Mitt Romney Is Right  

By Dick Morris/ Dick Morris.com

There is no sin greater in a presidential race than telling the truth. Romney is being excoriated for accurately describing the situation in America today. Here are the stats:

* 49% of all Americans pay no federal income tax. 
* 47% receive a check from the government of which more than half are means tested welfare checks (Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.).
 * 36% of all Americans of working age are either not working or looking for work.

We must remember, however, that a great many of those who receive checks from the government have earned them. Some by their taxes over the years to Social Security and Medicare and others by paying a deeper price by service to their country.

The benefits Romney was talking about are means tested benefits, distributed based on income. All together 100 million Americans receive such benefits (out of a total population of 308 million), these benefits include welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, Medicaid and other such programs.

Generalities are always unjust. And painting with broad strokes will do many individuals an injustice. But the fact remains that our electorate is basically bifurcated into those who pay taxes and those who receive benefits.

The danger comes not with the benefit but with the sense of entitlement. Why do so many people feel Romney will be better at improving the economy and yet still plan to vote for Obama? The answer is that they care more about preserving their entitlements than about improving the economy. They have come to rely on political action more than economic growth as the key to their solvency.

Did Romney err in telling it like it is? It would have been better if he had made a forthright, factual statement on the issue. It looks bad for these unpleasant facts to come out in a “gotcha” moment at a videotaped private event. But the fact remains that an Obama reelection would turn the tide psychologically in America from the land of upward mobility through hard work and initiative and toward a country akin to Greece: dependent on government aid in the form of a subsidy and government handouts.

By stating this fundamental truth, albeit off the record, Romney has done a service for which he should be praised not excoriated. It all boils down to what John Kennedy said: There are those who ask what their country can do for you, and those who ask what you can do for your country.

Op-ed:
NOT requests...demands!

By: Diane Sori

Very soon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be addressing the UN...the Useless Nations to be more exact.

Netanyahu will speak the truth about an Arab Spring turned into the gruesome reality of a total Mid-East Arab Winter in the guise of a full-blown Islamic jihad.

Netanyahu will speak the truth about the so-called Palestinians who have NO place in the nation of Israel or as a nation amongst civilized men.

Netanyahu will speak the truth about Jerusalem...as in there is NO negotiation where Jerusalem is concerned...Jerusalem...now and forever the united capital of Israel and the Jews.

Netanyahu will speak about what a nuclear armed Iran really means...to Israel...to America...to the world.

Hopefully Netanyahu will speak the truth about Barack HUSSEIN Obama...the man who has sold Israel out and gets joy in driving the knife deeper into her back.

And now it’s our time to stand up to this man whose dream is of an America radically changed into an Islamic caliphate peppered with a socialistic/communist agenda.

And now it’s our time to say loud and clear to Obama that, ‘a stupid little joke of a YouTube film about the perverted so-called prophet mohammed was NOT, I repeat NOT, the catalyst for all this Mid-East violence and you know it!’

And now it’s our time to say in one united loud and clear voice that we’ve had enough of Obama’s placating backwards muslim barbarians who hate America, who hate Israel, who hate all that is not islam.

We the People’ have had enough of our freedom of speech taken away while Obama bends over backwards (how apropos) to placate the total hate speech towards America and Americans of those out to kill us...his muslim brethren.

‘We the People’ have had enough of Obama’s apologizes for America and for our military’s actions during a time of war.

‘We the People’ demand that the muslim brotherhood be purged from ALL areas of our government because the muslim brotherhood is NOT compatible with the fabric of our American society, with our laws, and most importantly...with our Constitution.

'We the People' demand that our God, our guns, and our country be honored.

And ‘We the People’ demand Barack HUSSEIN Obama be arrested for TREASON and crimes against America and Americans.  (Now if only someone in Congress would have the guts to do this and say, ‘the race card be damned.’)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the man who sides against America every chance he gets...Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the man who tramples on our Constitution as he mocks all it stands for...Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the man who knew our Ambassador and staff were in trouble and did NOTHING to help them...Barack HUSSEIN Obama the man who parties while the entire Mid-East burns...that man is the man ‘We the People’ call TRAITOR.

And on November 6th, ‘We the People’ will say to BARACK HUSSEIN Obama, ‘it’s time for you to go.’

How Obama Is Trashing the Constitution 

By: Robert Knight  / Townhall Daily

It was Constitution Day yesterday, so I spent part of it compiling a non-exhaustive list of the ways Barack Obama has violated the Constitution. 

 

First, let’s dispense with a persistent media trope, which is that Barack Obama was a “constitutional law professor” in Chicago. Former University of Chicago Law School Interim Dean Richard Epstein blew a hole through that recently with his recollection that New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor’s claim that Mr. Obama was offered tenure is utterly false. Mr. Obama was never even a law professor, just a part-time lecturer.

“[U]nder no circumstances would an offer to Obama be tenured…,” Dr. Epstein told the Daily Caller. “The thought that the law school could have made a tenure offer to a person with no academic writing was out of the question.”

Now for some examples of Mr. Obama’s violations.

Launching an illegal war in Libya. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Under the congressionally-enacted War Powers Act, Mr. Obama had 60 days to get congressional approval after U.S. bombs started dropping in Tripoli, but he didn't bother. Putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of yet another Arab nation appeared to be a higher priority than following the law.

Undermining the nation's armed forces. Article II, Section 2, names the president Commander in Chief. Instead of asserting American power, Mr. Obama projects weakness, emboldening our enemies. The murder of our ambassador and three other staff in Benghazi, Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Yemen, are bitter fruit of that reality. In addition, Mr. Obama rammed through Congress a bill homosexualizing the military despite failing to make the case that this won't hurt readiness, morale, retention or recruitment. He is unfit to be Commander in Chief.

Violating religious freedom. Mr. Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services ignored the First Amendment by issuing a Soviet-style order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations.

Appointing agency “czars” without Senate approval. Article II, Section 2, gives the president the power to appoint ambassadors, judges and top agency officials, but only with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Mr. Obama has appointed, without Senate approval, more than two dozen “czars” in federal agencies.

Making illegal recess appointments. Article II, Section 2 allows the President to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” While the Senate was in session, Mr. Obama made recess appointments of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.

Forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate commerce and levy taxes. It does not force Americans to engage in commerce. During policy debates in 2009, the White House denied that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was a “tax.” But in court, the administration argued that it was a tax after all. In a shocking ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts bought the logic, upholding this unconstitutional monstrosity.

Refusing to enforce laws that he doesn’t like. Article II, Section 3 states that the president “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Obama directed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act and even work against it in the federal courts. Mr. Holder also suspended newly enacted photo ID voter laws in Texas and South Carolina.

Stonewalling Fast and Furious. The Justice Department’s subdivision of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “walked” more than 2,000 firearms to drug gangs across the border to Mexico. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, along with at least 100 Mexicans. The administration has shown contempt for Congress, and Mr. Holder denied knowing about the debacle despite evidence indicating otherwise. This is not “faithfully” executing the law or defending America’s sovereign borders.

Violating Equal Protection and Voting Rights. The 14^th Amendment guarantees “due process” and “equal protection of the laws.” The 15^th Amendment guarantees that “the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged … on account of race.…” Mr. Holder ditched the case of New Black Panther Party members videotaped intimidating Philadelphia voters in 2008. Two former Justice Department officials testified that employees were told to ignore white complainants.

Using the EPA to attack America’s energy industry. In 2010, the Senate refused to pass the "cap-and-trade" bill that would have created a carbon-tax system, vastly increasing federal power over energy. The Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide a pollutant anyway and began exerting raw bureaucratic power. Mr. Obama's green zealots nixed the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and virtually shut down new oil exploration and drilling.

Allowing the FCC to grab the Internet. The Telecommunications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority over wire and broadcasting, but not broadband. Congress and a federal appeals court rejected the FCC's claims of authority, yet the FCC released "net neutrality" rules in December 2010. This violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The FCC has no more authority over the Internet than it does over the musings of Joe Biden.

Attacking a state for upholding federal law. The 10^th Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In July 2010, the Justice Department sued Arizona for a law requiring state officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from assisting in enforcing federal laws. Meanwhile, the Justice Department ignores "sanctuary cities" that openly violate federal law.

Giving a foreign leader platforms to denounce an American state. In May 2010, Mexican President Felipe Calderon addressed Congress, where he blasted Arizona to cheers from Democrats. Mr. Obama joined him later at a White House press conference where both men trashed Arizona. The president takes an oath that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which guarantees that states are part of the United States, not part of a foreign country by default.

Using the National Labor Relations Board as a goon squad. The NLRB sued in April 2010 to stop the Boeing Co.'s new $750 million Dreamliner plant in right-to-work South Carolina because unions objected. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the power to tell businesses where they can operate.

There’s so much more, but I’ve run out of room. When liberals write the history of the Obama era, they’ll have to perform contortions to cover up the sheer amount of lawlessness.

In support of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...

Prime Minister Netanyahu...when you next speak before the UN 
I want you to know that 'We the People' stand united behind you and Israel even if our president does NOT!

Romney Will be Judged on Actions, Not Coverage 

By: Byron York  / Townhall Daily

Salena Zito, a reporter with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, watched Mitt Romney's Wednesday morning news conference from a diner in Wisconsin. Customers paid careful attention to the TV as reporters repeatedly asked Romney if he had made a mistake by criticizing President Obama's handling of the embassy crises in Egypt and Libya. The exchanges left no doubt that Romney's questioners thought he had made a mess of the situation.

But Zito found an entirely different reaction in the diner. "People were just floored by the press," she says.

"The group was pretty mixed between Obama supporters and Romney supporters, and even the Obama supporters were astonished by how they felt the press was driving the story. One guy said, 'My God, six out of seven questions were the same question.' Another guy said, 'Why aren't they asking him anything serious?'"

What Zito saw was entirely anecdotal; maybe she just found a group of people who coincidentally thought the same thing. But the reactions at the diner raise a question: There's a near-consensus among the political class that Romney made a disastrous error in the embassy matter. But what do actual voters think?

It's too early to know the answer; Scott Rasmussen, who conducts a daily tracking poll on the race, saw no change in Romney's standing on national security issues the night after the controversy broke. (Rasmussen's Wednesday night polling found Romney leading Obama overall for the first time in a week, but by just a single point, 47 percent to 46 percent.) Still, there is no reason to assume the voters as a whole think like a small group of Washington- and New York-based journalists.

Riding a wave of media approval, Obama shows no outward signs of worry about the increasingly volatile situation for Americans in the Middle East. On the same day he announced the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya, and as protesters returned to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, the president flew to Las Vegas for a little campaigning.

Speaking to a group of volunteers, Obama seemed to equate the fight for his re-election with America's long history of fighting for freedom. "The sacrifices that our troops and our diplomats make are obviously very different from the challenges that we face here domestically," the president told his campaign workers. "But like them, you guys are Americans who sense that we can do better than we're doing."

There's no doubt the president has the upper hand when it comes to national security issues. A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows Obama has a huge advantage over Romney on foreign policy; by a margin of 54 percent to 39 percent, voters say Obama can better handle the issue.

Whatever his outer confidence, though, Obama is in a potentially dangerous situation. Americans don't like to see foreign mobs scale the wall of an embassy, tear down the American flag and replace it with an Islamic banner. And they're horrified by the murder of American diplomats. The Obama administration's initial response to trouble in Egypt -- a statement fretting about an Internet video that might hurt Muslim feelings -- really did sound weak and irrelevant.

If troubles continue -- if the Arab Spring continues to unravel -- Obama's policy of restraint could increasingly look like impotence. His much-touted outreach to the Muslim world could look naive and misguided. And Romney's critique of Obama's leadership -- that it has often involved apologizing for past American actions -- could seem more on target.

Already, events in Libya and Egypt invite more scrutiny. The public still doesn't know exactly what transpired in the hours around Stevens' death, nor is much known about the nature of American security measures, other than they were obviously inadequate. The final story might not reflect well on the administration.

As far as the storm over media coverage is concerned, the fact is that actual events, and not campaign reporting, will determine the course of public opinion on Obama's foreign policy leadership. Yes, Romney advisers are unhappy with the press. But Obama's policies are being put to a test in a way that no spin can obscure. If Romney has the better proposals, voters will get the idea by Nov. 6.

For years, Romney mapped out a campaign based on economic issues. Barring some enormous, unexpected event, the race is still largely about the economy. But the events of this week have shown Romney how quickly the subject can change, at least for a while. And just like those diners in Wisconsin, voters will be most swayed by the substance, not the coverage, of events

Libyan official says protests were planned, not spontaneous, and had nothing to do with movie

From Jihad Watch

Belying the Obama Administration's lies about the demonstration being "spontaneous" and focused on the movie. "No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says," from FoxNews.com, September 17:

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week's attack -- challenging the Obama administration's claims that the assault grew out of a "spontaneous" protest against an anti-Islam film. 

"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

"There wasn't a single ant outside," the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.

These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.

U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day -- but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president's comments are not consistent with "the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community," which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.

"He doesn't have the information we have," the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. ""He doesn't have the (data) collection potential that we have."

The Libyan leader told CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors "no doubt" that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "preplanned, predetermined." That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.

There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident "was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video," and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, "those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons."

Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident - the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks -- was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: "It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, 'Oh, it's September 11th, we must avenge...'"

The senior U.S. official added that this is "the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point," and that Rice "was not out there volunteering her own opinions."

The official also discounted as "not accurate" reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department -- in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 -- about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.

Muslims, media dhimmis enraged by Newsweek "Muslim Rage" cover

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

So all around the world Muslims are enraged because they are Muslims, explaining that they are rioting and killing because they believe Muhammad and Islam have been insulted. But if Newsweek runs a cover story referring to "Muslim rage," Islamic supremacists and their media toadies become...enraged.

Why? Are the rioters and murderers not Muslim? Are they not rioting and murdering in the name of Islam? Are they not enraged? So what's the problem?

The main problem is that for eleven years and longer now we have been relentlessly conditioned to believe that the Muslim rage and hatred that we see with our eyes is not really what it is, and that to speak about it accurately would be "Islamophobic." Related to this also is the frequently repeated but nonetheless baseless claim that to speak about "Muslim rage" or "Islamic terrorism" is to tar all Muslims as enraged or terrorists -- hence the Huffington Post's link to Muslims not being enraged at all, but cute and cuddly and fun-loving, at the link on the word "memorably" below.

But of course in reality, to speak about "Muslim rage" is not to say that all Muslims are enraged any more than to speak about "Italian fascism" is to say that all Italians are fascists. And the reality of cute, cuddly, fun-loving Muslims does absolutely nothing to mitigate the reality of the enraged, lethal Muslims that the cuddly ones are doing nothing to stop.

The uproar over this Newsweek cover shows how far our thought processes have already deteriorated, under the pressure of this ever-repeated Big Lie. Now any honest depiction of jihad activity and Islamic supremacism becomes "controversial," or a "gaffe," or an expression of "hate." It's a kneejerk reaction. In a sane world, this cover, and my work and that of my colleagues, would not be remotely controversial. We are just reporting matters accurately. That we are even more controversial than this cover is an indication of how addicted to unreality the public square has allowed itself to become.

"Newsweek's 'MUSLIM RAGE' Cover Draws Angry Protest," by Jack Mirkinson in the Huffington Post, September 17:

Newsweek is courting controversy yet again with its latest cover.... 

The magazine's new issue leads with an article by the highly polarizing Ayaan Hirsi Ali about the protests currently taking place in the Middle East. As if that wasn't enough, the issue's cover is a scorcher. A blaring headline reading "MUSLIM RAGE" sits atop a picture of wild-eyed, bearded, saliva-flecked men...

The cover attracted a predictable amount of criticism. The conservative Daily Telegraph called it a " sickening piece of shock journalism that cheapens a once great magazine" and compared it to the anti-Muslim film that sparked the protests. Newsweek is standing by its choice, however, according to the magazine's statement to Politico.

Newsweek also asked readers to "discuss" the cover using the hashtag "#MuslimRage." Readers responded very memorably.

Top 5 Ways To Fail At Eliminating Obamacare

by Michael Boldin  / Personal Liberty Digest

UPI FILE

More than 50 percent of the country wants Obamacare repealed.

Even though millions of people want to keep President Barack Obama’s Health Care “Reform” law, millions more want it gone.

With the June Supreme Court ruling allowing the mandate to continue — and most everything else too — people are trying to focus on just that and asking themselves, “What should I do to spend my time and resources most effectively?”

More than 50 percent of the country wants to see it repealed. Political candidates are basing their electoral success on their position on the law. Groups are holding educational rallies about what to do next.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we’ve offered our own advice on what to do next. But we haven’t really addressed some of the other actions people are being encouraged to take. I figured this was a good time to put together a Top-5 list. But this is not a list of the best things you can do. Instead, these are the things I think you should avoid supporting most.

Why? First of all, because they will fail or cause more problems down the road. And also, since virtually everyone — especially in difficult economic times — has limited time, energy, money and other resources, it’s even more important to spend those resources wisely and effectively.

With that, here’s my Top 5: How to Fail at Getting Rid of Obamacare.

5. Wait for it to collapse under its own weight.
Some people are under the belief that the amount that Obamacare will cost will result in a failure of the program, or some even believe it could collapse the entire economic system. So instead of taking an active role in pushing to end it, they’re spending their own time doing personal preparation. Some sit, wait and do nothing. Others buy storable food, ammo and other things that would be needed under such economic chaos.

I believe the maxim that “things that can’t go on forever, don’t.” But there are loads of things which can’t go on forever — that seemingly do. For decades people have said that American foreign policy can’t continue on this path. It does. We’ve heard that the Fed can’t keep printing and printing… and printing. But it still does. Or that the next violation of individual liberty is going to wake enough people up to bring things to an end. But yet, Constitutional violations continue unabated.

Yes, Obamacare is certainly an economic monstrosity. But waiting for it to fail under its own weight won’t help, even when taking responsible steps for your own emergency preparation. And guess what. Tomorrow never comes.

4. Eliminate it by executive order.
While pure Presidential power isn’t an extremely common talking point for ridding us of Obamacare, I consider it pretty important to discuss. The use of executive orders has ballooned in recent years for virtually everything.

Both Obama and his predecessor Bush have made a mockery of Constitutional restraint with their use of executive orders. And of course, both sides of the political aisle make excuses for their President when he’s been in office. All of this is part of our never-ending path towards an executive dictatorship.

Last fall, Rick Perry made a statement that if he were elected President, on day one he would issue an executive order to eliminate “as much of Obamacare as he could.”

Look, there are many ways that executive action could, theoretically, put enough roadblocks in the way to bring the Affordable Care Act to an end. But, to any Constitution-loving person, the idea of a President “eliminating” law by executive order should be considered extremely dangerous.

Here’s the big problem. If we accept the idea of one person deciding whether or not a law will stay or go, what’s to stop the next President from reversing those decisions. This would be a temporary band-aid at best.

We need far fewer executive orders. Not more.

3. Go back to the Supreme Court.
Some people — primarily legal scholars and so-called experts — believe that a proper next step is to go back to court. Yeah, right. They’ll get to write more articles about it, get more attention on the legal discussion and advance the importance of their profession.

But that’s about it. The fact remains. In more than 200 years, the Constitution-violating men and women in black dresses have overruled fewer than 200 Congressional acts. I don’t know probability stats, but I’m thinking I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning twice in one day than of seeing the Supremes strike down this Federal act.

2. Vote the bums out.
Blowhards like Bill O’Reilly tell us that if “Obama goes down, so does the liberal movement in America.”

This one could easily have made No. 1 because it’s so idiotic and ignorant. Not only would the current alternative give you much of Obamacare under a different name, but there’s virtually no reason to trust Republicans in general when it comes to eliminating the so-called “liberal movement” in this country. They have been part of it for a long time.

Republicans gave us the biggest expansion of government-run healthcare in three decades when they passed Medicare Part D under President George W. Bush. They played a significant role in the new record number of people on food stamps. And twice this year, they voted to keep the program that gave us Solyndra.

But it’s not just Republicans who play this game. Democrats are equally guilty. The election of the “peace President” brought us new wars, an expansion of the USA Patriot Act, “indefinite detention” and much more.

The bottom line? Hoping that new bums will kindly reject all the power given to them is not just a bad idea. It almost never happens.

John Adams agreed on this when he said, simply: “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

1. Repeal and replace.
I think the phrase says it all. It should say — repeal and repeal. Even though I know that Federal politicians never follow the rules given to them unless it’s politically advantageous, I happen to like the Constitutional limitations they have.

Even if Obamacare were repealed and replaced with nothing, there would still be a lot more that needs to be repealed to get even close to the Constitution.

The Federal government should not be managing the healthcare industry. Period. It doesn’t matter if that management is done by someone named Obama, Romney, Bush or Clinton.

I don’t want a new name for Obamacare. I don’t even want a lesser-Obamacare. I want the Feds to butt the hell out and follow the Constitution.

Moving Forward
You may not want to take the Tenth Amendment Center’s recommended approach to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but that’s OK. If you stay away from these five options, you’ll have a far better chance of avoiding a complete and utter failure.

If you really want to see Obamacare gone for good — and not just a few pieces of it — smash the etch-a-sketch approach. Stop wasting your time, energy and financial resources on steps that will either continue the act under a new name, be sure to fail, or continue the expansion of Federal power.

-Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center