Reruns and old sitcoms, sitcare

Forfeit the issue, argument, resistance — whatever you call it — of Obamacare? Painful thought. But it seems that is exactly what is being prepared in cesspool headquarters.

So we aren’t de-rooting Obamacare but fertilizing it and guaranteeing its survival. And I am pretty disgusted about it.

As if that were not bad enough a thought, it appears as though they put it in such a central position as to take down, or at least compromise, the entire Reepublican agenda. So Obamacare has found new life holding an entire agenda hostage. And it is not giving up.

Hostage negotiators? Well they are on the scene, but seem prepared to negotiate away the very hostages held captive. I.e. we the people and whoever else cares.

Is this the way it all goes down after 8 years of work and grassroots effort? A horrid thought. Is this how it ends by Republicans morphing back into the one-party duopoloy?

Haven’t we seen this movie before? We know how it ends. And that brings us right back to why we are here in the first place, Namely disgust and the sheer American will to break the chains that bound us — ‘mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.’

Before anyone goes berserk to blame it all on Trump not being conservative enough, much of this obfuscation is coming right from the Republicans. Certainly in the Senate. They have a stranglehold on government that I doubt we have ever seen before.

Trump? Well, he can come and go but these Republicans will remain, to some degree. Enough to take down or prevent any new agenda from taking shape., Enough to kill it in infancy. Would Repubs even agree on the epitaph?

My good friend Pepp forwarded me this Breitbart article. Have a look and see what you think. I am afraid Rand Paul is pretty much right on the mark.

I’ll go back to asking how many healthcare stocks are in all their portfolios in the cesspool capital? Bad enough to cede the Obamacare issue, but it seems poised to hijack the rest of any Republican-led agenda, from Taxes to economic liberty or trade. It is just my opinion how much effect it has on everything else.

Republicans seem positioned to allow it to happen. The Dems don’t have to do it. The insurgency within is enough to derail anything on the table.(or under it) Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey announced the reason they had no plan to replace Obama care is they didn’t plan on winning the election. Good excuse Pat. Well, this kind of train wreck is not caused just from Democrats. With media running opposition for Dems, it is hard to get a descent message out. Climate of disgust remains high 6 months in.

Read: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/12/exclusive-sen-rand-paul-senate-gop-decides-keep-obamacare/

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

Congressional Review Act, Thanks Harry

Law backed by Harry Reid will haunt Dems in 2017

By Susan Crabtree | 12/16/16

One of outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s greatest legislative achievements will come back to haunt Democrats early next year.

President-elect Trump has promised to repeal two federal regulations for every new one issued, and the Congressional Review Act, which Reid co-sponsored in 1996, will give him a running start.

The law gives Congress the power to rescind any unwelcome late, so-called “midnight” regulations from an outgoing president through a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress.

Since its passage as part of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1996, it has only been successfully used once, but Republicans are promising to leverage its full power in January to kill rules the Obama administration has issued in its last months in office.

In his 77-minute farewell address on the Senate floor last week, Reid included the Congressional Review Act as one of his top accomplishments in the Senate, along with passage of Obamacare, the 2009 stimulus bill, a taxpayer bill of rights and several other measures

Republicans, with the help of the Congressional Research Service, have compiled a list of roughly 50 regulations they could go after early next year.

“I know some of my Democrat colleagues say, ‘Why did you do that?'” Reid said during his final speech on the Senate floor. “Here’s what I did. I worked with Republican Sen. Don Nickles from Oklahoma … Don and I talked about this. We knew that the administrations would change and it would affect every president, Democrat and Republican.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/law-backed-by-harry-reid-will-haunt-dems-in-2017/article/2609786

Good old Harry left something worth something.

Force, safety, Trump and foreign policy

My position has been distilling for some time. The more we see the more reason to question current circumstances.

Our policies have been a hodgepodge of standard and all too predictable positions. A left over from all the so-called experts and interests that gave birth to it. ‘That’s just the way it is,’ rings the answer to any questions raised. The current policies have not been working.

Obama has taken an ideologue approach, on top of it, That really has no parallel. Both at home and abroad, he’s had a witch’s brew of tonics for whatever the ailment. Snake oil.

Now this will break even English rules… Because we have been in this holding pattern for so long — cruizing between bad medicine and bad results — isn’t it about time to land the plane and actually do something to make a difference in our situation? But those actions could ruffle some feathers abroad with friends, allies and enemies. So be it. Those actions may also ruffle some feathers here at home. Well, that’s okay too.

For too long our policies have been driven by all kinds of motives. It’s time we get past that. If this brings in an era of unpredictability, then that is not such a bad thing. If some want to accuse us or question our motives and actions, so be it. They already do now.

Foreign policy cannot be our only consideration, nor at this point can domestic policy be our only consideration. They are not mutually exclusive either. It may not be a zero sum game, but there are collateral effects on each. However, there are some common denominators to domestic and foreign policies. One is economics.

In a lengthy interview with NYT, Trump said:

“I’m a person that – you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money.”

Finally, the E-word is dropped. Sure we could ignore economic effects, but that doesn’t mean there are none. It is time to give economic concerns some weight and attention.

This is going to have to be a parted out subject

RightRing | Bullright

Two’s company… Three’s a Party

Majority of Americans Support Creating a Third Party

Heather Ginsberg | Oct 13, 2013 |Townhall

With the recent government shutdown it’s no surprise that many Americans are dissatisfied with the government. But in a recent poll from Gallup, it seems clear that the disapproval has reached a new level.

It is well known that the American government is based in a two-party system, but it now it looks like many are not so sure that is the best way to go. 60 percent of Americans now say they would support the formation of the third party. Democrats and Republicans are no longer cutting it. Since Gallup began asking this question 10 years ago, this is the highest percentage they have measured. Only 26 percent believe the two major parties are accurately representing their constituents.

Since the shutdown began we saw a rise in negative opinions of the parties, so it is no surprise that when given the option of a third party, many Americans are willing to look into that option. And this is not even a party specific finding. Both Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to see a third party as a good alternative; however, independents are much more likely to think a third party is necessary.

Clearly the dissatisfaction over the government shutdown is affecting several different areas of the American political spectrum. Perhaps this would be a good choice in order to avoid this kind of situation happening again in the future.

Those numbers an attitudes speak loud and clear, for themselves.

Obama does Edu-care

 
Obama is making his case to do for colleges and students what he did for healthcare, by screwing it up even further. But since he does it under the guise of “encouraging”, then everything should be copacetic because they say so.

Obama Plan Encourages College Admissions to Discriminate Against Families Earning $60,000+

August 23, 2013 – By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s college reform plan, released by the White House on Thursday, would encourage colleges to discriminate against applicants who come from families with total incomes of $60,000 or more by awarding colleges higher federal ratings and increased federal aid for admitting a higher “percentage” of students who receive federal Pell Grants, which the Department of Education says are for “low-income” students.
According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, in the 2007-2008 school year, only 2.3 percent of undergraduates who were still dependent on their parents, and whose total family income was $60,000 or more, received Federal Pell Grants.
According to the College Board, in the 2010-2011 school year, only 5 percent of all Pell Grants were distributed to dependent students whose total family income was $60,000 or more.
Colleges that admit and graduate a higher “percentage” of students on Pell Grants–as the Obama plan would encourage them to do–will necessarily admit and graduate a lower percentage of students who are not on Pell Grants.
A college that based its admissions policies solely on the merit of the individual applicant–and did not consider the applicant’s family income or eligibility for a Pell Grant in deciding whether to offer the applicant a place at the school–could be penalized under the Obama plan with less federal aid for itself and for its students if its merit-only admissions policy resulted in a student body with a lower percentage of Pell Grant recipients than other schools.
The Obama plan also would reward colleges for having higher overall graduation “rates” and for graduating a higher “number” of students on Pell Grants–which could provide colleges with an incentive to lower the academic standards for earning a diploma.
“The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education,” says the Department of Education. “A Federal Pell Grant, unlike a loan, does not have to be repaid.”
“In FY 2009,” the CRS reported, “an estimated 76 percent of all Pell Grant recipients had a total family income at or below $30,000.”
If a family of three included a father and a mother, who both worked 40 hours a week for the minimum federal wage of $7.25 an hour, and an 18-year-old son going off to college who did not work a single hour the entire year, the total annual income of that family would be $30,160. That would put them slightly above the income level of three-quarters of Federal Pell Grant recipients. […/]
– See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-plan-encourages-college-admissions-discriminate-against-families-earning-60000#sthash.7M4jRiny.dpuf

Oh, do I smell a shell game in the works? Here we are wanting to fun-da-mentally transform the country again.

Dems are great at these kind of schemes because they can make up the rules as they go, to suit their purposes; they can base it on income and governmental redistribution, which they love to do; and they can pander to a large demographic (target); and they can use force of government tied to government’s institutional funding, to accomplish it all. However, the tiny little objective of making schools better has little to do with it.

There are few analogies I can come up with except what they did for healthcare was so great, wasn’t it? I mean they said they were going to improve the system for everybody, and the care one gets, by using the force of government to do it. If they only knew years ago that all it needed was more government force to correct problems.

Government knows hardly anything about any of these sectors it jumps into, and then tells them how their business or industry needs to operate. It works every time, no?

In this case education, which they have been screwing up for about 60 years or more directly. (and longer indirectly) Our public school system should be exhibit F in any debate. Now they insist on doing more to screw up higher education than they are currently doing. Help it the way they help fix public education.

Where do the government-mandated failures manifest themselves? They travel right down the chain into the public cesspool to corrupt it even further. Bacteria is a good thing in septic systems, not so much in school systems. Their end product does not look so good. Then again, was the ‘end product’ or ‘process’ their real objective?

Leave it to Dems to decide that higher tuition — which they helped cause — is a problem. I know we are talking about colleges and universities here, not public schools. But hey, since they do so well on the latter, why not have them do more for the former? It’s a natural course, don’t you think? They have problems with vouchers and charter schools, but no problem providing so-called opportunities in higher education.

Really though, give Dems a few numbers or a math problem and they will find all kinds of ways to manipulate the figures and results. So this is right in their wheelhouse, and plays into their redistribution schemes. It is not about improving education, or even access, but improving a certain kind of access. (they aren’t great at picking winners and losers either)

He wants more of a certain income level… have a “right” to it. Just apply government force and coercion. This is the guy who told Hillary if a government mandate was the simple answer to the problem, they would have fixed healthcare long ago. Then he proceeded to do exactly that, use government force. Now government is chief discriminator.

Obama’s middle name is ruin

Never mind that Hussein is Obama’s middle name, his default name is RUIN.

If you take Obama’s campaign example, which is now his lobbying, BrownShirt Society, it uses the same message his campaign used all along.

We know his emphasis was on media and social networking, coupled with fundraising. They projected it as grassroots organizing but that is another deceiving footnote to Obama.

On the website, the central theme starts with a simple question, “Are you In?
When you translate that to chat lingo, you come up with (R-U-IN) RUIN.

It’s pretty funny that his big presence on the web, still his ‘campaign” organization, makes such a revealing statement about his plans.

Just ask Obama supporters if they support Obama and RUIN?

clip_ob site image
Are you in? Well, are you in RUIN yet? No? Give it time. You will be.

Organizing for Action quotes Obama about Climate Change:

If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.

Planned Parenthood and Abortion anyone? Future posterity?

Website:  July 11th 2013

Make a donation today to support this grassroots movement. — [what a laugh]
Whether it’s the NRA trying to stop progress on gun safety legislation that 90% of Americans support, or conservatives in a state legislature trying to ram through radical rollbacks of women’s rights, they are banking on you not paying attention.
They’re hoping you won’t jump in to the fight.
This week should have made it clearer than ever why you need to. / (donate button)

More like Obama just hopes you won’t join the fight against him.

And OFA very much needs you to donate to RUIN. Won’t you support ruin?

On so-called “immigration reform” they suggest:

Supporters across the country were out in force this week, urging their representatives to move immigration reform forward. In anticipation of yesterday’s House Republican Caucus meeting with Speaker John Boehner, they were out in their communities making their voices heard. /…
This fight isn’t over yet. Following the House Republicans’ meeting, OFA volunteers are determined to keep up the pressure and make reform a reality. Until there is a comprehensive immigration reform bill headed to President Obama’s desk, our work continues. Say you’ll join the fight.
/… The fight for immigration reform is on its way through the House, and OFA volunteers are at the forefront of efforts to get it passed.

Oh goody, another “fight” — as everything always is to Liberals.
Here they come, conjuring up the sentiments of the Battle hymn of the Republic :

“He is trampling out the vintage
where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He hath loosed his fateful lightning
of His terrible swift sword,” (sorry, it’s Obama’s choreography)

So I have to ask ….RUIN? Yes, more ruin he proposes: more big government, top-down tyranny everyone can get behind, or under, right? It makes me sick.

OFA events received plenty of attention from local media:[blah, blah, blah] /…
It’s not too late to throw your support behind immigration reform and keep this momentum going into the House. Add your name today.

So people, will you show them it’s not too late for RUIN?

Fight, Fight, Fight…for ruin! “Are you in?”

And if he is going to use executive orders to force his agenda, what does he need them for?
Oh, the BrownShirts are coming. (that’s what he needs them for)
Won’t you be a brownshirt for Obama?

... his RUIN is marching on!


Politico

President Barack Obama’s got a volunteer army — and all their marching orders come from carefully organized paid generals back at headquarters.

Obama won two terms by harnessing a grassroots movement through a tightly controlled, top-down campaign organization. Now the group formed out of Organizing for America is now bringing that approach to Organizing for Action.

This really is Obama ruin. Are you in?

Update on Gosnell trial

Curtain call…Where is justice for the countless victims, or human interest reporting?

Where are all the media  talking heads, and rag-tag pundits with talking points in tow? Gone, only crickets. There has been a professional hitman butcher taken off the streets of Philadelphia, and a total lack of outcry from media. The “collective conscience” sighs.

The Washington Examiner had a good article on just that subject. Some media claimed it is a local issue, which they don’t cover. Huh? They are kidding, aren’t they? The list goes on.

“This fact points us to the most likely reason the mainstream media ignored the story as long as possible: The Gosnell story has an inherent pro-life bias, because the Gosnell story leads us to discussing abortion procedures.

When you discuss the act of aborting — even perfectly legal abortions — you have to discuss the blood, the scalpels, the scissors. You might use terms like “dilation and extraction” or “dilation and curettage.” Think through those terms (“curettage” is defined as “a surgical scraping or cleaning”) and recall that what is being extracted or scraped has a beating heart.

Discussing Gosnell threatens to start a discussion on abortion procedures — and that’s not good for anyone in the abortion industry.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-abortionists-case-raises-troubling-questions/article/2527117

What did they do so far? Well they ignored the details and the entire case against the Butcher of Philadelphia — the most important part. No mention from politicians, or speeches on the floor, or feigned outrage from the Chameleon-in-Chief. The entire case against him has been practically erased from public dialogue.

Even the conservative media is fairly quiet. So, no play-by-play of the daily events in MSM from the court room. What about the bloody knife in OJ’s case? This doctor’s instruments are stained in thirty years of bloody murder. What a record. We don’t know how many innocent babes died at his hands. But babies’ feet adorned his office like souvenirs.

Did media care whether all those others were “local” incidents? Treyvon Martin — the name that echoes from the Capitol?

Where is the outrage? Searching for the next politically correct event, that’s where. Spoiling for another fight over gun-control, that’s where. Looking for an “immigration bill”. Demanding action for same-sex marriage, that’s where.

So the prosecution rests its case.(sigh of relief from MSM) Next is the defense. Now, if they cover it at all, they could splash some of the defense’s case in the news — just to fill that news cycle. They might play up his defense. They can try to revise facts after the trial. But so far, no grandiose presidential statements about Gosnell. No sympathy for victims.

Whatever the Reason, There’s No Excuse for Media Ignoring Kermit Gosnell Trial

“Under pressure from pro-life websites and writers, several national news outlets have reluctantly began covering the trial of ghastly abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Beyond that, a handful of liberal media figures are finally beginning to ask the important question of why such a sensational trial–if it bleeds, it supposedly leads–received almost no attention whatsoever in the national press.”

They can try to cover some of the defense portion, until inconvenient anyway. That is if there is anything to mitigate the Butcher of Phily…. you know, the “local” non-story.

What are they afraid of, the truth?

CITY PROSECUTORS rested their case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on Thursday after calling to the witness stand a former employee who said she saw the doctor and his employees kill babies that were born alive.Kareema Cross, 28, said she was so appalled by Gosnell’s ghoulish practices and the rundown condition of his West Philadelphia clinic that she began taking pictures of the facility and eventually reported him to the federal authorities.
/….
In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to abort a fetus after the 24th week of pregnancy.
/…
Cross conceded that Gosnell often yelled at her as if he were her father, told her to get an abortion when she became pregnant and tried to prevent her from getting unemployment benefits when she went on maternity leave.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130419_Prosecution_rest_in_Kermit_Gosnell_murder_trial.html
Related: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/gosnell-the-gory-butcher-on-trial/

Obama on education next term.

The myth of education reform

Here is what Secretary Arne Duncan said:

“”Our basic theory of action is not going to change,” …
“The real work of improving schools doesn’t happen in Washington. Our job, in a second term, is to support the bold and transformational reforms at the state and local level that so many of you have pursued during the last four years.”

Wow, sound like music?
If reforms at the state and local level are so great, what does that say about the Dep of Ed? It would be nice to think Washington had a genuine respect for state and local actions or decisions. But that is a good laugh rather than a symphony.

Duncan also said:

“”We will continue to provide incentives and support for states and districts to engage in systematic change and expand their capacity to boost student achievement and close opportunity gaps.” -[blah, blah, blah filler]

“We’re going to continue to provide incentives and support for states and districts to strengthen the teaching profession, develop useful systems of teacher and principal evaluation, and recruit world-class talent to our schools.”

But what he really means, by “transformational reforms”, is probably what leftisit unions and educators were doing in Wisconsin and Chicago strikes, etc. He probably means those state and local “reforms”… holding the picket line, not the bottom line. Sorry, you just can’t get me to believe that they are interested in supporting local education reforms on the up and up — unless they fit the general Marxist indoctrination plan.

Or a plausible explaination is that they believe there are enough Marxists throughout the country, in key positions in the education field, to sufficiently back flush their real Marxist agenda/indoctrination using them. (the way a septic system backs up) Then claim it was a state and local effort, while making unions and Marxist educrats happy and furthering the administration’s own radical agenda.

So what Republicans in Congress should do while all this strategizing and obfuscation is taking place, is call for a clean audit on the Dep of Ed for starterts.

Reference: Obama’s 2nd term to test his education program
And “Educators” Flock To MARXIST CONFERENCE At Northwestern University”

Bait and Switch

Heritage asked Duncan questions getting few answers:

4. No Child Left Behind Waivers and True Flexibility for States
Duncan touted the Administration’s NCLB waiver plan, stating that it gives “local districts” flexibility, “instead of applying rigid, top-down mandates from Washington.”

In reality, the waivers are anything but, replacing the federal overreach of NCLB with another federal overreach by requiring states to implement the Administration’s preferred policies in exchange for a waiver. The waivers fail to provide true flexibility and open wider the gates for increased federal control.

Heritage reported in September:

By issuing waivers from the law, the Administration has signaled to Congress that legislators have met the end of the Administration’s arbitrary timeline for regular reauthorization, despite movement on the many congressionally generated proposals. The waivers, along with other instances of executive indifference toward legislative process, show a “disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making without—and often in spite of—congressional action.”.

Reference: No Child Left Behind Waivers: Bogus Relief, Genuine Overreach
Further: How Escalating Education Spending Is Killing Crucial Reform

Essay on Reform

A little long but I hope you will read it.

It’s an often-used word in politics. It’s a simple word with various meanings. Basically, in most contexts, it is used as an alternative to abolish or remove. So if one does not want to abolish something they say they are going to reform it or fix it.

The dictionary says, Reform:
a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.
2. : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
4: a : to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking b : to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking

 Since it is used so much today in various contexts I thought it was worth a closer look. It is commonly used in politics to refer to any kind of change, especially toward problems or failures, and often as a cure-all. I mention only some applications of the term.

The word conjures up another meaning also used in education, reform school. Decades ago this was a term for school dealing with behavior problems or problem students. Hence, a student was sent to reform school. It was not generally considered a good thing. But it was thought of as a place that might straighten out kids with problems. There were no guarantees though it was hailed as a possibility. (…when other attempts fail)

And there is the religious use of the root word in Christianity, referring to Luther and Protestants in the reformation. Some religious institutions use the word in their name.

 And there is a broader social use of the term “reform movement”:

A reform movement is a kind of social movement that aims to make gradual change, or change in certain aspects of society, rather than rapid or fundamental changes. A reform movement is distinguished from more radical social movements such as revolutionary movements.

Reformists’ ideas are often grounded in liberalism, although they may be rooted in socialist (specifically, Social democratic) or religious concepts. Some rely on personal transformation; others rely on small collectives, such as Mahatma Gandhi’s spinning wheel and the self sustaining village economy, as a mode of social change. Reactionary movements, which can arise against any of these, attempt to put things back the way they were before any successes the new reform movement(s) enjoyed, or to prevent any such successes.  (Wikipedia)

(note – its a softer approach than revolution)

So there is a lot of talk about reform. Politically, the word has been loosely used (overused) to suggest change needed or necessary. It is used as a blanket description for change, to improve or tweak something. So far, the overuse of the word has not ruined the idea behind it, completely. It still carries popularity and high regards to some folks. But politically, I’m sure many people roll their eyes when they hear the word, as I do. And there has been a good amount of reform done already, which many people disagree with.

Sometimes reforming a bad idea is not the right solution. Often “reform” of something with inherent problems, and plagued from the beginning, is not the best solution. But it still gets used in those contexts as the cure. Strange how liberals who tout “pro-choice” claim that abortions are a solution in dealing with life; but when dealing with federal Government will only go as far as to call for “reform” – and usually dragged kicking and screaming to that position.

To abolish an agency seems to be against their nature. But in dealing with life, they contend abortion should always be an available option – for any and all reasons. In fact, don’t ask why. To abolish a failed agency or program is much tougher. Yet they want a streamlined, simple process to get an abortion. To abolish a program is a monumental task, nothing steam-lined about it, if it can be done– “Let the objections begin.”  And liberals like it that way. Even reforming is a challenge. They want the bar set very high to abolish a program or agency, but set very low to get an abortion. But aren’t they based on the same principle, getting rid of something unwanted and a burden to the greater whole? (sorry ….)

Then there are those politicians who take on the banner as “a reformer” politically. You’ve heard them say, “vote for the reformer… vote for the true reformer”.  Few seem to want to campaign as the abolitionist. (I know, except for the congressman from Texas)  Yet there is something to be said for adopting the abolitionist banner, or at least making it a philosophy that is not so stigmatized and ridiculed a position as it is now.  “Reform” must sound better to people. (proabably poll tested)

The Declaration of Independence was a more than a reform philosophy. They tried the reforms. They pleaded to the King, and they got no relief. In fact, the King made things harder and more difficult for them. “Such” was the “patient sufferance” of their colonies. No, it called for more than reform; it demanded some drastic steps. And it was not easy.

Leftists want it easy to have an abortion on demand but want it difficult to rein in out of control, encroaching bureaucracy. Such is our “patient sufferance” today. Yet they want abortion to be as available as possible; any restrictions on it is a restriction too many to them.  Liberals will hold rallies or protests to “keep abortion legal”…”save a woman’s right to choose” … and protect women’s right to an abortion. (hailed as a civil right) Then the same folks trot out signs to say “No, you cannot cut this program, spending, or end this government agency. It’s not fair.” Fairness…

So there we have it

Scissors to the back of the head and a suction hose to abort babies; but no technique is painless enough or “necessary” to eliminate an agency that outlived its usefulness.  And the stage of development is of no concern for babies. In fact, we even have a Secretary of Heath and Human Services  who very much advocates for that ‘scissors to the head’ treatment of babies.  How does she feel about a ‘badly conceived idea’ that should be stopped in its tracks? (…like ObamaCare) 

You know the answer…

Leave your comments on reform (or anything else) or the way it is used? Your thoughts…