Friday, July 19, 2013

Obama Sings: When I Was Seventeen (Trayvon could have been me) ^ | unknown | Frank Sinatra 

When I was seventeen
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for small town girls
And soft summer nights
We'd hide from the lights
On the village green
When I was seventeen

When I was twenty-one
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for city girls
Who lived up the stair
With all that perfumed hair
And it came undone
When I was twenty-one

When I was thirty-five
It was a very good year
It was a very good year for blue-blooded girls
Of independent means
We'd ride in limousines
Their chauffeurs would drive
When I was thirty-five

But now the days are short
I'm in the autumn of the year
And now I think of my life as vintage wine
From fine old kegs
From the brim to the dregs
It poured sweet and clear
It was a very good year

It was a mess of good years

Labor Unions Turn on Obamacare

USBC News ^ | 13,07,19 | USBC News Wire

Despite traditionally being one of the biggest supporters of the Obama administration, labor unions are beginning to question the regulatory overhaul of the healthcare industry, as detrimental implications and effects of the law are becoming more clear...
Several unions have become vocal about their dissatisfaction over Obamacare, including reported dissatisfaction coming from the International Union of North America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and others...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Justice for Trayvon — with Concealed-Or Open-Carry Permits!

National Review Online ^ | July 19, 2013 | Andrew Cline

For protection against racists, the Second Amendment is better than mass protests.
Protesting George Zimmerman’s acquittal will not protect black Americans from future encounters with men who approach them in the dark, suspicious that they are up to no good. Protection could come from doing as Zimmerman did — carrying a concealed weapon.

Unwilling to become victims of street crime or mass shootings, and afraid that Congress and the president will restrict their ability to acquire firearms in the future, millions of Americans are buying handguns and obtaining concealed-carry permits. In the first quarter of 2013, Sturm, Ruger’s backlog of gun orders reached 2.1 million, up from 337,000 in the same period last year, USA Today reported in May. Permit applications for concealed-carry weapons are up by double digits in state after state, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month. By the end of this year, every state will allow concealed carry, as the Journal noted. Americans are increasingly arming themselves for self-defense. If black Americans do not participate in this self-armament, they will find themselves at a more profound disadvantage than the one presented by the dreaded “institutional racism” that supposedly set Zimmerman free.

How dramatic is the expansion in concealed-carry permits? Ohio “is on pace to nearly double last year’s total of 65,000 new permits, which would be nearly three times as many as in 2007,” the Journal reported, adding:

And Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Nebraska all have nearly matched or surpassed last year’s totals with half of 2013 still to go.

A dozen states surveyed for this article, including Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, issued 537,000 permits last year, an 18% increase compared with a year prior and more than double the number issued in 2007. Early figures for 2013 show many states are on pace for their biggest year ever.

Florida, home of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, issued its millionth concealed-carry permit earlier this year and is up to 1.09 million already. There are 19.3 million Floridians. Imagine walking the streets of Tampa, population roughly 350,000. Statistically, one of every 19 people you pass would have a concealed-carry permit (if we assume that Tampa’s population has the same percentage of permit holders as the state).

Now imagine for argument’s sake that most of those permit holders are whites or Hispanics who are prejudiced against blacks. (I do not believe this is true.) What would be a more effective protection against nearly a million armed racists: protests or pistols?

For more than a century after the Civil War, it was understood that black Americans could most effectively protect themselves from gun-wielding white racists by arming themselves in turn. As Adam Winkler pointed out in The Atlantic in 2011, one of Congress’s goals in passing the 14th Amendment was to ensure that blacks in the South had the constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the roaming bands of white terrorists whose elected representatives were passing laws to disarm blacks. In the 1960s, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale armed the Black Panthers in Oakland so they could protect themselves from allegedly racist police officers. Winkler recounted how Newton’s practice of carrying a weapon openly drew a great deal of attention and triggered an attempt in the legislature to restrict gun ownership for the purpose of disarming blacks:

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

Stokely Carmichael told an interviewer in 1988 that to protect themselves against white terrorists in Alabama and Mississippi, 90 percent of Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee field staffers carried guns by 1963. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed-carry permit in 1956 in Alabama, but he was denied. He did, however, keep an “arsenal” of guns in his home, Winkler wrote.

Black Americans have a long history of using the Second Amendment for effective self-protection against racists. Rather than holding protests in front of courthouses, wouldn’t it make a much stronger statement if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson organized a national march on local and state permit-issuing agencies to register 1 million black Americans for concealed-carry permits?

One has to wonder whether the remnants of the ’60s black leadership in America really want to empower black Americans. Or is their real goal a continued stance of dependency on the government — and the power brokers who serve as middlemen between constituents and public officials? Maybe it is just a lack of imagination.

Sharpton has announced that the goal of his planned protests is for the Justice Department to charge George Zimmerman with violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights. Surely it would be more empowering for thousands of black Americans to let white America know that they are exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Without the help of so-called civil-rights leaders, some black Americans have been protecting themselves quietly for years. In Texas, where concealed-carry applications contain a box for the race of the applicant, the number of permits held by black men rose by nearly 400 percent from 2000 to 2011, and the number held by black women rose by more than 600 percent, according to research by pro-gun economist John Lott Jr. and verified by Politifact Texas.

Lott told me over e-mail last week that his research shows two groups benefiting the most from carrying concealed weapons:

1) People who are most likely to be victims of violent crime. That overwhelmingly tends to be poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas. . . . Police are extremely important in deterring crime, but the people who benefit the most from owning guns are the ones who are most likely to face violent criminals.

2) People who are relatively weaker physically. That tends to be two groups: women and the elderly. The presence of a gun represents a much bigger change in the ability to resist an attack than it does for most men.

That could be why Zimmerman, described by his mixed-martial-arts instructor as physically soft and incapable of throwing a punch, decided to carry. It evens the odds.

Granted, carrying concealed is not an option for minors, such as Trayvon Martin, as state laws typically do not allow them to get the permits. Florida law restricts concealed-carry permits to people 21 years of age or older, for example. But Zimmerman did not know Martin was only 17. Were it widely known that black Americans were engaged in a mass effort to arm themselves for protection against predators, racist and non-racist, how likely is it that the next Zimmerman would recklessly confront a black man in a hoodie?

George Zimmerman understood that carrying a concealed weapon improved his odds of surviving a violent confrontation with a physically stronger stranger in the dark of night. It did, with terrible consequences. If another consequence turned out to be that a huge swath of black America gives prejudice the finger, saying, “Hey, the Second Amendment applies to us too, so be careful, cowboy,” wouldn’t that be something?

— Andrew Cline is editorial-page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Speaking for ‘All White People,’ Chris Matthews Apologizes to Black Americans for ... Something

News Busters ^ | 7/19/13 | Joe Newby

On Thursday, limousine liberal Chris Matthews took it upon himself to apologize on behalf of all white people for unspecified transgressions.
“I’ll just tell you one thing,” Matthews said. “And I’m speaking now for all white people, but especially [the ones] who’ve tried to change the last 50 or 60 years. And a lot of them really tried to change, and I’m sorry for this stuff. That’s all I’m saying.”
The MSNBC host made those remarks in the context of a discussion he was having between one of his bosses, Val Nicholas, vice president and creative director at NBC News, and former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele about what Matthews and his guests said were a multitude of acts of alleged racial discrimination against black men. Given that context, it appears that is what Matthews was apologizing for but since he brought up the subject in talking about the George Zimmerman trial, one cannot be too sure.
At the end of the Hardball segment, a haughty Matthews thanked his two black guests “for both being colleagues of mine,” as if they had somehow done him a favor by gracing him with their presences.
In any case, we can’t help but agree with Allahpundit of Hot Air who wished “this should really be an hourly feature on MSNBC, tantamount to a regular news break at 30 minutes past.” One wonders what extreme lengths Matthews will go to apologize to what he clearly sees as the poor, utterly helpless black masses.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Senate Immigration Bill Contains $20 Billion Medicaid Mandate

Breitbart News ^ | 18 Jul 2013 | Matthew Boyle

the Senate's controversial immigration reform bill passed in late June contains a Medicaid mandate similar to a provision found in the Affordable Care Act, known to its critics as Obamacare.

A little-noticed part of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of S. 744 shows that it would in fact impose a $20 billion Medicaid expansion on states. According to the CBO score of the legislation, this provision would occur over a decade-long period after the President signs the bill.
"In assessing the impact of the bill on the federal budget, CBO estimated its effect on federal and state spending for Medicaid. S. 744 would have the result of increasing the number of individuals who would become eligible for either full Medicaid or for more limited emergency benefits,” the CBO writes in the section of its Senate immigration bill score on mandates to states.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Feds to Spend $500K for Job Creation – in Belize ^ | july 19, 2013 | melanie hunter

The State Department through the U.S. Mission to Belize is planning to spend $500,000 to create jobs for youth in Belize.

“Marginalized youth are empowered when given a voice and opportunities. Equipping marginalized youth and their communities with economic opportunities and/or business training can help them reach their true potential as entrepreneurs and improve citizen security,” the grant announcement said.

The grant proposal seeks to “confront the root causes of violence and crime” in Belize “in a creative and effective way” and “to create positive cultural and social conditions, which are the foundations of a peaceful and orderly society.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama institutes mandatory HIV law needed!

Thomas Lifson
With almost no public notice, President Obama has issued an imperial decree executive order requiring universal HIV testing. Yasmeen Abutaleb of Reuters published a blandly-title dispatch, "Obama orders stepped up effort against U.S. HIV/AIDS epidemic" that takes seven paragraphs before getting to what should be the lead:
The new order follows recommendations this year from the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force that all 15 to 65 year olds be screened for HIV infection, something that will be covered under Obama's signature heath reform, the Affordable Care Act.
If you've never engaged in receptive anal intercourse or shared a needle, the odds of you getting AIDS are very low, now that blood for transfusions is tested. Nevertheless, Kathleen Sebelius going to be coming up with a plan to order you to report for the blood draw the government will now require.
The order said a working group chaired by Grant Colfax, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would have 180 days to deliver recommendations to the president.
It is fascinating that the people who decry as invasive mandatory sonograms prior to abortion have remained silent about this far more invasive procedure being required of everyone, including those not at risk. And who is at risk?
A study published last July by a team at Atlanta's Emory University found that overall infection rates among U.S. black, gay and bisexual men rival those seen in sub-Saharan African countries that are hardest hit by HIV.
The 2010 AIDS strategy aims to slow the spread of HIV by 25 percent over five years. It focuses especially on African Americans, gay and bisexual men, Latinos, and substance abusers, groups most at-risk of infection.
AIDS does not just happen to people; it is not an airborne contagious infection. Subjecting the entire population to this test is ridiculous overkill, and unwarranted. Since when does the president have the right to require everyone to be tested? What about medical confidentiality?

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Why Obama’s Remarks on the Zimmerman Case Are a Failure of Leadership

PJ Media ^ | July 19, 2013 | Bryan Preston

In the minutes after Texas passed HB 2, the law that bans abortions after 20 weeks and raises standards at abortion clinics to protect women’s health, Barack Obama through Twitter signaled his support for those who were protesting against the law. The fact that many of those protesters had engaged in outrageous, even disgusting, behavior did not slow the president down. He was eager to go on the record that he rejected what the people’s representatives had done.

That speed of opinion contrasts with another local case. During the trial of late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania, Obama flatly refused to comment on it at all. To this day he has not weighed in on the trial of a man who was convicted of serial infanticide. If Obama has an opinion on that trial, the media have not asked for it and he has not tweeted or taken to any nearby microphone to offer it.
After the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, Obama struck a middle ground. In the minutes after the verdict came down, his twitter feed fell silent. He eventually offered a text statement but did not come out to speak directly on the matter.
That changed today, when President Obama delivered unannounced remarks on the Zimmerman verdict.
Passions have been running high in the black community in the wake of Zimmerman’s acquittal. Jesse Jackson has called for the United Nations to investigate American jurisprudence, and has called Florida, which prosecuted Zimmerman, an “apartheid state.” Al Sharpton is calling for demonstrations in 100 U.S. cities, after some demonstrations have already turned violent. Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, is evidently intent on pressing for federal hate crime charges against Zimmerman despite a couple facts: The FBI investigated and found no evidence of racism in him, and the shooting itself does not appear to have been motivated by race. On what might be considered the other side of the black community, Charles Barkley and Bill Cosby have come out agreeing with the verdict and halting calls to keep race at the center of the controversy. Both have assailed the media’s role in using the shooting to inflame racial tensions. Obama is surely aware of what NBC, ABC and the New York Times have done to put race into this story by now. If he is not aware, then he is ill-informed to the point of negligence.
Barack Obama had a choice, and today, he cast his lot with Jackson, Sharpton, and Holder.
In one remark, he injected race and himself directly back into the story.
Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.
Obama grew up in privileged circumstances in Hawaii, after his own father abandoned him.
In another statement, he clearly sided with Martin’s family and against Zimmerman’s.
“I want to make sure that once again I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin.”
Sympathy for Martin’s family is warranted, surely. But the Zimmerman family is facing death threats in the verdict’s wake, including a bounty put on George’s head by the New Black Panthers. Obama has nothing to say about that.
Obama went on to accept and then reject the jury’s verdict. He seemed to accept it when he said “The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.”
Actually, reasonable doubt is warranted in every criminal case. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Obama then rejected the verdict when he said “So — so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or — and that context is being denied. And — and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”
So the jury got it right, except that in another universe with different facts, they got it wrong.
He attacked a law that did not come up in the case, but has become the left’s current target of rage, when he said “I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?”
Depending on the circumstances, of course he could have. Circumstances are always relevant. In Florida, blacks benefit from “stand your ground” laws more often than whites do. Despite that fact, which Obama could have taken time to enunciate to cool tempers, the president went on to acknowledge that while “stand your ground” was not invoked in Zimmerman’s defense, we should re-examine such laws anyway. Logically, why?
The president who once said that “there is not a black America and a white America and a Latino America and an Asian America” spent the bulk of his comments only speaking to and about the black American experience. He is half white, and was raised by his white grandparents. Notably, Latino America has not heard from Obama about the case at all despite the fact that George Zimmerman is every bit as Hispanic as Obama is black. Has he thrown a Hispanic man under the bus to appease the radical black left?
Throughout his remarks, Obama went to his “on the one hand, on the other hand” style in which he appears to be a moderate, but ultimately what he did was fail to lead. The tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin is becoming a cause, or an excuse, for some to commit violence against their fellow Americans. Rioters have committed numerous acts of violence, including attacking a Hispanic man in Baltimore and assaulting a white grandmother in Houston. This is unacceptable. Unrest has been encouraged by the New Black Panthers, by Sharpton and the refrain “No justice, no peace.”
Obama’s answer to violence? More talk: “If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.” There has already been violence. Has he not seen it?
It may not have occurred to the president, but people who have already resorted to violence are not likely to listen to anyone remind them of anything. How about warning them that the criminal justice system stands ready to deal with anyone who breaks the law ahead of any violence? Obama did not issue such a warning.
That, and his entire tone, constitute a glaring failure of leadership. Barack Obama had a moment when he could have stood above all the factions in the black community, indeed all the factions arguing over the verdict in that trial. He could have spoken to and for more than just one American community. He chose instead to insert himself and race into the story from the world’s largest bully pulpit, while refusing to use that bully pulpit to stand up forcefully for the rule of law.
No fair-minded person will reject the fact that blacks have faced extraordinary mistreatment and racism through American history, from slavery to Jim Crow to backward attitudes that continue to persist. But race played no role in this specific case, according to the prosecution’s case, according to the jury that reached the verdict, and according to Trayvon Martin’s own mother. The president owes the American people a basic, factual accounting, not a third autobiography. By insisting on injecting himself and race into the case, Obama risks inflaming passions when he could have quieted them.

Detroit Bankruptcy: As Its Own Worst Enemy, the City Got What It Deserved

24/7 Wall ST ^ | July 19,2013 | Douglas A. McIntyre

If the residents of the city of Detroit want to blame any person or organization for its Chapter 9 filing, they only need to look as far as the unions that controlled labor there and the politicians who ran it over the past four decades. Detroit earned its bankruptcy the easy way — through greed, the desire for political power and poor planning.
Bond holders do not deserve the kind of responsibility that those who ran Detroit do. However, they, and their bankers, were willing to keep the city afloat by buying paper that was risky. They took the risk and fed Detroit with money. Now, they get to take the sort of damage that goes with risking to much, too often and for too long.
As the people of Detroit and experts tear apart the history of Detroit, some blame will be placed with the car companies. But they built Detroit — Detroit did not build them. It is not fair to say they destroyed her. As a matter of fact, these public corporations, with obligations to shareholders, may have been among the few wise parties. The Big Three automakers exited slowly, as city services dissolved and Detroit became a less desirable place to live and do business.
Detroit’s elected officials have lost all of their power. Orr has it, and soon a court will. Unions and their members can only wait to see how badly they will will be gored as part of the Chapter 9 process.
In sum, each side knew that the city began to flounder a long time ago, and each tried to hang on to as much money, and privilege, as possible. Now, each gets to suffer the consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Obama’s Secret $8 Billion Bribe To The Muslim Brotherhood

The Western Center for Journalism ^ | 07/18/2013 | KRIS ZANE

According to Arabic News Channel TV14 and reported on by Egypt Daily News, Obama’s relationship with recently deposed Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi goes far deeper than mere support as a democratically elected President.

Per TV14, Obama conducted secret negotiations with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood outside of normal diplomatic channels. According to sources cited by TV14, Obama secretly transferred eight billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood—not the Egyptian government—as payment to guarantee that a large portion of the Sinai Peninsula be turned over to the terrorist organization Hamas, an avowed enemy of both the United States and Israel.

Hobby Lobby wins stay against federal health care mandate!

NewsOK ^ | July 19, 2013 | Brianna Bailey

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. won a temporary reprieve on Friday from federal penalties as much as $1.3 million a day for failing to offer insurance coverage for emergency contraceptives to its more than 13,000 employees.

The company would have been forced to pay the fines for failing to comply with a mandate on emergency contraceptives is part of the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby is suing the federal government over the law.

In brief remarks to reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green said the Green family would have continued with its legal fight even Hobby Lobby had not successful in winning a preliminary injunction.

“This case is about life — our deeply held conviction is that life begins with conception,” Green said. “To offer prescriptions that take life is just not an option than us.”
Ruling from the bench Friday morning, U.S. District Court Judge Joe Heaton granted Hobby Lobby's request for a preliminary injunction against paying the fines while its court case continues.
The Oklahoma City-based retailer has been battling for a legal exemption to a federal mandate obligating the firm to provide its employees insurance coverage for emergency contraception. The company and its owners, CEO David Green and four family members, believe that some types of contraception, including the “morning-after pill,” are forms of abortion that conflict with the family's Christian beliefs.
Heaton earlier this year denied the company's motion for an injunction against potential penalties, but that ruling was overturned last month by a federal appeals court.

Tough Times for the Obamas? (Obama family heading back to Martha's Vineyard after skipping last summer!) ^ | 7/19/13

Original title: Obama family heading back to Martha's Vineyard after skipping last summer... and this year they're renting a $7.6million mansion next to Ted Danson

The First Family are heading back to Martha's Vineyard for a luxurious summer vacation, and are reportedly renting a secluded six-bedroom property worth an estimated $7.6 million.

President Barack Obama, wife Michelle and their two daughters missed out on a trip to the exclusive island last year due to campaigning in the 2012 elections.

But they are making up for it this year and jetting off to Massachusetts on August 10 for a week. Their nearest neighbors will be Cheers star Ted Danson and Oscar-winning wife Mary Steenburgen. (both raging liberal Democrats...and supporters of BHO)

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

HHS Admits: You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor Under Obamacare

Weekly Standard ^ | July 19, 2013 | JERYL BIER

Flashback: "If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor," Obama lied.

As Obamacare was being pushed through Congress in 2010, the Obama administration and its allies were unequivocal in two claims: If you like your doctor and you like your current health care plan, you can keep them both. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the president fully in this regard. The White House even went so far as to post a "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" on its website, where "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors." President Obama upped the ante, putting the promise in the form of a "guarantee":
THE PRESIDENT: Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change what doesn't work in the system.
While there has been sniping back and forth between the administration and its detractors about the real-world application and implementation of Obamacare, the new website has taken some of the mystery out of the controversy. And President Obama and his administration do not fare well in this latest "reality check." Among the questions that HHS recently added to the website: "Can I keep my own doctor?":

"Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor." The bottom line is that Obamacare guarantees neither. Doctors may be only available through certain networks, just as in the current system. And only plans that existed in their current form on March 23, 2010, are even eligible to be "kept." The vast majority of plans will be new, subject to a raft of new regulations, requirements, and restrictions.
Now that Health and Human Services has confirmed that the suspicions of Obamacare opponents were justified, the Obama administration will have some explaining to do to friends and foes of the law alike. Because now everyone is finding out "what's in it."

Obamacare, Simplified

Heritage Foundation ^ | 7/19/2013 | Chris Jacobs

With open enrollment in Obamacare’s exchanges set to start in fewer than three months, the law’s supporters are attempting to change the subject from Obamacare’s many delays and glitches. Instead, they’re mounting a campaign to sell the unpopular measure to the public.
President Obama yesterday gave a speech on Obamacare, trying to justify the fact that premiums continue to rise, violating his 2008 campaign promise to lower them by $2,500 per family per year. The Kaiser Family Foundation even released a video that attempts to simplify and explain the 2,700-page measure.
But there’s another helpful chart that shows how Obamacare will work, and it’s taken from an official report released by government auditors. Click on the image below to see how the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration explained the Obamacare enrollment process, in testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday:

President Obama's Plan to "Simplify" Your Health Care
The process for determining subsidy eligibility could require 21 different steps, involving at least five separate entities—the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and state exchanges—and utilizing a process called the Income and Family Size Verification Project.
Given this bureaucratic nightmare, it’s little wonder that another report from government auditors released last month said that “critical” deadlines to create the Obamacare exchanges had been missed. Nor should any be surprised that yesterday, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration testified it “is concerned that the potential for refund fraud and related schemes could increase” due to Obamacare.
Yet the Obama Administration believes spending more money will solve the problem. Just for the IRS implementation of Obamacare, the Administration requested $439.6 million for nearly 2,000 bureaucrats.
Obama yesterday attempted to portray Obamacare as defending Americans from insurance companies. But who will defend the American people from Obamacare? The law’s confusing maze of programs, regulations, and processes brings to mind Ronald Reagan’s famous maxim that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’”
If a picture is normally worth a thousand words, the Obamacare chart above should be worth trillions. Because Congress—seeing that Obamacare is not just too big to fail, but too big to succeed—should refuse to spend a single dime implementing this behemoth of a health care law.

Detroit: The Shape Of Things To Come

The Market-ticker ^ | July 18, 2013 | Karl Denninger

Listen up folks, after you read the bankruptcy filing for Detroit.

1. Right now, the City cannot meet its basic obligations to its citizens.
2. Right now, the City cannot meet its basic obligations to its creditors.
3. The failure of the City to meet its obligations to its citizens is the primary cause of its inability to meet its obligations to its creditors.
4. The only feasible path to ensuring the City will be able to meet obligations in the future is to have a successful restructuring via the bankruptcy process that recognizes the fundamental importance of ensuring the City meets its basic obligations to its citizens.
I have repeatedly pointed the impossible position that many governmental units, whether they be state, local or Federal, have placed themselves in by creating special classes of "untouchable" promises that were negotiated in bad faith by one or both sides and which are then ensconced with special protections under the law.
The fundamental reality of taxation is that if the economy is growing in your city (town, state, etc) then tax rates can remain the same or decrease and tax revenue goes up. That's because economic activity increases and taxes, as a matter of rate upon an activity, being a constant, results in more revenue.
Now four important axioms:
Economic progress only comes through capital formation.
Capital formation only comes from economic surplus.
Economic surplus is earnings less expenses including taxes.
All other forms of "development" are nothing more than leverage-driven bubbles.
If you increase tax rates then you decrease economic surplus. This inevitably slows economic expansion; it mathematically must.
If you make political promises that can only be met through increased tax rates, now or in the future, you begin the process of slitting your own throat. That outcome is inevitable when you agree to political promises that have escalating expenses over time as pensions, medical benefits, salary "step" increases, bond issues that have a payment schedule longer than the useful life of the asset bought and similar.
There is no way out of this box other than to repudiate those promises. Those who were made them inevitably try (and sometimes succeed) in getting supra-legal protection for their "benefits" but no amount of legal arm-twisting can change arithmetic.
You can raise tax rates on the people to try to cover the promises made but every time you do some percentage of the population that has positive economic surplus -- that is, those who are actual productive members of society -- choose to either quit working in whole or part or they MOVE.
You get less from those who choose to work less.
You get nothing from those who choose not to work at all or to move.
You cannot force someone to produce. You can only entice them to do so.
This problem is not local to Detroit. It is in fact in evidence everywhere from Detroit to Chicago to California to Okaloosa County Florida.
The only solution is to find a way to do more with less. To bring into alignment that which is promised with that which can be delivered. To reduce tax rates while boosting economic activity not through transfers, not through false "enterprise zones" or other various short-term schemes and scams that advantage one business over another but rather through having a general economic environment in which capital formation is rewarded rather than punished. One must foster an environment where spending less than one makes is seen as a virtue instead of a curse and where government departments are encouraged to return unspent funds instead of finding ways to make sure every last allocated nickel is blown on something.
Those things that the people want must be placed in front of them honestly with both cost and benefit clearly delineated. No more "smart boards" for classrooms unless you can show exactly how they reduce the total cost of education and improve outcomes -- both, not "either/or." No more spending the lunchroom chiller money or the re-roofing fund on something other than the sinking fund for that inevitable replacement. No more promising pension payments that anyone with a 3rd grade education knows will balloon to grossly large amounts of money in the "out years" -- when those who passed it will be retired and thus they don't care. No more "enterprise zones" that simply rob one business or the citizens as a whole through higher tax rates so some preferred entity can obtain a lower rate. And no more buying the "best and finest" simply because "our city employees deserve it"; the question is one of whether there is actual need, not a desire to look like Rambo on patrol or have shiny new police cars, but rather if there is need what is the most cost-effective means to meet that need.
Those who made these promises and did these things in the past must be held to account. The policies and promises that were made and cannot reasonably be fulfilled must be rolled back and repudiated.
I know nobody wants to talk about this say much less do it, but it must be done and done now.

Unless, of course, you want to follow the path of Detroit.

“Barry Soetoro” Has Registered to Vote at White House Address ^ | July 19, 2013 | J. Christian Adams

“Barry Soetoro” is a registered voter in the District of Columbia with a White House address according to the D.C. Board of Elections.

According to a search at the D.C. Board of elections using the search terms Barry Soetoro, President Obama’s date of birth and the zip code of 20500, a registered voter of that name is registered to vote at the White House for D.C. elections. Barry Soetoro is a name that President Obama has used in the past.

Did President Obama submit this registration, or is it a fraud? Who knows? Obtaining the actual registration forms (or on-line) submitted to the D.C. election’s board might answer the question. In my view, it is worse if it is a fraud because it illustrates the ease at which one can trick the system. Or perhaps, President Obama wants out of crime-infested Chicago after his term is up and registered using his old name. I’ll go with option 1, the fraud.

Fogbower Writes Letter To Ruin Career Of Cold Case Posse's Forensic Document Examiner Reed Hayes

RC Radio ^ | 7-17-2013

A fogbow member has gone full throttle at trying to destroy the career of Reed Hayes, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Posse forensic document expert. Mr. Hayes wrote a 40 page report documenting his evidence that backs up the Cold Case Posse's investigation proving Obama's birth certificate is a 100% forgery. The fact that the fogbow member would go to such lengths to write a letter to the President of the NADE (National Association Of Document Examiners) complaining about Reed Hayes work ethics shows desperation to destroy his career.
This individual who did this asked Reed Hayes in a email to give him his 40 page reports findings. Hayes politely turned him down in a response email. Soon after, this fogbow member started attacking Reed Hayes credibility along with his other fogbow members on his radio program. They started calling him a quack on message boards. Reed Hayes has impeccable credentials that no fogbow member can match. This attempt to discredit Reed Hayes and ruin his career show that these people lack moral values, American pride and patriotism, and will do anything to protect Obama's ineligibility to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Conversation Holder Doesn't Really Want

Real Clear Politics ^ | July 19, 2013 | Mona Charen

Eric Holder dismissed America as a "nation of cowards" because we wouldn't, he argued, have a "national conversation" about race. It's a slander wrapped in a farce. We talk of race unremittingly. That's the farce. The slander is hydra-headed.

No honest conversation about race is possible when accusations of racism replace reasoned arguments. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who mentioned high rates of crime among black males, was rewarded with the racist label within minutes by some of those (The Atlantic, Slate) who presumably agree with Holder that we are too timid when discussing race.
Many American liberals are achingly nostalgic for old-fashioned racism. It offered them a helium high of moral superiority. It was deserved ... in 1967. But by perpetuating the fiction that modern America has not changed, they've become more than ridiculous, more even than grossly unjust, they've become dangerous. Look around you. The violence and bitterness that have followed the Zimmerman verdict were virtually ordered up by convicted slanderer Al Sharpton and his many imitators.
The Zimmerman case was complicated. Any fair-minded person could see that it was difficult to conclude that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (however unwise his initial actions may have been). But the racial-grievance industrial complex doesn't permit complexity. Racial enmity is their living. Stirring feelings of victimization and injustice among blacks and, to a lesser extent, among other designated minorities is their delight.
When you consider the steady agitprop churned out by the racial-grievance industrial complex, it's amazing that race relations aren't worse.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Black Man Shoots White Teen, Jury says Self Defense...Nobody Cares!

TTAG ^ | 18 July, 2013 | Tim McNabb

Huh?  Roderick Scott went out of his house to confront a trio of punks breaking into cars in his Greece, New York neighborhood. Scott’s story was that he fired two rounds at one of them when the young man charged him after being told to freeze and wait for the cops. So, we largely have an inverse image of the incident in which Trayvon Martin perished, complete with the kinfolk weeping thusly . . .

“The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”
Alas, for the future value of the Christopher Cervini trademark and subsequent merchandise sales, young Chris didn’t really look like the son of anyone famous or influential. If they’d had one.

How heavily did stories of gangs of rednecks beating the life out of a black man hang upon the mind of Mr. Scott in the split second before he pulled the trigger? Who cares?
The jury clearly believed that Scott was in fear for his life when he defended himself, and all the second-guessing and carping about him being a wannabe cop went either unmentioned, or unheeded. Absent more information that the state, with all its resources, was not able to cobble together a case to the satisfaction of the jury, I believe that Cervini’s death is one of the possible outcomes of a young man being out screwing around when he shouldn’t have been.
When I was growing up, that’s what I was told. Run with a bad crowd, bad things can happen. Act a certain way, dress a certain way, mouth off to the wrong person, and bad things can and do happen.

Neither President Obama nor Attorney General Eric Holder were available for comment!

Florida shop offers free gun to George Zimmerman!

WKMG Click Orlando ^ | 07/18/2013 | WKMG

A Volusia County gun shop has offered a free gun to George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Black America's Real Problem Isn't White Racism ^ | 7/19/2013 | Pat Buchanan

When Holder delivered his 2009 "nation-of-cowards" speech blaming racism for racial separation, Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald suggested that our attorney general study his crime statistics.
In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.
New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald's facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics. And these may involve the kind of pat-downs all of us have had at the airport. Is stop-and-frisk the work of racist cops in New York, where the crime rate has been driven down to levels unseen in decades?
According to Kelly, a majority of his police force, which he has been able to cut from 41,000 officers to 35,000, is now made up of minorities.
But blacks are also, per capita, the principal victims of crime. Would black fathers prefer their sons to grow up in Chicago, rather than low-crime New York City, with its stop-and-frisk policy? Fernando Mateo, head of the New York taxicab union, urges his drivers to profile blacks and Hispanics for their own safety: "The God's honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama To Detroit: "No Bailout For You"

Zero Hedge ^ | July 19, 2013

While in the past President Obama has been more that willing to throw good money after bad and "refuse to let Detroit go bankrupt," it seems when push comes to shove - under the intense scrutiny of a nation awash in scandal, a drastically bifurcated congress - that despite the imploring from local congressmen for "moar" already - that the savior of the city will not this time ride to the rescue on his white horse. In a statement, the White House said they "are monitoring the situation in Detroit closely," with no hint - just as they have made clear for months - of any sort of Federal bailout. As USA Today notes, the federal government provided federal loans to prevent New York City from declaring bankruptcy during the 1970s. But times have changed; the federal government has debt and financial problems of its own, and a Detroit bailout could run into significant opposition in Congress and cause serious damage in the Muni market.
While the GM debacle put pensioners ahead of creditors, it would be unprecedentedly bad for the massive Muni bond market should Obama acquiesce and change the law once again to put pensioners ahead of GOs...
The White House statement on Detroit.

"The president and members of the president's senior team continue to closely monitor the situation in Detroit.While leaders on the ground in Michigan and the city's creditors understand that they must find a solution to Detroit's serious financial challenge, we remain committed to continuing our strong partnership with Detroit as it works to recover and revitalize and maintain its status as one of America's great cities."
Translation: "sorry guys, you're on your own on this one!"

FACT CHECK: Obama spins health insurance rebates

AP ^ | 07/19/2013 | CALVIN WOODWARD

Another year, another round of exaggeration from President Barack Obama and his administration about health insurance rebates.

In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

MSM Wall of Silence on Union Criticism of ObamaCare

NewsBusters ^ | July 19, 2013 | P.J. Gladnick

CNN found time to broadcast a story about a "neighbor from hell" but as to harsh labor union criticism of "healthcare from hell," not a word. Not only is CNN maintaining a wall of silence on union opposition, expressed in a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi,  to ObamaCare but pretty much the rest of the mainstream media, with the notable exceptions of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, are stubbornly remaining mum on the story despite President  Obama being forced to go into campaign mode to sell his unpopular healthcare law.
To read the MSM stories about opposition to that unpopular law, you would think that opposition comes primarily from Republicans. The fact that major (non-governmental) labor unions are now harshly criticizing it does not fit that narrative, thus the avoidance of that very inconvenient fact by the MSM. And the criticism by the unions is not mild by any stretch of the imagination. It is extremely harsh as you can see in this Wall Street Journal article:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Congressional Black Caucus Discovers Entire English Language is a Racist Code Word (SATIRE)

Front Page Magazine ^ | Nov 23. 2012 | David Greenfield

... If the language is being used to criticize a black person then we must deem such language to be irreparably and irrevocably racist, Fudge said. “Every word that is used to disguise the racist intentions of a racist political movement must be deemed a racist code word disguising the true racist intentions of the racists who make use of them.”

Congressman Jim Clyburn went even further. “The entire English language was created by slaveowners as a means of oppression. You can’t just say that one word is a racist code word or another. The whole language, every single word, letter and apostrophe in it is racist. It’s a fact. If you speak English, you’re a racist.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The IRS scandal is unraveling (the lies are coming home to roost!)

American Thinker ^ | 07/19/2013 | Thomas Lifson

We can now officially say that the IRS harassment of conservative groups is a political scandal connected to the Obama political machine. Despite the best obfuscatory efforts of Obama henchmen like Rep. Elijah Cummings, yesterday the IRS scandal was tied to a political appointee of President Obama. Step-by-step the chain is being followed upward by the House Oversight Committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa.
Jay Carney's assurances that two rogue agents in a back office in the 27th most populous metropolis of America were the problem has been exposed as a blatant, outrageous lie. Now we know that Obama's hand-picked agent was leading the initiative, as far as the people below him in the federal apparatus knew.
Now we begin to prepare the vice to squeeze the Obama political appointee, perhaps making an immunity grant to Lois Lerner a possibility. Keep in mind, it is not an offer, it is an involuntary grant she cannot refuse.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Al Sharpton Draws Fire From Allen West on Zimmerman Protests

Sunshine State News ^ | July 19, 2013 | Kevin Derby

The former congressman quoted the words of civil rights leader Booker T. Washington."There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

West then took direct aim at Sharpton. “I watch the destruction of the black community in America, I have had it with the politics of race baiters who use iambic pentameter sing-song speech to anesthetize blacks from the reality of their demise,” West wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Detroit. Bankrupt (Because Democrats didn't have the guts to say "No" to their largest voting bloc)

Townhall ^ | 07/19/2013 | Rich Galen

The City of Detroit filed for bankruptcy yesterday afternoon. It owes as much as $20 billion, and there is no conceivable way that debt will ever be paid. The city offered its debtors 10 cents on the dollar, but the debtors refused.
A good deal of the blame -- rightly or wrongly -- will be placed at the feet of municipal workers -- sanitation, water, sewer, cops, firefighters and so on.
The pressure of ever-rising wages for no additional work, leading to ever-rising pension costs, plus ever-increasing benefits and ever more closely defined work rules will likely be found at the bottom of all this.
But it's not the unions' fault. It is the fault of the elected officials -- Democrats in Detroit -- who didn't have the guts to say "No" to their largest voting bloc.
It has been said that the difference between public and private unions is this: Private union leaders know that if their demands become too high, the company will go out of business and everyone will lose their job.
Public unions, until recently, just kept demanding, and getting, more and more while producing nothing new in terms of services they render. Union pensions tend to be so generous that taxpayers end up paying almost full wages to three or four workers, only one of whom is still actually working, to do exactly the same job that one person had been paid to do in an earlier age. According to some estimates, retirees outnumber active workers 2-1.
No amount of technology can move a public union to reduce its workforce.
Example: I stay in a small hotel in Dallas that used to have three people behind the registration desk. Some time ago the hotel installed kiosks into which you put your credit card and, voila, out came your room key card with a printed folder telling you the room number.
There remained only one person behind the registration desk to handle people who hadn't made a reservation in advance. Assuming there were two fully-staffed shifts a day, that means four people per day were no longer needed.
Those jobs are never coming back. The hotel is more profitable because, through technology, it has reduced its workforce by four people every day.
Public unions would never let that happen. If the hotel were a city like Detroit, the American Federation of Municipal Kiosk Workers would have demanded that every kiosk have an attendant. And the National Association of County Hotel Bill Sliders (AFL-CIO) would have demanded that at least two people remain on the payroll to change the paper in the room bill printer, even if no room bills are being printed any more.
The United Auto Workers based in Detroit has, for decades, had basically the same outlook as public unions. But auto manufacturers discovered it's a big country out there and they found that they could build factories in border and southern right-to-work states and produce cars for far less than the United Auto Workers were forcing them to pay in Detroit.
In a article from this past April, reporters Matt Patterson & Julia Tavlas wrote:
"As Reuters reports, in the past three decades nearly every job lost at U.S. car factories have vanished from unionized companies; meanwhile, job gains have come almost exclusively from non-union companies."
Car companies can move jobs to Tennessee or Mississippi, but Detroit can't move its sewer department to Arkansas or its cops to South Carolina. A broken water line in Detroit can't be repaired by a non-union employee working in San Antonio.
Again, I don't blame the union bosses. They did what their members paid them to do.
I blame the elected officials who never put the long-term financial health of their community ahead of their burning desire to be re-elected by pandering to the lowest common denominator.
There's more. Very often, when a municipal worker retires in a place like Detroit, he revs up the RV and heads to warmer climes. So the taxpayers of Detroit have to pay for 20 or 30 years of retirement for someone living (and spending that retirement money) in Florida or Arizona.
The city's population has dropped from almost two million in the 1950s to just under 700,000 who are paying 40 percent less in taxes just since 2000.
Fewer people paying less taxes to support more people doing less work.
Hey. Wait a minute. That sounds very familiar.


Voter ID



No Creepy Ass Cracker Left Behind!

What's your point?


How to...


Drag me to HELL!

How to make a liberal

Street Gangs are Republicans?


Compared to LIBERALS

KP Duty


Half Cracka?

The Execution

A Fairy Tale



Wrong and disgusting!



The Butt

Why the Leftist outrage at the acquittal of George Zimmerman?

Gun Watch ^ | 19 July, 2013 | John Jay Ray

There is an illustrated list of Leftist and media reactions here.

"It’s 2013 and an American jury just acquitted a man who admitted to stalking and killing an unarmed child" — Richard Dreyfus, actor

I think you can see why in the face above.  That face is expressing glee  -- barely restrained delight.  The slightest hint that America is unjust is manna from heaven for Leftists.  They  build their self-esteem on being wiser and more compassionate than "the masses".  And given America's black/white tensions, a chance to see others as racist is not to be missed.  It is America's most powerful form of condemnation so any chance to use it must be used even if it is only remotely justified. 

It's pathetic that people need to condemn others in order to boost their own self-esteem but that's Leftists.  They never cease finding fault.

I note however that many of the commentators refer to the 6' tall Martin as a "child".  So the constant media use of pictures of Martin when he was a child may have misled some commentators in an important way.  It would have made it less plausible that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

Link to Gun Watch

‘This Town’ Needs an Enema (DC) ^ | July 17th, 2013 | Erick Erickson

Mark Leibovich of the New York Times has written a pretty scathing book about Washington, DC, called This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral-Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!-in America’s Gilded Capital. It is a pretty accurate portrayal of the Washington, DC more and more Americans have come to hold in contempt. There exists in Washington a new aristocracy where, for example, a poor boxer from Searchlight, NV, can get elected to the United States Senate, become wealthy enough to live at the Ritz, and see his family profit from K Street.
It is a city where the new aristocrats move and do not want to leave. It is a town in need of an enema.
Consider the Republicans in the United States Senate up for re-election in 2014. Below is a chart I have prepared of their tenure in DC (in some cases the House plus the Senate): Name, State, Tenure
Thad Cochran MS 41
Pat Roberts KS 33
Mitch McConnell KY 29
James Inhofe OK 27
Lindsey Graham SC 21
Saxby Chambliss GA 20
Jeff Sessions AL 17
Susan Collins ME 17
Michael Enzi WY 17
Lamar Alexander TN 12
John Cornyn TX 12
James Risch ID 5
Mike Johanns NE 5
Thad Cochran has been there more than four decades and Pat Roberts three. Mitch McConnell has been in Washington, DC since I was in fifth grade. Are they really the best we can do? Really? Some of them, as you can see by the links, have been in office a very long time and, somehow like Harry Reid on a civil servant’s salary, have done quite well.
No man is indispensable. A time will come when conservatives will look at Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul and wonder why they are still there. But right now, they are the only three putting consistent points on the board. Marco Rubio, save for immigration, often stands with them. All four have been in Washington only a little while. The rest seem more interested in putting coins in their pockets.
Do you really believe that should Thad Cochran or Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham lose their primaries that they would return to their home states? Their home state is Washington, D.C. They are creatures of the city. Old congressman don’t go to their home states, they go to K Street.
The Republican Party has grown stagnant. Our leaders pursue old ideas unable to repackage them for the twenty-first century. They have grown comfortable with Washington’s paternalism and have become convinced the problem is Democrats in charge and not government itself. They talk of small government, but they often do not practice what they preach.
There’s no reason the Republican Party should have to settle. These people have been complicit in designing a campaign system that benefits incumbents. They send their staff to K Street who report back with checks. They pick winners and losers just like Barack Obama does. We just happen to like their picks more than his.
There is no reason we should be satisfied with people who remain in office for forty years. We should be willing to support the term limits one supports by finding and supporting primary challengers. Conservatives in 2014 should embrace a pretty simple rule:
Support credible primary challengers against entrenched, long tenured Republicans.
Even if the challengers lose, the incumbents need to understand they have to start putting points on the board instead of just expecting our support because of the “R” next to their name. They have coasted too long.