arses off yet again.

1. We hand the GOP US Senate majority.
2. We remind the GOP of their promises to fully repeal Obamacare.
3. GOP tell us they don’t have veto proof majority to override an Obama veto for repeal. They tell America they also need the Presidency to fully repeal Obamacare.

1. We hand the GOP the Presidency on a silver platter. They denigrate us, use every lie, corrupt scheme in their powers to oust our President before he’s even sworn into office!
2. We remind the GOP of their promise (3rd time now) to fully repeal Obamacare.

Ryan and RINOs sing their hit to your wallet and your Freedom “Repeal Means Piecemeal”.

No one lives Happily Ever After (except the Congress that exempted themselves that is…)

 repeal and replace-may be not
The Cowardice of Their Convictions

There isn’t an elected Republican in the House of Representatives who didn’t run on repealing Obamacare. Every Republican in the House last year voted in favor of repealing the law, as did every Republican in the Senate. They put that bill on President Barack Obama’s desk, he vetoed it, as they knew he would, and they claimed a moral victory for keeping a campaign promise.

But empty promises are easy to keep; it’s leading that is hard.

Especially, when it was all just con job. They wanted more power so they said what you wanted t hear, When they finally, after many years, got the power their own narcissism took over and all they want was what THEY wanted.

Epic Failure is what WE got.

We were teased and denied worse than any hooker/exotic dancer ever could.

Leadership of the principled variety was lacking in government this week at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan were so interested in passing something on the issue of health care they were willing to support anything. Arms were twisted, deals were cut, and nothing was done.

Means to an end.

Missing from the discussions and debate was the Constitution and the fact the federal government has no business being involved in health insurance in the first place.

That’s what REPEAL actually means. Not toy with it like a kid picking at his broccoli at dinner.

Obamacare is a disaster. It harms far more people than it helps. It jacks up premiums and deductibles so high you’d have to be run over by a steamroller twice to reach your out-of-pocket maximum. Unless, of course, you’re already getting subsidies to pay your premiums. In that case, you don’t care; you’re already addicted to the heroin of “free stuff” from Washington.

But government has it’s hand in the cookie jar now and it doesn’t want to let go!

The addicts have had a taste of this sweet candy and they don’t want to let it go.

Both the subsidized and non-subsidized need help.

The poor unsubsidized souls need relief from being mandated to buy worthless “insurance” so others can pay less than their age and risk otherwise would mandate. Those on the government teat simply don’t care.

Is a $7000 deductible actually insurance?

This is but one of the many bad things that happen when the government bastardizes a market – and make no mistake, government involvement bastardizes any market.

It’s a cancerous growth that just gets worse the longer it’s not treated.

Democrats believed they could control the market through regulations, taxes and mandates. As we suffer through that reality, Republicans didn’t so much propose to strip it away as they did to replace it with their version. A differently bastardized market is still a bastardized market. Better nothing than the something Republican leadership tried to push through.

Lipstick on a Pig, is still a Pig with lipstick.

That Democrats would seek to control people and markets is no surprise – it’s what they do and they’re quite open about it. The Republican Party is supposed to be the opposite – in favor of free markets and advocates for individual liberty. On paper, at least.

But power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

For seven years we heard how they’d repeal Obamacare just as soon as they had the ability to do so. They now do, but they didn’t because they couldn’t agree about what to replace it with. How about replacing it with what the Constitution allows for: nothing.

How about repeal means, REPEAL, not Piecemeal. Nah…

The reality is most Republicans are conservatives only when it comes time for elections. Their rhetoric of “repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a free market solution” was really just replacing one federally managed monstrosity with another. Sure, it might be smaller, but the concept remained – Washington is in charge.

Name a Government program that once that cancer starts it doesn’t continue to grow.

Replacing a bad idea with a slightly less bad idea is a step in the right direction on a technical level, but it’s still a bad idea in reality.

After years of proclaiming Obamacare violated the Constitution, Republicans accepted the concept when they tried to manufacture their own version of a top-down system. Government control is government control, even if you dial back the degree of that control.

By trying to manufacture a “freer” and “smaller” government-administered health law, Republican leadership ceded the concept of government interference and control over health insurance in the country. Even if they’d been successful, Democrats would need only to tweak what they’d left in place to regain more control, either through legislation or the regulatory leviathan created.

Limited government is not a reduced version of big government with lesser tentacles creeping ever further into our lives. Yet that’s what Republicans all too often offer when they get their hands on the levers of power.

Power corrupts.

Republicans need to keep their word and repeal all of Obamacare and, while they’re at it, remove the other barriers government has erected to creating a nationwide health insurance market. States would be free to band together and deregulate to create large markets or become islands of regulation unto themselves, as it should be.

But they can’t. They are addicted to the power.

The federal government should not be in the health insurance business, either directly or indirectly through subsidies. Congress needs to extend the same tax advantages found in the employer market to those in the individual market, then get the hell out of the way.

End subsidies and refundable tax credits, wean government assistance addicts off their heroin and allow personal responsibility to re-establish itself in those dependent on other people’s money. If a state wants to spend money that way, fine; but it’s no place for the federal government.

When Obamacare passed, many Democrats knew they were committing political suicide. They did it anyway because they believed in what they were doing. Republicans need that same resolve.

They also knew it would implode eventually and they could step in and “save us all” from the vacuum with full on Government Control. It was a long con.

Now the Republicans seem to be on board. They want it fail so they can “fix it”.

No difference.

It’s doubtful the blowback would be as severe as the 2010 election for those who ran on repeal and as conservatives. But some would lose. So what? They stand a better chance of losing their jobs for not doing what they promised than if they did.

Public servants afraid to stand up for what they believe in because they’re afraid to lose their next election are unworthy of elected office in the first place.

The Cowardice of Their Convictions.

It’s time for Republicans to put up or shut up. When you have power, the only thing keeping you from doing the right thing is the will. Far too few Republicans have the courage of the convictions on which they ran. No seat in Congress belongs to anyone currently occupying it, and conviction-less cowards should have their offices pulled out from under them if they fail to live up to their word. (Derek Hunter)

If I were a resident of Paul Ryan’s district right now I would be filling for a recall and lining up primary challengers right now. Jar Jar Ryan must go along with all his senior RINO addicts.


Ryan & The RINOs

With their epic failure, “Repeal means Piecemeal”.

It goes straight to the bottom of the charts and into your wallet.

Hey Paul, what part of Repeal Means REPEAL (in Repeal and Replace) did you not understand you political hack?

So the Republicans under Jar Jar Boehner promise, give us the power and we’ll repeal it. Then under now, Jar Jar Ryan, they get that power and all we get is one of the get FUBARs of all time.

I guess I was right when I said that they were just playing us when Obama was in office. They just wanted all the power, but none of the responsibility.

So I guess it’s on to Fucking up the Taxes relief and Jobs now and we’ll just this stink bomb lie.

Thanks for nothing Jar Jar. Literally.

Fast recap of political history:

1. Dems shoved Obamacare down America’s neck.
2. Republicans complain they couldn’t stop it because GOP didn’t have House majority.They promise to repeal Obamacare when they have majority in the US House.
3. Grassroots get to work. We give the GOP the House majority. We remind them of their campaign promises to repeal.
4. House GOP says they can’t repeal because Obama would veto. Says they need GOP majority in the US Senate to repeal Obamacare.

1. GOP candidates nationwide promise full repeal of Obamacare if we elect them, give them majority in the US Senate and maintain GOP majority in the US House.
2. Grassroots work their arses off yet again.

1. We hand the GOP US Senate majority.
2. We remind the GOP of their promises to fully repeal Obamacare.
3. GOP tell us they don’t have veto proof majority to override an Obama veto for repeal. They tell America they also need the Presidency to fully repeal Obamacare.

1. We hand the GOP the Presidency on a silver platter. They denigrate us, use every lie, corrupt scheme in their powers to oust our President before he’s even sworn into office!
2. We remind the GOP of their promise (3rd time now) to fully repeal Obamacare.

1. GOP tell us: “You morons, we’re not going to repeal Obamacare, we’re just gonna tweak it!”
2. Grassroots are ready to throw every lying RINO in the US House and Senate into the swamp drain in 2018!

Be worried. Be very, very, worried.  (thanks to Annette Shuford)


Oh, and you made the Leftists happy…

The GOP pulled their disastrous health care bill that could have taken care away from 24 million Americans. This is a victory for the American people, but we can’t let up. Continue to speak up — it’s working. (Democrat Party Facebook)

Thanks to Ryan & The RINOS who were too busy try to kiss their own collective political asses to actually do what the American People wanted them to do and what they had promised for the last 8 years.
One of the greatest political turds in American History.