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.

RyanCare Stalled

House Republicans postponed taking up the American Health Care Act after it became clear that it did not have the votes to pass.

It seems that Jar Jar Ryan’s attempt to cramp ObamaCare Lite down the throats of his colleagues didn’t work yesterday.

Now Trump is pissed off.

I’m not shocked. It’s not like Ryan and The RINOs really wanted to do anything. They were just blustered at Obama for years and playing the partisan game. Now when they have to pony up, they failed miserably.

Matt Vespa:

As of midafternoon Thursday, 37 House Republicans — mainly Freedom Caucus members — had announced their opposition to the bill, known as the American Health Care Act.Trump will also meet Thursday with members of the moderate “Tuesday Group,” Spicer said. On Wednesday, four Republican moderates — Reps. Charlie Dent (Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (N.J.), Daniel Donovan (N.Y.) and David Young (Iowa) — announced their opposition, increasing pressure on leaders to win over conservatives.

GOP leaders appeared to be making some headway in bringing the measure to the floor for a vote Thursday. The price for doing so, however, may be striking popular provisions in former president Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act that could make it even more difficult to pass legislation in the Senate. This high-wire balancing act, in which Republicans are catering to conservatives in the House with the knowledge that they still must woo moderates to get legislation to Trump’s desk, could not only reshape the nation’s health-care system but could also have uncertain electoral repercussions for the new majority.

Yet, even with these House obstacles to the bill. The Senate has signaled that the support to pass it isn’t there. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said this, warning his House colleagues to not support a bill that doesn’t have a chance in the Senate. As Guy mentioned before, asking for more time is not really an option since Republicans have had several years to get their replacement plan together. The base would not tolerate a delay on an issue of this magnitude.

We know what we wanted. We know what they promised.

But politics being politics everyone wants THEIR bit, which conflicts with other people’s bits and suddenly the water is muddier than a lake bed in Africa during dry season.

Not that this is a surprise to a cynic like me. Just disappointing.

The Republicans had a chance to show they are the better party, but all they showed is that they are the same party of weak, timid, arrogant, pinheads everyone thought they were.

The only thing you can count on from the Democrats for the next 4 years is “HELL NO! WE WON’T GO!” obstruction. Period. End of story.

So they have to do it themselves and they have about as much unity as a The Bad News Bears at the beginning of the movie and Walter Matthau is dead.

Let the Game of Political Chicken, begin:

Rather than allow negotiations to drag on interminably, there will be a vote. Tomorrow. And the chips will fall as they may. As Cortney reported earlier, President Trump has declared that if recalcitrant House Republicans vote with Nancy Pelosi to kill the American Health Care Act, he will walk away from the issue and allow Obamacare to remain in place.  That’s some real hardball, daring Republicans to defy him.  House GOP leaders say they’re ready to yank campaign funding away from members who cross Trump’s wishes, then place the blame squarely on the party’s hard-right flank.

That flank being the ones who got him there.

If he walks away from it, it’s over.

This is very high stakes chicken.

But these are politicians he’s playing with, they are ultimately narcissistic power-mad children.

We’ll see what happens…


Ruination Nation

Derek Hunter:

A few weeks ago in this space I asked a simple question: How many victims of illegal alien crime will be enough to make Democrats and the media care about illegal alien crime?

The answer was simple – there is no number. They’ll never care because they’ve hitched their fate to the prospect of legalizing illegals and winning their votes. But the problem they back-burner for political gain still smolders, and last week it claimed another victim…all in the name of “progress.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one of the richest counties in the country. It’s also an extremely left-wing progressive county that prides itself on being “welcoming,” which is liberal code for a sanctuary county. The sanctuary status is not official, according to county leaders. They pretend they aren’t fully on board with sanctuary policies because they don’t want to lose federal money, but they are.

That unofficial status pushed the city of Rockville to out-liberal its county and push to put their sanctuary status on the books, taking steps in that direction just two weeks ago.  A new horrific crime may put that dream on hold.

Last Thursday, a 14-year-old student Rockville High School allegedly was forced into the boys’ bathroom and violently raped by two of her fellow freshman students. Those student were not typical students, they were grown men – ages 17 and 18.

Why were two men old enough to join the military in the 9th grade? Because they were assigned freshman status by the “welcoming” schools, no questions asked.  At least one of the men, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez, is in the country illegally. As for the other, 17-year-old Jose Montano, officials won’t comment on his status because he’s underage.

This 14-year-old girl had to share her classroom with two grown men who had no business being in the country, let alone the school, in the name of tolerance.

That tolerance, as is always the case with leftists, is a one-way street.

After Donald Trump won the election, Montgomery County students staged a walkout protest against the incoming president. The Washington Post reported students were chanting, “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here.” Where do you suppose they got the ideas behind that?

In February, the Montgomery County Council sought to reassure residents – liberals and illegals alike – they would protect those here illegally, particularly when it came to the schools. “We cannot allow people to be so fearful that they keep their children away from school because they’re afraid their children will be taken,” Council President Roger Berliner said. He also said, “Bad things happen.”

Isn’t that nice?

Since the alleged attack, many politicians went silent. Weird, right?

Yes, statements were released, but that’s been about it. The superintendent, Jack Smith, assured parents the alleged horrors committed “do not represent the positive values of our students and school communities.”

Smith concluded, “The safety and security of every student in our district is our top priority and a responsibility that we do not take lightly.”

Nothing on why men old enough to graduate – who don’t even speak English, according to reports – were put in classes with 13- and 14-year-old girls.

School principal Billie-Jean Bensen sent a letter to parents that read, in part, “Ensuring a safe, secure and welcoming learning environment for all of our students is our top priority.”

Again, the safety of students cannot be a “top priority” when you’re putting grown men, whose background could not have been checked for criminal history, in classrooms with children. Principal Bensen’s priority is exposed in the “welcoming” part. Why else mention it under such awful circumstances?

When politicians and activists put the comfort of illegal aliens ahead of the security of Americans students, something is fundamentally wrong.

Principal Bensen concluded her letter by adding, “Please remind your child that if they believe they are a victim of an assault or see something inappropriate, they should immediately tell a staff member.” It’s clear the Montgomery County power structure is circling their wagons to cover their own asses. And that grammar is not a priority.

If they were serious about protecting kids, administrators wouldn’t put adults in with freshmen and wouldn’t allow illegal aliens, whose backgrounds and history cannot be verified or even checked, anywhere near children.

Montgomery County recently hiked property taxes by 8.7 percent in part to address the extremely high cost of educating illegal alien students who don’t speak English. Sanctuary already had a cost. Last week, that cost went higher than the civilized mind can comprehend. For progressive liberal Democrats, there is no cost too high. If your children suffer horrendous, unspeakable acts in the name of “tolerance,” so be it.

You can’t make a progressive Utopia without ruining a few lives…


Hippies to Hyper

The left has done a 180 since its free speech heyday of the 1960s. What used to be anything goes, and protecting the First Amendment right to say controversial things, has morphed into a treacherous map of what you can and cannot say. Universities, which were once a bastion of free speech, have now become the most hostile areas of all. If you do not agree with the left — even if you are on the left — expect to be savagely targeted. You could lose your job, your career, and reputation over just one social media post. Not to mention being bombarded with vitriolic, threatening emails. Left-wing comedians now avoid performing comedy routines on university campuses. Conservative speakers are violently stopped from speaking engagements there.

Conservatives now walk on eggshells throughout society, just one tweet away from having their lives destroyed. The rise of social media has made it easy for the left to monitor everyone on the right. Since some successful conservative pundits as well as anonymous social media accounts get away with tweeting politically incorrect statements, others feel a false sense in comfort in engaging similarly, sometimes merely retweeting the remarks. But the reality is, for most of us, something you post could end up on the front page of the newspaper the next day. The private comfort of your home where you post on social media is deceptive.

The left used to accuse the right of being authoritarian and judgmental, due to laws against abortion, drug use and frowning upon sexual promiscuity. Fifty years later, the right has been proven right in those arenas, which were never anywhere near the level of an authoritarian society but merely common sense. Ever advancing technology confirms a baby is terminated during an abortion, it is not some mindless clump of tissue. The emotional strife abortions leave mothers and fathers with is often devastating, haunting them the rest of their lives. Drug use is not a victimless crime, and causes all kinds of harm to the abuser, including increasing their likelihood of becoming a burden on society. Sexual promiscuity is also not victimless, leading to broken families, unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

The less-churched left frequently takes one verse out of the New Testament and shakes it at the right, “Judge not lest ye be judged,” from Matthew 7:1. Yet Jesus didn’t mean to excuse every possible action. He meant that criticizing someone else must be done the right way. Jesus further explained in the next verse, which liberals leave out, “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”

Out of one side of their mouths, the left shuts down opposing viewpoints with Matthew 7:1. Only the left is allowed to be the final arbiter of what constitutes judgmentalism (it’s easy — anything that comes from the right). Out of the other side of their mouths, the left judges like crazy, and the punishments are quite harsh. Tweet something critical of radical Islam? Lose your position with ESPN. Don’t agree with Christian businesses servicing same-sex weddings? You will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, lose your business and your savings. And here’s the most telling scenario: Anonymously tweet criticism of the left’s authoritarian ways? They will track you down at your university professorship and you will lose your job.


The left keeps coming up with more and more ways to implement this judgmentalism against conservatives. It began with political correctness around the end of the 1990s, with words like sexism, racism and prejudice bandied about (with the left’s chosen meanings for those words). It expanded into code words like diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance and social justice. Recently, it’s started exploding into many more words like safe spaces, trigger warnings, snowflakes, anti-discrimination and Black Lives Matter. There has also been a splintering off across language, preferring certain phrases while censoring out others: climate change instead of manmade global warming, peaceful migrants instead of illegal immigrants (or aliens), lone gunman instead of Islamic terrorist, and anti-abortion instead of pro-life. Much of these Orwellian word changes have been encoded in media through the left-leaning AP Stylebook, as I recently covered.

Disagree with any of the “values” that go along with those code words and expect the wrath of judgment to come down upon you. The left has become the modern-day equivalent of the Pharisees from Biblical times, pretending to act morally righteous while brutally serving their own version of morality on everyone who disagrees. Jesus warned about the Pharisees, who were the keepers of Old Testament law, “obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.” His characterization of the judgmental leaders could easily be describing how the left treats the middle class and poor with the modern welfare state, “They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. Everything they do is just to show off in front of others.”


There seems to be no end in sight to how far the left’s purges will go; they have become so authoritarian and single-minded in their goal of stamping out all dissent. Since the left controls much of the educational system and media, it has tremendous power. Many of these totalitarian policies have been made into law under the Obama administration, the left-leaning legal system and in “progressive” areas of the country.

Fortunately, the left went too far, and a majority of Americans had enough, electing politically incorrect Donald Trump as president and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Trump is thwarting the biased media by tweeting directly to the people and eliminating past privileges the “fake news” media had with presidents. Since it is unknown how long this pushback will last, it is imperative to call the censorship out for what it is, totalitarianism, and defend those on the front lines who are being cruelly targeted. It’s no longer just the politically correct left, it’s the totalitarian left.


The late Charles Colson tells the story of a pastor who was about to be taken away in December 1989 by the Secret Police in communist Romania, which was under the dictatorship of Nicolai Ceausescu. Pastor Laszlo Tokes had been vocally critical of the totalitarian regime. Members of Tokes’ congregation refused to let the police take him and his pregnant wife, forming a massive human shield around the entrance to the church building. Soon, believers from Christian churches of many denominations nearby showed up to join the blockade, carrying candles. They remained vigilant all night, and began yelling, “Liberty! Freedom!” The Secret Police eventually forced their way through on December 17 and seized the pair, but the event had helped trigger the Romanian Revolution. Within a few days, Ceausescu was overthrown and the Tokes were freed.

Until a relatively safe, high level of Americans recognize how far the American left has lurched toward socialism and communism — who would have ever predicted the only socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders, would one day be considered a mainstream Democratic presidential candidate little different than the frontrunner — we are at risk of no longer being a free country. (Rachael Alexander)

The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs.

Employing the concept of doublethink, the Party gives ironic names to its branches as a way to euphemize what they actually are and what they do and say.

Newspeak, doublethink, the mutability of the past. He felt as though he were wandering in the forests of the sea bottom, lost in a monstrous world where he himself was the monster. He was alone. The past was dead, the future was unimaginable. What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure forever?  (1984)

A totalitarian power seeks to exert influence over its constituents by conveying the message that it is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Ubiquitously posting awe-inspiring posters is one such means to this end.

You cross them, they will get you,my pretty…

Capping The Kap

If you know me you know I’m not much of a sports fan anymore. I lost it a long time ago because of Strikes for greed (by players and owners) in the 1980s.

But this piece of human flotsam is getting what he deserves (though he made millions doing it so it’s hardly going to hurt him financially).

And I hope this behavior stops.

But we had a Cardinal football player here get busted for extreme DUI, he was cut, and then signed the next week with The Patriots and now he has a Super Bowl ring….

Sports fans know all about Colin Kaepernick. Before this past season, he was known as a dual-threat quarterback who led the San Francisco 49ers to a Super Bowl appearance. However, now he is a player without a team, as he opted out of his contract with the 49ers. Teams aren’t willing to sign him though.

This past season, Kaepernick decided that he was going to send a message to the country by refusing to stand for the National Anthem. He did this to show support to the Black Lives Matter movement. This protest was heard all around the country, and more and more players started duplicating his actions. However it is this action that has seen Kaepernick remain a free agent.

Despite free agency in the NFL being open for a while now, Kaepernick himself remains without an offer. Rumors have circulated on why he hasn’t been able to get a contract. Some general managers claim that Kaepernick isn’t good enough to even play in the league anymore, while others claim that his protest hasn’t earned him a spot on an NFL roster.

Today, it is learned that both of those instances are a factor. There is also some worry over backlash from both the fans and President Donald Trump. Considering the amount of negative conversation that these kneeling players provided, it’s understandable that general managers would feel this way.

Be Careful Which Side Of History You Choose To Stand On, We Won't Forget

Bleacher Report, a sports news site, has talked to an AFC general manager and gathered his thoughts on why Kaepernick remains unsigned. The manager, who remains nameless, said that most teams refuse to sign the quarterback because they “can’t stand what he did.”

Others, as stated above, fear a backlash from fans and the President himself. President Trump has been known to tweet about things that he doesn’t like, and that sort of attention isn’t good for an NFL team.

The unnamed general manager continued to speak with Bleacher Report. “He can still play at a high level. The problem is three things are happening with him. First, some teams genuinely believe that he can’t play. They think he’s shot. I’d put that number around 20 percent.”

There are 32 football teams in the NFL. So, by using the estimation given by this general manager, that leaves roughly six or seven general managers that believe Kaepernick can’t play anymore.

The general manager continued, “Second, some teams fear the backlash from fans after getting him. They think there might be protests of Trump will tweet about the team. I’d say that number is around 10 percent. Then there’s another 10 percent that has a mix of those feelings. Third, the rest genuinely hate him and can’t stand what he did [kneeling during the anthem]. They want nothing to do with him.”

More basic math shows that the other twenty percent mentioned represents another six or seven general managers that fear the response from fans. As for the rest of the league who “genuinely hate him,” it’s roughly anywhere from 18-20 general managers that will never sign him.

However, the general manager thinks there is one more reason that other teams are refusing to sign Kaepernick. “They won’t move on. They think showing no interest is a form of punishment. I think some teams also want to use Kaepernick as a cautionary tale to stop other players in the future from doing what he did.”


There were several players during the regular season that knelt with Kaepernick in solidarity with him. One of these players, Antonio Cromartie, was cut from the Indianapolis Colts after kneeling during the anthem. If there are that many general managers that hate Kaepernick for starting the protest, it is reasonable to think they want to send a message to the rest of the league.

An executive who also spoke to Bleacher Report called the quarterback “an embarrassment to football.”

Kaepernick’s actions are also part of the reason that the league saw a drop in their ratings. The drop in ratings happened for the first time in decades. While there were other factors that likely played into the drop, it is note-worthy that viewership dropped 14 percent compared to 2015.

There is more reason to think that Kaepernick’s protests are the reason he doesn’t have a contract offer. He was adamant about protesting the National Anthem during the previous season. However, he has since stated that he will no longer continue to protest the anthem. Is that just a giant coincidence that this occurred or what?

It’s also interesting that the NFL is deciding to play politics right now. They have threatened to stop putting Super Bowl’s in Texas over a bill that is being proposed in the Texas Senate. This bill is similar to the bathroom controversy that is happening in North Carolina. So a league that allows animal abuse, spousal abuse and drug abuse is drawing the line at a bathroom? That makes sense. However, Governor Gregg Abbott has slammed the NFL for getting involved in politics.

Abbott against the NFL

Share this article to show that Kaepernick still doesn’t have a contract offer. That is because teams are not going to sign him for a multitude of reasons. These include possible fan backlash and the fact that NFL general managers hate what he did last season. One thing is for certain; Kaepernick is a man without a team, and it’s looking like it will stay that way.

Hate by Design

A Leftist face of “White Nationalism” rising because Trump was elected Revealed…


Police have revealed the identity of one of four individuals arrested for allegedly turning a menorah in Arizona into a swastika last year.

That man is one 19-year-old Clive Jamar Wilson. He does not appear to be a white nationalist as was initially implied by liberal outlets covering the vandalism.

The other three individuals who have been arrested with Wilson are minors and, as such, their identities have not been released.

It does appear, at least, that the Mainstream didn’t even bother much with the story outside of Arizona but the bloggers and the leftist pundits did.

Unfortunately, sightings of hate like this have been on the rise.

100 anti-Semitic hate incidents were recorded in the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory according to a report released ten days after the election by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights organization that monitors hate groups. The increase represented 12 percent of the 867 acts of intimidation reported, including 80 acts of graffiti or vandalism depicting the swastika without specific reference to Jewish people.

Many people have pointed out that white nationalist groups, including neo-Nazis, were effectively empowered by the rhetoric and actions of President-elect Donald Trump during the election.

And they include this incident.

Guilt by association and need for Agenda/Narrative nuggets. Smear by association. Funny that never worked with Obama is a Muslim…wonder why?

And is it still a “hate crime” because the leader of this pack is black??  🙂

After all it was Leftist who put this billboard up over the weekend on Grand Ave in Phoenix:

Image result for grand ave sign trump nazi
No hate there. No hyperbole. (the other side has raised fists with “Unity” on it- very BLACK Nationalist) 🙂
Mark Twain: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Well, better to let people think you’re smart until you open your mouth and prove them wrong.
It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

Take your pick.


Calling Their Bluff

I have already said as much, but this so so much more eloquently.


There is an interesting phenomenon that happens among red state Democrats in the Senate every six years. They suddenly start sounding conservative when their re-election bid approaches.

They talk more conservatively. They act more conservatively. They vote more conservatively, at least until they get re-elected and can go back to holding the Democratic Party line in the Senate.

The same phenomenon happens in the Republican Party. Only last year, the American people called their bluff, put them in power, and now expect them to do what they promised. Republicans are terrified at the prospect.

Politicians are quite good at making promises and coming up with excuses as to why those promises went unfulfilled. “We control only one-half of one-third of the government,” we heard in 2011 as an excuse for why the promise of Obamacare repeal was “impossible.”

In 2015, Republicans were given the Senate, therefore control of one branch of government. The refrain changed to, “No matter what we pass, the president will veto it, and we don’t have the votes to override that veto.”

OK, fine. That’s all true. But the problem was they didn’t even try. Congress has power as a co-equal branch of government, yet no effort was exerted toward the promise on which they campaigned.

So now voters have given a second branch of government to the Republicans, and what do we have?

House Republicans have introduced the “American Health Care Act,” the legislative equivalent of Hangover 2. Hangover 2 was a slightly different version of The Hangover, but aside from the setting, you wouldn’t know the difference.


The biggest problem with the AHCA is it leaves in place the concept that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health insurance for Americans who don’t have employer-provided coverage. Aside from changing tax law to allow people in the individual market to buy insurance with pre-tax dollars and allowing for the purchase of insurance across state lines, the federal government has no business in the health insurance game.

But politicians like power. Plus, the Republicans are milktoast chicken-shit scaredy cats.

A true conservative plan would allow the states to become 50 petri dishes able to experiment with ways to make insurance affordable. Eventually best practices would win out and be adopted by others. But that wouldn’t empower the feds, so we’re talking about subsidies, tax credits and a federal regulatory scheme only slightly less arduous than what currently exists.

There’s plenty of blame for this to go around, but the lion’s share has to rest firmly with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. He got the opportunity he and his colleagues have been asking for, and he gave us a bill that is only slightly better than the system it seeks to replace. No one hires someone who says, “Make me captain of the Titanic and I’ll make sure it sinks 20 minutes later.” Yet that’s what the Republican plan does.

Seven years they had to come up with an idea, and we get a tweak. For seven years, we were told they knew the way, and we get this.

Because the Republican were just playing the “opposition” game. They didn’t really mean it. Now they are called on it and are stuck in Catch-22 Hell.

It’s not as though Republicans are burning up the rest of the agenda, they’ve done next to nothing since Jan. 20. After years of “hurry up,” all we’ve gotten is “wait.”

I get that Republicans are afraid of health policy. As a health policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation a decade ago, I briefed many of them on the issue and saw the terror in their eyes as they waited for just enough information to be able to answer basic questions on an issue they’ve ceded to Democrats for years. But for the last seven years, they’ve sworn they had the answers. So where are the answers? The AHCA is not it.

They were lying to get more power. Now that they have it, they don’t wanna do it.

You don’t have to understand the complexities of health insurance markets and impact of regulations on them to understand the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government. That shouldn’t be a bridge too far considering they swear an oath to it at the start of every term. One would hope they would’ve read it, if not understood it, before they pledged to defend it.

And you don’t have to be a legislative historian to recognize the idea Republicans have proposed of a “three-pronged approach” is insane when even they acknowledge the second “prong” is regulatory and easily could be reversed by a Democratic administration and the third will be blocked even more easily by a filibuster in the Senate. Republicans swear they need a trident to kill Obamacare when a spear would do. Like a Band-Aid – just rip it out of existence, Senate parliamentarian be damned.


Nearly every member of the Republican caucus campaigned on repealing Obamacare and told voters they were “constitutional conservatives.” Nothing they’ve done since would lead anyone to believe either claim was true.

If there’s positive about the process around the AHCA, it’s that so far it is moving slowly. Unlike Obamacare’s passage, Republicans have been transparent. Unfortunately what they’ve cooked up so far is transparently awful. It’s time to scrap the patch and unleash the free market.

Unless the AHCA is fundamentally transformed to the point states are free to experiment, the market is free to function, and individuals are free to make their own choices, everything we have been told will have been a lie, the whole thing should be scrapped and Obamacare allowed to collapse. Both parties will be blamed, and both parties will be to blame.

A golden opportunity in the cause of liberty will have been squandered because, after seven years of talk, Republicans could not do the one thing they told us they would; the reason they were in the position to disappoint us in the first place. It’s time to start over and do it right – if Speaker Ryan and the rest of Republican leadership actually have it in them to do what they’ve campaigned on. (Derek Hunter)

not our problem

Just like ObamaCare was passed with ZERO Republicans RyanCare will be passed with any Democrats so that they can complain that Diet ObamaCare is not as good for you as the real thing…


Another Edition of Food Racism!

Yes, it’s time for another addition of Progressive Outrage at Food.

Yes, I said Food.

You didn’t know food could be Politically Incorrect? Silly, Humans, Liberals are for kids… 🙂

There was “cultural appropriation” and now…

Image result for everything is racist

First up, that humble staple of the American Diet…

In the minds of liberals, almost everything in this world is somehow racist. Actions taken by white people, no matter how innocuous, are almost always seen as proof of some deep racial bias.

Take chicken wings for example. Food Network star Ree Drummond, who has a show called “Pioneer Woman,” is now being accused of “racism because of what she did with chicken wings, Eater reported.

In a 5-year-old episode of the show, Drummond pulled a prank on her husband and his friend by giving them Asian wings instead of Buffalo wings.

Somehow, in the minds of liberals, this is proof of how racist those people are.

“The offensive conceit — that he and his college buddies would be revolted by Asian wings — was clearly written into the show before it was even filmed,” Eater reported.

So in the mind of liberals, not liking the food from a certain culture is clearly proof that you are racist and hate everyone from that culture.

Just because I don’t like Greek food, and wouldn’t be too thrilled if someone gave me Greek food after promising me something else, doesn’t mean I hate all Greek people. It just means I’m not a fan of their food.

The Thick Dumpling Skin blog was the first to complain about the episode, and noted that the Food Network doesn’t have any Asian cooks. Again, somehow this is clear proof of how racist everyone on the network is.

Good grief.

Instead of looking for racism in every nook and cranny possible, maybe liberals should focus on something else. Their obsession with labeling everyone who doesn’t agree with them as “racist” is why so many people loathe liberals, and why they have lost so many elections in recent years. (Conservative Tribune)

But it hardly stops there…It comes by the Gallon… 🙂


In an op-ed featured in the California State University-Long Beach student paper Daily 49er, Samantha Diaz follows up on stories about the silly usurpation of milk by white supremacists by arguing that yes, the dairy beverage really is racist.

All of us have been “so accustomed to hearing the benefits of milk,” Diaz writes, “that you probably didn’t even realize the subtle racism hidden in our health facts.”

But … aren’t our dietary guidelines science? And aren’t progressives all about science, especially in this Age of Trump?

Apparently not when “there is a deep-rooted [American] tradition to suppress an entire race’s existence,” Diaz says.

Federal guidelines which state Americans should drink three cups of milk per day do not take into account the “potential detriment it has on non-white people’s health.”

“Osteoporosis,” you see, “affects Africans at a significantly lower rate than it does most Americans,” she writes.

From the piece:

The Mother Jones article [see here] states that not only is milk non-beneficial to Africans, but following the guidelines may actually be detrimental to their health. There is a strong correlation to calcium consumption and an increased risk of prostate cancer, unproportionally affecting African men. Furthermore, both black children and adults generally secrete less calcium on a daily basis than white people, making them less dependent upon milk.

Remember that this is the dietary guidelines for Americans. I want to emphasize that last word. These guidelines are for Americans. This means they should reflect the health needs of the ethnicities that make up America which, news flash, isn’t just white people. And since the African American community in the U.S. is continuously rising, it seems only logical to acknowledge that while something may be beneficial for one group of people, that may not be the case for another.

I think i’d blow this Liberals mind in tiny bits if she new there was such a thing as WHITE Africans…most notably Afrikaners. I used to know one, so it’s not a mythical being… 🙂

What Diaz leaves out from the Mother Jones article is that the director of the Women’s Global Health Institute at Purdue University — an expert on osteoporosis — says she “doesn’t think African Americans should consume less dairy.”

The insinuation of racism comes from University of North Texas evolutionary historian Constance Hilliard:

[T]he federal government’s dietary recommendations don’t account for such [racial] distinctions. And that omission, she says, amounts to something like discrimination. “What has happened is the medical community has universalized the particular biology of [Caucasians].


Let’s face it: If you’re particularly concerned about your diet, consult a physician. Don’t rely on the feds for guidance; they’ve bungled dietary recommendations before, after all.

It’s quite a stretch, however, to allege nutritional guidelines are just another example of, as Diaz says, the “inanimate face of racism.” (College Fix)

Apparently, this all stems from internet trolls finding a Mother Jones article, which Diaz provides no source for (here, Samantha, I’ll do your job as a journalist for you), which asks another question, “Are the U.S. Dietary Guidelines on Milk Racist?” (MRC)

I’m betting the expiration, printed in black on the cartoon, is a subtle racist marker for the extermination of black people, right? 🙂

The majority of us just go about our day without ever thinking, “What can I do to enable racism today?”
But Liberals apparently spend every waking moment rooting out racism where it doesn’t exist and inventing it so they can be outrage about it.
I feel the need to have some Bratwurst and Sauerkraut for breakfast just to annoy a Liberal…


Mad Cow Disease

Rachael “Mad Cow” Maddow made an ass of herself (and she probably doesn’t even know it or acknowledge it) with her supposedly hard hitting “journalism” on President Trump’s leaked 2005 Tax Returns that were secretly mailed to a leftist and leaked to her.

It was supposed to be this fantastic orgasmic Progressive Liberal Orgy of delight.

Instead, she made  everyone who wasn’t a zealous overly vicious partisan hack remember Geraldo Rivera’s “Al Capone’s Vault” event and laugh uproariously.

OMG!  He Paid $38 Million Dollars in Taxes!! He paid million on the 19868 Soak-The-Rich Alternative Minimum Tax! he made Legal Deductions!!!

Someone contact the NSA spying on everyone, this is Real Fake News!!

Yeah, that really fit your “bought and paid for by the Russians” narrative didn’t it. 🙂

Bwah hahahahahahahahaha!!!

Headline on HuffPo:

Stop Piling On Rachel Maddow For Not Taking Down Trump

She’s not responsible for the heightened expectations that led to disappointment on Tuesday.

Say so much about how Liberal Gotcha Journalism is so obsessed with their own Agenda and their own Narrative that actual journalism is fictional.

“The rules are there for a reason, to make sure you get the story right, that’s not luck, that’s being a good reporter.”

Snapper Carr, on “SuperGirl” has 1000x more journalist ethics than the mainstream media does. In this case, life does not imitate art.

And the truly stomach churning, scream in horror moment is that Rachael Maddow thinks she is a “journalist”, a news reporter!!

“My priority is to get the story right and put it into proper context, and explain the weight of it and why it is important,” Maddow told the AP.  

So she teased them, strung them along and then drop a turd in their laps. And then the media and her got all mental about hyped expectations when it blew up in their faces.

I don’t want that mental disorder.

l reveal who shot J. R. Ewing on the series “Dallas.” Sure it was the 80’s, but it’s RACHEL MADDOW!– Gov. Huckabee

For her next trick, Rachel Maddow will reveal how Trump legally payed his mortgage, leased a car, maybe even purchased groceries! — Harry K

Imagine Geraldo’s regret when he opened Al Capone’s vault to find Rachel Maddow’s report on Trump’s taxes.— Ben Shapiro

But, but, but Trump haters told us he paid NOTHING in income taxes? $38million in 2005?! That’s a little north of ZERO.— Larry Elder

The returns stated that Trump made $150 million in 2005 and that he paid $38 million in taxes, which equaled about 25 percent of his income — certainly not fitting the liberal narrative that rich Americans don’t pay their “fair share” or that Trump is a tax evader.

That’s more than the Left’s Heroes Obama and Bernie Sanders paid in taxes… (or even her bosses) 🙂

I’ll leave the last word to the savagely Leftist website Slate:

The longer Maddow went on, ever deeper into a conspiratorial thicket, the clearer it became that whatever tax returns Maddow had, they weren’t as juicy as the ones she was talking about. If she had anything that damning, she would have shared them from the start. TV is a ratings game, but an entire episode about highly damaging tax returns is just as likely to get you great ratings as milking the possibility that you have highly damaging tax returns and less likely to get you compared to Geraldo. Maddow even went so far as to hold the tax returns back until after the first commercial break, as if we were watching an episode of The Bachelor and not a matter of national importance—because we weren’t, in fact, watching a matter of national importance, just a cable news show trying to set a ratings record.

Ouch! That’s what all credible “journalists” do… 🙂






Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has repeatedly called President Trump’s policies “un-American,” when what he means is “not liberal.”

Patriotism: Democrats have become so fond of attacking Republicans and their policies as “un-American” that we wouldn’t be surprised if they call for a congressional committee to investigate them. It wouldn’t be the first time Democrats have done so.

Although wrongly attached to Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (also known as HUAC) was entirely a Democratic creation.

The committee got its start in 1938, when Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the House by a margin of 334 to 88. And over the course of HUAC’s entire 37-year existence, Republicans controlled the House — and chaired the committee — for all of four years. Whatever sins HUAC allegedly committed were done so almost entirely under the committee’s Democratic leadership.

Of course, “un-American” for the purposes of that committee’s investigations meant actually doing things in service of the nation’s enemies, whether it was the Nazis in World War II or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

These days, however, all that’s required to be called un-American by a Democrat is to disagree with their liberal world view.

Sen. Charles Schumer can barely get through an interview without calling one Trump policy or another un-American. When he heard that the administration was considering using 100,000 National Guard troops to round up illegal immigrants, he called it “one of the most un-American things that would happen in the last century.” (It turns out that such a plan was never under consideration.)

When Trump signed an executive order suspending visa applications from terror-prone countries, Schumer called it un-American. When Trump revised that order, Schumer said “it is still un-American.”

League of Women Voters declared that the House Republicans’ ObamaCare replacement plan — which retains most of ObamaCare’s rules and regulations — “is un-American.”

The New York Times ran a piece suggesting that talk of a “deep state” that is trying to undermine the Trump administration was un-American.

Last fall, the Huffington Post ran a piece arguing that the entire Republican platform “is well, downright un-American.”

At the Academy Awards, Casey Affleck used his acceptance speech to say that “the policies of this administration are abhorrent and … they’re really un-American.”

Even abiding by the law these days is un-American, apparently.

The ACLU charged that Trump’s plan to enforce an existing immigration law — one written by congressional Democrats and signed by a Democratic president — is an “un-American dream.”

Bloomberg called Trump’s revised executive order on visas un-American, “even if it withstands judicial scrutiny.”

When Newt Gingrich suggested last summer that Congress revive the Un-America Activities Committee to target genuine domestic enemies of the U.S. — in this case radical Islamic extremists — the left freaked, and declared that this, too, was un-America.

Criticizing the press has also become un-American — if you happen to be in the Trump administration, that is.

CNN’s Jake Tapper lobbed the charge against the entire White House staff recently, saying “this White House does not seem to value an independent press. There is a word for that line of thinking. The word is un-American.”

NBC’s Chuck Todd said, in response to Trump’s criticism of a biased news media, that “delegitimizing the press is un-American.”

Trump and company have, unfortunately, joined this game as well. Trump tweeted that leaking intelligence information to the press was “very un-American.” White House aide Sebastian Gorka called objections to a Trump plan to highlight crimes committed by illegals “un-American.”

So let’s back to basics. Accusing someone of being un-American simply because you disagree with their views on an issue destroys the true meaning of the term “un-American.” And that, we’d dare to say, is not the American way. (IBD)

It’s also racist, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and sexist to disagree with them.

There now don’t you feel better about Freedom of Speech in Liberal America… 🙂



Sowell of Academic Rot

Many people seem shocked at the recent savagery of a mob of students at Middlebury College, who rioted to prevent Charles Murray from addressing a student group who had invited him to speak. They also inflicted injuries requiring hospitalization on a woman from the faculty who was with him.

Which, according to the Middlebury student paper was caused by the “violence and the chaos” caused by the Public Safety personnel, not the student’s rioting. Typical Leftist is it not?

Where have all these shocked people been all these years? What happened at Middlebury College has been happening for decades, all across the country, from Berkeley to Harvard. Moreover, even critics of the Middlebury College rioters betray some of the same irresponsible mindset as that of the young rioters.

The moral dry rot in academia — and beyond — goes far deeper than student storm troopers at one college.

Frank Bruni of the New York Times, for example, while criticizing the rioters, lent credence to the claim that Charles Murray was “a white nationalist.” Similar — and worse — things have been said, in supposedly reputable publications, by people who could not cite one statement from any of Dr. Murray’s books that bears any resemblance to their smears.

Academia, however, is ground zero in the war against people whose ideas go against the current political correctness. The virtual monopoly of the political left, on campuses across the country, allows all sorts of things to be attributed to people the left disagrees with, irrespective of whether those people have ever said anything resembling what they are alleged to have said.

The professors don’t usually riot against people whose ideas they disagree with, because they can just dismiss those ideas, with some characterization that there is no one on hand to challenge.

Professor William Julius Wilson of Harvard, for example, said of Justice Clarence Thomas, “He’ll say he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. I say I was in the right place at the right time.”

Just where did Justice Thomas say that he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps? The central theme of his autobiography, titled “My Grandfather’s Son,” credits the wisdom of the grandfather who raised him as what saved him.

Nuns who taught him in school were brought to Washington, at his expense, to be present to see him sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court, to see that their dedicated efforts on his behalf had not been in vain.

But has anyone ever asked Professor Wilson on just what he based his claim about Justice Thomas? The central tragedy of academia today is that you don’t have to have anything on which to base dismissals of people and ideas you disagree with.

This attitude is not unique to William Julius Wilson or to Harvard. On the west coast, Professor Lanny Ebenstein of the University of California at Santa Barbara has included economists Stephen Moore and Walter Williams, as well as television host John Stossel, among those “committed to the welfare of the top few.”


Professor Ebenstein has every right to disagree with these individuals on economic or other issues. But that is very different from attributing to them a commitment to “the welfare of the top few.”

It so happens that I have read books by all three, without finding any preoccupation with the welfare of the affluent or the rich. I have known Walter Williams for more than 40 years. When we both lived on the east coast, we and our wives often met socially.

In all that time, neither in public nor in private did I ever hear Walter Williams express the slightest concern for the welfare of the affluent or the rich. Innumerable times I heard him focus his concern on the well-being of people like himself, from a poverty background. That concern was also expressed in deeds as well as words.

But who is going to ask Professor Ebenstein to cite the basis for his claim?

Why should we expect students to welcome debate about differences of opinion, when so many of their professors seem to think cheap shot dismissals are all you need? Lacking their professors’ verbal dexterity or aura of authority, students use cruder methods of dismissing things they disagree with.

So long as academia talks demographic “diversity” and practices groupthink when it comes to ideas, we have little reason to expect better of student mobs that riot with impunity.

Fascinating TV

There is a show from Australia that I had been torrenting for years but had not watched in a while because sources dried up.

But it showed up on Netflix yesterday and I binge watched it (and it’s American Cousin that suspiciously missed the Southern Border…:) )

border tv

It endlessly fascinates how many people pack suitcases full of food. I would never even conceive of going over sees and packing how suitcases full of food.

Then there are the actual border issues.

Great TV.

I binge watched 14 of the Aussie show (and 8 of it’s American cousin). They are only 22 minutes long.

Good entertaining television.

The stupidity, the arrogance and cleverness, and ignorance on display gives you hope for mankind… 🙂




IT’S ABOUT THE COST,STUPID! NOT THE COVERAGE!!! If you can’t afford the coverage what is the point?

Jar Jar Ryan…I hate you. Ever get the idea that either the Republicans (who spent YEARS railing on ObamaCare) are clueless and/or do not actually care?

House Speaker Paul Ryan is openly targeting House Republicans with television advertisements—while conspicuously not hitting Democratic members—to try to browbeat them into supporting his healthcare legislation….

“It’s a stinking pile of garbage. …It’s not a Republican, conservative bill. …One thing that I’ve maintained is that this bill was written with the help of the insurance companies, just like Obamacare. That’s why it looks so similar.“ — Republican Rep Thomas Massie on the new GOP healthcare bill

Before discussing the health care abomination the Republican Party is about to foist on America, it’s worth revisiting the havoc that Obamacare wrought on the Democrat Party.

Although Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party are guilty of a multitude of sins against America, the worst one was Obamacare. The bill was never popular. In fact, it was so hated that it catapulted Scott Brown into Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts for a term. The bill was an albatross around the party’s neck and the results were devastating.

During the Obama years, the Democrat Party lost 12 governorships, 900 state legislature seats, 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats.

Why was Obamacare so costly to the Democrats? Because the bill wasn’t bipartisan. Because they sold it with lies. Because it was never popular to begin with. But most of all, they created a system that had a small number of winners and a large number of losers. If you had a pre-existing condition and no insurance or were so broke that Obamacare covered most of your costs, you probably like Obamacare. However, that adds up to a relatively small group of people. On the other hand, most people saw their deductible shoot way up and their premium costs went into the stratosphere.

Because the Republicans are starting with the absolutely ludicrous premise that even though Obamacare has never been popular, there are popular parts of the bill and those should be preserved, they’ve had to be dishonest with conservatives and the American people. They’re keeping so many principles from the Affordable Care Act in place that they’re really just amending it, not repealing it. Since that’s the case, they’re going to have exactly the same problem that the Democrats did.

There will be a small group of winners and a large group of losers, except this time the Republicans will be 100% responsible for it and the Democrats will turn out to be the ones who are 100% right when they say it won’t work.

Of course, the GOP is trying to ram the bill through as quickly as possible just as Republicans did with the immigration bill because they know that the more people who find out about it, the more unpopular it’s going to be.

Keep in mind that the bill has already been condemned by the Club for Growth, Heritage Action, Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity among other widely respected conservative groups. Even BREITBART is hammering this bill viciously. That’s not surprising, because let’s be honest: if Obama had put this atrocity of a bill in front of Republicans instead of Obamacare, it literally wouldn’t have gotten a single GOP vote.

What’s wrong with the plan? Well, for one thing, it accepts Obama’s premise that insurance companies should have to cover those who choose not to have insurance and then get a serious illness. So, when those people are included, by necessity costs have to skyrocket for everyone else because the rest of us have to cover the costs of their health care.

So, you’re still going to have the high costs and high deductibles that are the primary strike against Obamacare. Of course, people also hated the Obamacare mandate, which John Roberts twisted the Constitution into a pretzel to support. Remember what people said? How can government force you to buy a product as a condition of American citizenship? Guess what? The new GOP plan has the same feature. In fact, it may even be worse because you’re being forced to make payments directly to the damn insurance companies. If you want to know if the insurance companies really helped write the bill to benefit themselves, there’s your answer. How would it work?

“Their plan would require individuals to maintain ‘continuous coverage’ — or pay a penalty. People who let their coverage lapse would face a 30 percent surcharge on their monthly premiums for one year when they next buy coverage. The idea, like Obamacare’s individual mandate, is to prevent people from purchasing insurance only after they get sick.”

In other words, if you don’t get insurance for a decade and pay 30% more for a year after you break your leg, you still come out way ahead.

So, are prices still going to be sky high? Yes. Is there still going to be a mandate? Yes. Well, will more people at least be covered by the bill? No. Millions will lose their coverage because the GOP is going with smaller tax credits instead of subsidies. In fact, <href=”#61c70b5212dc”>Avik Roy, a Republican who has written a book about the problems with the Affordable Care Act, speculates that 20 million Americans will lose coverage under the GOP’s version of Obamacare. So, what about the deficit? Under this bill, it will likely explode because the GOP is getting rid of many of the taxes that pay for Obamacare. In other words, the GOP wants to do a left-of-center Obamacare-lite bill, but it doesn’t want to put the left-of-center taxes in place that pay for it.

What that means is that we get the worst of both worlds with the GOP’s Obamacare bill. Prices will remain extremely high and the deficit will go up, but the most annoying parts of the bill will remain in place while fewer people will be covered. As an extra added bonus, the Republican Party will be committing the same kind of political suicide that the Democrats did with Obamacare.

Oh, but no worries, the GOP is going to fix it later with “phase 2” and “phase 3.”

No, it’s not.

That’s because the Democrats are going to do exactly what the GOP did during the Obama years. They’re going to blame the GOP for every problem with health care, they’re going to correctly point out that the bill is a “stinking pile of garbage,” and they’re going to let Republicans hang themselves with their own rope.

If the Republican Party wants to live up to the promise it’s been making for the last few years, it should use the reconciliation process to repeal a big chunk of Obamacare. Then Trump can use all the discretion he’s given under the law to let the rest of it die on the vine. Afterwards, the GOP should tell the insurance agencies to go pound sand and then Republicans should implement a market-based program that will actually cut costs and improve care. Of course, the Democrats still may not cooperate, but since Obamacare would essentially already be dead, they’d have more incentive than they would if this Hindenburg disaster of a health care program passes.

Free Market

A concept no Liberal understands (or wants to)…


Health care reform is an enormous challenge because when it comes to economic policy, Republicans always have an uphill battle. Their free market solutions are harder to sell in a nation that has long had one foot in the socialism door.

Republicans express their belief in the free market, especially when they’re out of power and running against liberals and their failed policies, but they have a tougher time governing on conservative principles once in office. They often operate on flawed assumptions, seeking to accomplish contradictory goals and operating in an environment with two-year election cycles, which discourage making correct decisions for the long term.

But the GOP must recapture its belief in free market principles and muster the patience and political courage to promote them. Competition and free markets are the best avenues to economic prosperity, liberty and, in the case of health care, accessibility, affordability and quality. Yes, we must support some kind of safety net, but it ought to be designed to be short-term in as many cases as possible and should create incentives to encourage people to help themselves.

Some critics rightly note that Obamacare and other forms of socialized medicine are elaborate redistribution schemes, and that is true, as far as it goes. But our economy is dynamic; it is not a zero-sum game. Liberals conveniently ignore that their redistribution schemes, when extended to their logical conclusion, don’t just reallocate resources. Overregulation smothers market forces and destroys wealth, liberty and human dignity, and it is ruining American health care. It’s a shame that such issues rarely find their way into the public debate because it’s easier just to appear compassionate.

Indeed, it’s easy to be an economic liberal who pretends to care only about the poor. But feelings don’t translate into results and often sabotage them. The welfare system has diminished the work ethic, increased the incentive for people to reproduce out of wedlock and severely damaged the nuclear family, which has led to incalculable economic, moral and cultural problems across the board.
Republicans need to be more serious than the compassion-peddling Democrats and decide what they are trying to accomplish with health care reform. Why do people accept Barack Obama’s premise that health insurance coverage, rather than quality affordable health care, is the end goal? More Americans are technically covered today, but premiums and deductibles have increased, and quality has decreased.

Democrats, starting with the Clintons in the 1990s, changed the conversation to insurance coverage with the mantra that we had tens of millions uninsured. Lost in the conversation was any concern for premiums, deductibles, accessibility of care and quality of care. Though Hillary Clinton didn’t have the cachet to get Hillarycare passed, Obama crammed his warped vision down our throats.
But like all other socialistic solutions, Obamacare was terminally flawed. Government intervention was already the biggest enemy of quality affordable health care, and Obamacare was just another cynical weigh station on the way to single-payer, fully socialized medicine.


Health care is a complex issue, and its complexity increases along with greater government intervention, which makes reforming it quite difficult. We must begin by rejecting the assumptions that health insurance is a constitutional right and that medical services can be free. We don’t need health insurance for every routine medical procedure, as opposed to bigger or catastrophic items, because insurance is about unforeseen risks and routine procedures are foreseen. And when we insist on coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, can we at least be honest that we are also violating the concept of insurance?

Though I don’t pretend to be an expert on the specifics, I am convinced that principles of free market competition must infuse any health care reforms we ultimately adopt. This means eliminating as many regulations as we can, removing barriers to competition across state lines, implementing tort reform, allowing unlimited health savings accounts and somehow disentangling ourselves from a system in which the health care consumer pays only 11 percent of his own health care costs, with the remainder being paid by employers and other third parties. Under the present system, people have no incentive to be prudent and frugal consumers, and providers have no incentive to reduce costs.


In fairness, we must also concede that accomplishing such reforms legislatively is extremely difficult. It’s infinitely easier to advocate full repeal or “repeal and replace” when you’re the opposition party. But achieving reform in a democratic system designed to retard legislative action is a different animal. We don’t even have a consensus on the Republican side, and the Democrats are and will remain in full obstruction mode.

Critics must soberly acknowledge the immense difficulty of such reforms and have some appreciation for pragmatic considerations, such as passing what we can through the reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority, and advancing other items separately, if necessary. We can’t just snap our fingers and get things done.

I am somewhat conflicted on this because part of me believes we should just repeal the whole thing and be done with it, but the other part is aware of the difficulty of getting a consensus to actually pass legislation.


I think House Speaker Paul Ryan and others deserve credit for trying to move this in the right direction, but I am still concerned that the American Health Care Act wouldn’t go far enough or fast enough — especially when economists and conservative think tanks I trust are very skeptical of the plan. We must understand that piecemeal solutions regularly create greater problems down the road, which we’ve seen with the problems created by the expansion of Medicaid in some 31 states. Once you increase people’s and states’ dependence on the federal government, it is harder to wean them off on the road to true market reforms.

My hope is that we approach this and any other proposed reform legislation skeptically, but not cynically, and that we evaluate it in terms of whether it would advance health care in the short term and long term — toward a market-based system, which is the surest and best way to achieve affordable high-quality health care. If the American Health Care Act, along with the next two phases of legislation, can eventually accomplish that, I’ll be for it, but the jury is still out. (David Limbaugh)


%d bloggers like this: