The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Post-Election Thoughts

By

As one of the scorned and quickly dwindling 53%, Tuesday’s election was like a nightmare from which awakening seemed almost impossible.  It was horrifying to realize that half of the people in America are really that stupid; primarily due to 70 years of progressive liberal subversion of our educational system, and deliberately because despite all evidence to the contrary that socialism has never worked, they are just too fearful or too greedy to take responsibility for their own lives.

There is a small glimmer of hope in one fact, however.  President Composite’s win was by only a slim popular vote margin; a far cry from being an actual mandate to roll the tanks of his nefarious redistribution agenda over the will of the American people.  It would be nice if Congress understood this but whether or not they do remains to be seen.  I’m not holding my breath, though; John Boehner’s conciliatory words this week sounded more like a Pelosi-chastised blue-dog Democrat than a conservative Republic Speaker of the House holding the power of the purse in a majority grip.

The agenda for the next 4 years is being examined by pundits and one of the nastiest items on the list is how to deal with the 11 million-plus criminals in residence here.  Apparently sidestepping the rule of law with the bastardized executive fiat version of the DREAM Act gave the communists an advantage (and more illegal votes than anyone has the balls to investigate) but if the truth be told it is a problem that needs to be properly addressed sooner than later.

It’s far too late to round them all up and send them back to their home countries so yet another attempt at amnesty is going to rear its head.  And I think Rush Limbaugh is onto something about how to handle the problem.  It’s actually quite brilliant.  Go ahead and grant these deliberate, premeditated criminals amnesty but, since they are going to have to plead guilty to their crime in order to gain citizenship, like convicted felons, simply do not allow them to vote.

Problem solved.  They will be able to openly pull up a chair at the table of opportunity of the United States as well as be wholly subject to her overciminalized rule of law.  They will be forced to contribute to and may collect Social Security and Medicare like the rest of us.  If you think that this might be too harsh, remember:  Reagan granted amnesty on the condition of border security but all we got was 11+ million more criminals, Fast and Furious, and 26 years of lies that the GOP hates Hispanics.  This is a way to force Democrats to uphold their end of the bargain on border security and at the same time keep this particuar pet demographic of theirs from mucking with the system by voting for those who only encourage criminal behavior.

 

D-Day

By

For four years we’ve used this little platform to point out the errors and failures of our government.  That someone like Barack Hussein Obama could be so easily swept into the office of president of these United States based on nothing more than a deadly and deceitful stint as a senator in Illinois, later admitting to being merely a “composite” of memoirs suspected to have been written by someone else both infuriated and frightened us.  As time went by this man who believes in “partial birth abortions” because the intent of the mother was to kill her unborn child anyway proved his allegiance to nothing that remotely resembles America by sending our border patrol to fight with beanbags while secretly arming drug cartels with some half-baked idea it would push the American people into accepting their version of gun control, directly resulting in the deaths of Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata.  The man who sits down with unelected Chicago cronies each morning to decide who will die that day from a drone strike, with collateral civilian damage be damned, couldn’t be bothered to muster the same force when Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Brian Doherty and Tyrone Woods were fighting Al Queda in vain for their lives in a place that had been called out to the administration numerous times to be lacking adequate security on a day common sense alone would have given them more of it.

This administration and this president in particular have far too much innocent  and literal American blood on their hands.  And far, far too much blood has flowed figuratively from the entitlement-encouraging laws and policies that have trickled down over the last four years to crush both the spirits and the wealth of the middle class.  Not to mention making the poor even poorer and creating even more of them.

Mitt Romney asked the age-old question, “Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”  Gas prices are double what they were in 2008, food and other commodity prices are higher; wages, if you are fortunate enough to be making them, are stagnant, homes that haven’t yet been foreclosed on carry underwater mortgages, banks are playing Wack-A-Mole with more and more insidious little fees on checking account while interest on savings accounts are essentially non-existent.  Almost half of the legal citizens in this country pay nothing in federal income taxes but a subset of them, pathetically and ironically goaded on by wealthy Democrats, demand more and more “entitlements” from those who do pay taxes.  We have watched spectacles like a 30-plus year old college student sit in the chambers of Congress and bemoan the fact that her Catholic college – a college she deliberately chose to attend – won’t cover her birth control.  We won’t even go into “Obamaphones” or people on food stamps buying everything but food with them.  Illegal immigration?  Let us count how many Democrat votes result from the administration’s refusal to follow the rule of law and thereby add more cost to the legal taxpayer’s already straining burden.

Simply put, this administration has exceeded even our cynical expections of disaster.  They are a dangerous, deadly lot that scuttles around in the shadows like so many fat rats; blinking senselessly when the light is cast upon them.  That is, when the complicit lamestream media even bothers to “report” anything resembling an objective fact.

They have to go.

All of them.

They blamed the elections of 2010 for creating more “obstructionism” to their enslaving communist manifesto.  Today we can not only obstruct them completely, we can obliterate them.  Send them back into the trash heap of a history that will only note that the last 4 years proved once and for all that socialism is forever a failed experiment.

Vote wisely, my fellow Americans.  Vote for Mitt Romney, vote for every conservative candidate on your ballot from local to state.  It is our last chance to save – to reclaim – what has proved to be the greatest country in the history of mankind.

God bless America.

Why Mitt’s Right

By

Mitt Romney is right.  There are a lot among that 47% who are a lost cause.  We often exchange emails with one of them.  It’s an exercise only in seeing firsthand just how many brain cells die when you can’t stop drinking Kool-Aid.  Here is our most recent exchange.

From the progressive:

Thanks for sharing this so I can see what crap they are peddling now (actually this goes back a couple of years).  I know you are too smart to fall for this and suppose you actually opened the Snopes link to see it is false.  Typical.  So if people would bother to read what Snopes says about this:  # of employees in White House has DECREASED under Obama and cost accordingly. Those who got raises actually go new job assignments with different. new duties.

This is what the idiots out there do:  lie, lie, lie….and people are stupid enough to believe the lies.

No matter; Romney is toast unless the GOP cheats to win (which they are trying hard to do w/all the voter suppression laws.  Disgusting.  Play and Win or Lose Fair and Square if you think you have the better political platform for our nation.  They are such liars and losers.  They ruined the economy and now expect us to put them back in the driver’s seat!

On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:29 AM, someone wrote:

HMMM…17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR OBAMAS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!
PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/whraises.asp
By the way, WHAT in the HELL is a Director of African-American Media???????
Remember this chart before you vote in November…….
Pass it on to all so that everyone is aware of Obama’s hypocrisy. Is this the Hope and Change you need?

Our response:

The 2008 Bush staff count was 447 and cost $35.4M (adjusted for inflation).  The 2009 Obama staff count was 487 and cost $39.1M; the 2012 cost is $37.8M.
 
Using the administration’s own published data:

Year: 2012 2011 2010
Total Employees: 465 454 469
Retained from prev year: 54 165 135
Average increase: 11.44% 7.40% 12.40%

The current average WH salary is $80,740; according to the latest BLS numbers (7/18/12), the median salary for full-time wage and salary workers comes out to $40,092/year.

Their response:

Go try living in D.C. area on $80k!

 

It’s Resignation Time

By

“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
(Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, speaking about Libya’s rebel force to the Senate Armed Services committee in 2011)

 

 

If you think the Middle East is having a spontaneous, multi-national BBQ of American flags, embassies, consulates and Obama-in-effigy this week simply because of a film, I have a bridge for sale.

Sure, Muslims don’t like to see their so-called “prophet” denigrated; any more than Christians like to see images of Jesus tossed into a container of urine and called art.  But modern Christians no longer take the violent parts of their good book literally and go on a rampage to kill alleged “blasphemers”, instead following the example in the newer section that says to “turn the other cheek”. 

Muslims, on the other hand, remain in a state of hypertensive Old Testament barbarism and remain hell-bent on their millenium-old quest of world Islamic domination.  Free speech in the U.S. simply gives them cover, an excuse, to party like it’s 9/11.  Underneath their anger at so-called blasphemy of their so-called prophet is the goal of ridding the world of everything that doesn’t conform to Islam, to institute their mysoginist and violent culture of sharia.

This isn’t exactly rocket science so you’d expect those in the highest positions of leadership in the U.S. would remain vigilent, particularly on the anniversary of Islam’s greatest modern accomplishment:  the killing of some 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil in 2001.  Instead, what happened this week is that Hilary Clinton and her boss, Barack Obama, killed 4 Americans in Libya; much the same way as Eric Holder killed border patrol agent Brian Terry with Fast and Furious.  Whether through either sheer and utter incompetenance or the unforgivable sin of deliberate inaction, the buck stops at the empty chair behind the Resolute desk.

It was common knowledge that 9/11 anniversary attacks were being planned.  Statements were published all over various foreign medias talking about revenge for the recent assassination of Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi. The Jerusalem Post had an article on 9/9/12 referencing a letter written on 9/4/12 that warned that Sinai-based/Gaza-based “Global Jihad” cells were planning attacks on American and Israeli embassies in Cairo.   Sean Smith, one of the Navy Seals killed in Benghazi, had even posted to one of his gaming forums hours before the attack that “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

If pressed, the answer to and meekly accepted by the lamestream media to pass along to the sheeple would most likely be that “policeman” was merely taking photos for his travel journal.

You’d not just hope but think these tidbits of trivia would be included in the president’s daily intelligence briefings.  You know, the ones our oh-so-brilliant composite president only needs to read while out on the campaign trail instead of attending in person.

Obviously President Composite didn’t read the memo.

As Secretary of State, the job of keeping safe our fellow citizens serving on foreign soils falls right into the ample lap of Hilary Clinton.  To the forever-sorrow of the families of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, she chose the Eric Holder path of national defense:  no bullets to be loaded unless necessary (geeze, Hil, not even bean bags?) and there were no orders issued to put extra security – U.S. military security, to be specific – anywhere in preparation for this year’s anniversary of 9/11. 

Our guess is that if she bothered to ask anyone anything, dear Hilary only checked in with her Muslim Brotherhood BFF, Huma Abedin, to get the latest taqiya about the real risks to our people in the Middle East on this year’s 9/11 anniversary.  Taking the easy way out, Hilary deliberately chose to leave our people under the dubious protection of Libyan nationals; Islamic loyalists all who ran away – right on cue – at the first sign of trouble.

And while Ambassador Stevens was allegedly being raped, tortured and killed and dragged through the streets in Benghazi (as reported by multiple Middle Eastern sources and later reported by UK papers but not by the U.S. lamestream media), Hilary’s people in Cairo were frantically trying to keep their own asses there safe by playing along with the the Islamic jihadist’s any-excuse-to-attack-Americans game through issuing a bassackwards – and later deemed “unofficial” – apology for an American exercising their first amendment right to free speech.  It didn’t keep “peaceful Islam” from burning their embassy, though, did it?

As the rest of the week played out, backlit by fiery protests and more deaths across the Middle East, instead of taking a good, hard look at the problem with forcing American-style freedoms upon those who are by long-standing culture unable and by ideology unwilling to handle it, the media wasted its breath and our bandwidth slamming Mitt Romney for calling any apology for free speech wrong and fell all over itself trying to figure out just who would have the audacity to create the really piss-poor film that sharia-lovers used as their cover to strike while they felt their chances of adding the deaths of more Americans to their body count was good.

If all of this doesn’t disgust you and even cause a shiver of fear, the LA Times reported that “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”

They want you to believe the FBI overstepped its purview to investigate if this was some probation violation by the alleged filmmaker, but as has been pointed out in places that go unread by this administration, probation is a function of the courts, not law enforcement.  If there were questions that this Bacile character was using the internet in violation of his probation, his parole officer would have been the one to question him and, even then, what he did on the internet would not be the problem.  The FBI was sent by someone else. 

We’ll give you three guesses who and the first two don’t count.

That someone else is high in the political food chain and now finds themselves globally embarrassed because their 3-1/2 years of Islamic appeasement foreign policy just blew up in their face and they were caught very, very publicly with their pants down.  But what they are doing is sending a clear message to those who despise our freedom of speech that our free speech can and will be curtailed – through intimidation if not possible by outright mandate – if it hurts their widdle sensibilities.  All those who want nothing more than global sharia have to do is figure out how to kill a prominent American or two and we’ll cave to their demands to follow their ideology, even when doing so violates our Constitutional rights.

Bottom line:  Hilary Clinton must resign.  Barack Hussein Obama must resign.

The problem is they won’t.  And we don’t have a Congress with the balls to even pretend to force them to resign.  We’ll have to usher them out ourselves in the November election, along with all those pathetic and therefore equally culpable Congress critters.

Gun Control Explained

By

Gun control is knowing when to shoot, not disarming citizens.  The 2nd Amendment is our insurance against a government grown tyrannical and those who would argue anything else have either evil intent or are little more than useful idiots.

A friend sent along this video.  It’s not a new one, but it deserves to go viral again.

The Dark Night

By

Thursday night a young man in Aurora, Colorado made manifest his insanity and when the smoke cleared inside the movie theater 12 eager Batman fans were dead and 58 others were on their way to the hospital.

The hysterical response by the media was immediate and, in stereotypical fashion, unerringly irresponsible.  ABC’s Brian Ross pulled a connection between the shooter, James Holmes, and the Tea Party out of his ass and let it fly on the air.  A short while later an apology was issued but that doesn’t help the innocent man named Jim Holmes who IS a relatively recent member of the Colorado Tea Party (and happens to be a former law enforcement officer who clearly understands the gravity of making false accusations).

The social media exploded in tweets and Facebook posts of real anguish and quickly descended into the inevitable arguments for and against the 2nd Amendment.  The vultures of the left are still circling the bodies of the victims, seeing another opportunity to swoop in to push for anti-gun legislation; blind to their freshest hypocrisy of 300 dead Mexican citizens and Brian Terry as a result of the government’s nefarious back-door gun-control attempt of Fast & Furious.  The armchair quarterbacks on the right tap out their claims that if more people were allowed to carry guns, someone could have stopped Holmes before so many died.

It’s all as insane as James Holmes.

The inconvenient truth remains that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns (example:  Chicago).  Not to mention that the Century 16 theater already has a “no weapons” policy that obviously meant squat to James Holmes – in the same way all “gun free zones” mean squat to any criminal looking for an easy target.  By all accounts, Holmes is extremely intelligent and as such would have found a way to wreak deadly havoc no matter what anyone allowed him to purchase if wreaking deadly havoc on innocent others was his intention (examples:  Bulgaria last week; 9/11).

Another inconvenient truth is that the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical overreach of the government.  While it’s decidedly both good and appropriately responsible to be able to defend ourselves against home invaders and thugs on the street and to keep those we send to Washington respectful of the citizenry as a whole (ok, at least in some measure), not enough people carrying guns take the time for training that instills the appropriate reactive instincts required in a situation like the one in which those moviegoers found themselves.  Indeed, unless you served as a military sniper, Navy SEAL or spent your days clearing away insurgents for military convoys your first reaction will be wet pants, not the fondly imagined efficient killing of a random madman who has unexpectedly flung chemicals in your direction and promptly started shooting at anything that moves.

The bottom line is that everyone needs to take a deep breath and simply shut up.  This was horrible, this was a tragedy, and so many families will never be the same because of the actions of a single madman.  Such madmen have always and will always walk amongst us; their insanity will forever be unfathomable, unexpected and there isn’t a damned thing we can do about it.  At least there is nothing we can do without inflicting serious pain on everyone.  As the old Star Trek movie once said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”.  In America that translates to one thing:  trampling the Constitution is never the answer.

The More Things Change

By

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

While doing a bit of research, I came across this little gem from Norman Thomas, six-time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party Of America:

“The old keenness of political discussion in the party has almost died, at least in so far as policy is concerned. (Criticism of administration is still allowed). A quotation from Stalin is a final answer to all argument. He receives the same sort of exaggerated veneration in public appearances, in the display of his picture, and in written references to him that is accorded to a Mussolini or a Hitler.” (Democracy versus Dictatorship pamphlet, 1937)

Substitute “Obama” for “Stalin” and remember that this is the man who tried to get the communists to join hands with his group.

 

 

 

Penalty Play

By

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

A penalty that’s really a tax.   So decreed the Supreme Court about Obaminablecare this past Thursday.  But President Walking Eagle still decrees the tax is just a penalty.

Could have fooled me.

If it’s not a tax, O Self-Proclaimed Smartest President Ever, then why is the IRS ramping up its ranks by some 16,000 agents and preparing to go through your personal life far beyond just your income?  Why does it now matter to them how many people live in your house?  If someone living in your house for whom you have no legal responsibility (for example, a roommate), refuses to get a health insurance policy, why does this have the potential to impact YOUR taxes?  While they might not be willing to say so now, you can bet dollars to a cop’s donuts that the day will come when the IRS will seize YOUR assets in order to pay for someone else’s choice to not pay for what some government bureaucrat mandates as “adequate” health insurance coverage.  Not to mention the ugliness of the whole snitch aspect of enforcement.

It’s incomprehensible to regular folks just how Justice Roberts managed to squeak out justification of the mandate as a tax when the progressive liberal Democrats insisted from Day One it was merely a “penalty” and continued to argue it as such during the hearing.  Even if they had argued it as a tax, it falls into neither category by which Congress can levy a tax.  Mark Levin put it this way:

“What kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution? Well, there’s a tax that is called a direct tax or capitation tax…it is a tax on the individual. The Constitution requires direct or capitation taxes (a head tax if you will) to be apportioned among the states…

Then under the Constitution you can have an excise tax. But excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of the individual. So surely this tax can’t be (an excise tax).

What about an income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment?

Even John Roberts doesn’t attempt to justify the (Obamacare) penalty as an income tax.”

Some are arguing that this can’t go forward because tax legislation must originate in the House.  But they are forgetting that the Senate essentially gutted a House bill to use as the container in which to create their version of Obaminablecare.  So although one might well and should argue this as both an immoral and unethical tack (often) done deliberately to deceive, this wicked legislation did “originate” in the House.

But passed under reconciliation, it may also be repealed (cue liberal progressive squeals of “unfairness”).

This is yet another horrible example that our government is simply and utterly out of control.  When 60% of Americans do not want Obaminablecare, yet the government is forcing it upon us through outright lies and backroom deals, we are living under the same situation that created the War of Independence:  taxation without representation.  We have one election left before we become simply Amerikka the USSA.  If we use it wisely, we can begin to drain that swamp in D.C. and, like other unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, anyone?) we can not only repeal Obaminablecare in its draconian socialist entirety, we can seat justices who rule based on the Constitution, not what they think others might think of them. 

 

Why They Didn’t Want It Read

By

Democracy “is an obstacle to the suppression of freedom which the direction of economic activity requires.”
(Friedrich Hayek)

 

As Americans await the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of Obamacare, dissection of the monstrous behemoth and analysis of its dangers continues.  The most chilling and therefore most compelling comes from the Cato Institute, which takes a close look at the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

This board is the reason the Democrats wanted the legislation passed before anyone read and digested its contents.  The IPAB is deliberately designed to shatter the Constitutional separation of powers, its checks and balances; effectively turning the United States of America into the USSA of Amerikka.

  • The IPAB will consist of 15 voting members, each earning upward of $165,000 per year, appointed by the president without any bipartisan requirements and confirmed by the Senate (subject to “recess appointments”).
  • IPAB proposals automatically become law.
  • There is no requirement for ANY input from anyone.
  • They have the power to regulate beyond just Medicare.  Including the laying of taxes as it alone sees fit.
  • Proposals may only be blocked by the House, Senate and president all agreeing upon a substitute.  There is no allowance for congressional action or oversight, no ability for a presidential veto, no requirement for any sort of administrative or judicial review.
  • Citizens may not challenge any proposal in court.
  • The only opportunity to get rid of the IPAB is one, single 7-month window in 2017 and then by a 3/5 majority in both chambers.  Miss that and nothing it ever does may ever be altered by Congress.
  • Even if Congress does manage to get rid of the IPAB during its designed, tiny window of opportunity, it still won’t go away for six more months.

 Some excerpts:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it.  Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute.  The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court. 

Worse, PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a threefifths majority in both chambers. A heretofore unreported feature of PPACA dictates that if Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB “proposal.”  By restricting lawmaking powers of future Congresses, PPACA thus attempts to amend the Constitution by statute.

 The IPAB “…is anticonstitutional.  Congress’s legislative powers do not include the power to alter the constitutional procedure required for the passage of laws.  Nor does it include the power to entrench legislation by preventing it from being altered by future Congresses.”

In some cases, PPACA vests IPAB’s powers in just one individual. If there are 14 vacancies on the board, the Act allows the
sole appointed member to constitute a quorum, conduct official business, and issue “proposals.”  The greater danger, then, is not that a president might pack the board with multiple party loyalists, but that he might appoint only one. Or none:  if the president fails to appoint any board members (or the Senate fails to confirm the president’s appointments, or a majority of the board cannot agree a proposal) the Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to exercise the board’s powers unilaterally.  These powers include the ability to appropriate funds to her own department to administer her own directives.

The Board could propose, for instance, to require states to implement federal laws or to enact new state laws in order to receive federal funding. The Board need only demonstrate that its proposals and recommendations relate to Medicare in some undefined way.

There is [NO enforcement mechanism behind PPACA’s prohibition on taxes]. The Act exempts the Secretary’s implementation of IPAB proposals from administrative and judicial review, so no one could sue to block it. The president could not shelve it, because IPAB submits its proposals directly to Congress. If the Secretary submits a proposal in IPAB’s stead, PPACA requires the president to submit the proposal directly to Congress. The Act allows Congress and the president to block that tax increase by offering a substitute or by mustering a three-fifths majority in the Senate but that merely shows that IPAB’s tax increases and spending cuts are on an equal footing.  If Congress and the president fail to reject IPAB’s tax increase or to enact on a substitute, the Act requires the Secretary to implement it, with the help of funds that IPAB may itself appropriate.

The Act states that Congress may only repeal IPAB if it follows these precise steps:
1. Wait until the year 2017.
2. Introduce a specifically worded “Joint Resolution” in the House and Senate between January 1 and February 1.
3. Pass that resolution with a three-fifths vote of all members of each chamber by August 15.

The president must then sign that joint resolution.

Whereas Congress can repeal any other federal statute at any time with just a majority vote in each chamber and the president’s
signature, under PPACA Congress has only about 15 business days in the year 2017 to propose this joint resolution of repeal.  Otherwise, the Act forever precludes repeal.  Congress must then pass that resolution with a three-fifths supermajority by August 15, 2017, or the Act forever precludes repeal.  Even if a repeal resolution should clear these hurdles, IPAB would retain its power to legislate through January 15, 2018.  If Congress fails to follow these precise steps, then PPACA states the American people’s elected representatives may never repeal IPAB, ever.

 I don’t know anyone who would put their health care choices and decisions into the hands of only one person, let alone only one bureaucrat.  Yet that is what the Democrats cooked up with the IPAB and forced through their majority-controlled Congress.  And if it can happen, rest assured it will happen.  This group of people who believe it is perfectly all right to kill a newborn baby by calling it some variation of an “abortion” yet will defend the right to live of a convicted serial killer have serious mental health problems.  We simply cannot stand by and continue to let the insane run the asylum.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) must be repealed in its entirety.