Our Thanksgiving ended with me... sober.
Yep...
I don't know what happened! I can't explain it! Just... too much food. I simply can't consume the amounts of food and drink consumed in days of yore!
(Except... sometimes I can! It all depends on the day! Very strange...)
It could have been subconscious, though...
Earlier in the week I'd received a call from my best bud (my gracious host this year) cautioning me about where political talk during the holidays can lead...
(*HUGE FRIGGIN' GRIN*)
Also... tonight is Mary's High School Graduation Class of '83 Reunion; I'm expecting some serious drinking; we're going with two of our closest friends - one a classmate of Mary's and one my good pal!
(*DOUBLE THUMBS UP*)
So, yeah... perhaps yesterday my brain and liver were communicating at a subconscious level... "protecting" me from myself last night!
Oh... get this, folks! Last night after Thanksgiving... after the stroke of midnight which brought us into today... Mary and I actually did a bit of "Black Friday" shopping! No... nothing to crazy. Both of us simply needed new footwear (me, sneakers; Mary, shoes) for the upcoming "American Raj Over India" (Kimmy's wedding!) trip! I got a $59.99 pair of New Balance sneakers for $29.99 and Mary got a pair of $54.99 shoes for $16.49 - plus, with the additional purchase of a $3 candy bar we qualified for a $15 "Kohl's Bucks" certificate!
Later on this morning... off to J.C. Penny (and/or Sears) for some new underwear and perhaps socks! (Buy one get one free if we get there before 1:00 p.m.!)
Anyway... hopefully I'll get around to a bit of newsbiting over this weekend! As always... the actual newsbites will be posted within the Comments Section of this newsbites post!
Enjoy your weekend, folks, and to all my Jewish friends... enjoy the rest of Hanukkah!
10 comments:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/27/WH-Politicizes-Thanksgiving-to-Slam-GOP-on-Food-Stamps
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama's White House politicized Thanksgiving to promote the reauthorization of the SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) or "food stamps" as part of the farm bill at a time when a record number of Americans are receiving assistance.
* AND THUS... A RECORD AMOUNT OF FRAUD AND WASTE...
* AND LET US NOT FORGET, MY FRIENDS, AT A TIME OF RECORD GOVERNMENT REVENUES YET STILL OUR "LEADERS" SOMEHOW "REQUIRE" THE BORROWING OF WHAT... FORTY-SOMETHING... THIRTY-SOMETHING... CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR SPENT BY THE FEDERAL LEVIATHAN... JUST... ON... OPERATING... EXPENSES...
In an email, the White House urged Americans sitting down for Thanksgiving Dinner to remember: "For decades, Congress has authorized SNAP in a bipartisan fashion through the Farm Bill. They don't have to do it in a way that hurts children, seniors, veterans, and vulnerable families. Learn more, and pass it on."
The White House linked to a report about how SNAP is boosting the economy and accused Republicans of undermining the program's reauthorization.
* YES, YES... WELFARE BOOSTS THE ECONOMY... (*SNORT*)... WE'VE HEARD THIS NONSENSE BEFORE.
Congress could not agree on a bipartisan farm bill because Democrats would not agree to make reforms to SNAP.
* ONE... MORE... TIME:
Congress could not agree on a bipartisan farm bill because Democrats would not agree to make reforms to SNAP.
Robert Rector, the godfather of the landmark welfare reform bill in the 1990s, has suggested the food stamp program be reformed by moving the program from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health and Human Services, because "the food stamp program is a means-tested welfare or anti-poverty program, not an agricultural program," and "the USDA’s expertise is in farming, not welfare."
* MAKES SENSE, DOESN'T IT?!
He has also recommended means-testing, anti-fraud measures, drug testing, and converting the program to a "work activation" program while ensuring benefits do not go to illegal immigrants.
(*THUMBS UP*)
As Breitbart News has reported, food stamp enrollments "have remained over 47 million for an unprecedented 13 consecutive months." And that number has indeed benefited a "certain sector" of the economy. As the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI) discovered, corporations are also incentivized to pressure the government to maximize the number of people on food stamps because of the profits companies like J.P. Morgan make from EBT card transaction fees.
* ONE... MORE... TIME:
... profits companies like J.P. Morgan make from EBT card transaction fees.
(*SMIRK*)
The program also has been riddled with fraud, and those with EBT cards have often offered to sell them for cash on social media sites like Twitter.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/elderly-woman-city-10th-knockout-game-victim-article-1.1532989
A 76-year-old Brooklyn woman was punched in the back of the head by a stranger in what residents fear could be the city's tenth "knockout game" attack.
* A "BLACK" STRANGER ACCORDING TO THE PHOTO POLICE OF THE SUSPECT BEING DISTRIBUTED.
* JUST OUT OF CURIOUSITY... HAVE THERE BEEN ANY WHITE PERPS FINGERED IN ANY OF THESE "KNOCKOUT" ATTACKS...???
Yvonne Small fell to the ground after being punched by her assailant on Alabama Ave. and Wortman Ave. in East New York about 11:35 a.m., according to police sources.
* WAS THE VICTIM BLACK? (MOST CRIME IS BLACK ON BLACK...)
She was treated at Brookdale University Hospital and discharged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coalition-apologizes-for-killing-afghan-child-karzai-warns-security-deal-in-jeopardy/2013/11/29/f73d2b06-58ed-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan apologized Friday for mistakenly killing a 2-year-old boy during an airstrike...
* FOLKS... WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING...?!?!
Late Thursday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai blasted the U.S. military for the death and accused coalition troops serving in Afghanistan of “oppressions.” Within hours, U.S. and coalition military leaders were rushing to try to control the fallout of the strike, which also wounded two women.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The civilian casualties could not have come at a worse time for U.S. diplomats, who have watched with dismay over the past week as Karzai appeared increasingly dismissive of the Obama administration’s plans to keep up to 10,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan after 2014.
* MY "DISMAY" IS THAT OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP OUR TROOPS THERE! MY "DISMAY" IS THAT OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP SENDING $8 BILLION A YEAR TO KARZAI!
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192081764514664
Even as [King] Obama reluctantly granted Americans thrown off their health plans quasi-permission to possibly keep them...
(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)
...he called them "the folks who, over time, I think, are going to find that the marketplaces are better."
* "MARKETPLACES...?!?!" THE MARKETPLACES ARE WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DESTROY! WHAT'S HE BABBLING ABOUT...?!?!
He means the ObamaCare exchanges...
* OH...
...that are replacing the private insurance market, adding that "it's important that we don't pretend that somehow that's a place worth going back to."
Easy for him to say. The reason this furor will continue even if the website is fixed is that the public is learning that ObamaCare's insurance costs more in return for worse coverage.
* ONE MORE TIME...
ObamaCare's insurance costs more in return for worse coverage.
Mr. Obama and his liberal allies call the old plans "substandard," but he doesn't mean from the perspective of the consumers who bought them. He means people were free to choose insurance that wasn't designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals. In his view, many people must pay first-class fares for coach seats so others can pay less and receive extra benefits.
* YEP! OBAMACARE SCREWS THE MIDDLE CLASS.
Liberals justify these coercive cross-subsidies as "necessary" to finance coverage for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. But government usually helps the less fortunate honestly by raising taxes to fund programs. In summer 2009, Senate Democrats put out such a bill, and the $1.6 trillion sticker shock led them to hide the transfers by forcing people to buy overpriced products.
* YEP... SMOKE AND MIRRORS...
This political mugging is especially unfair to the people whose plans on the current individual market are being taken away. The majority of these consumers are self-employed or small-business owners. They're middle class, rarely affluent. They took responsibility for their care without government aid, and unlike people in the job-based system, they paid with after-tax dollars.
* YEP. ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR. BUT RATHER THAN DEAL WITH WHAT WAS TRULY UNFAIR AND DYSFUNCTIONAL IN THE "OLD SYSTEM," OBAMACARE DOUBLES DOWN ON MOST OF THE BAD! THIS IS NOT "REFORM." THIS IS FURTHER "DEFORMATION!"
Now they're being punished for the crime of not subsidizing ObamaCare, even though the individual market was never as dysfunctional or high cost as liberals claim. In 2012, average U.S. individual premiums were $190, ranging from a low of $123 in North Dakota to a high of $385 in Massachusetts. Average premiums for family plans fell that year by 0.5% to $412.
* HMM... MARY AND I WERE PAYING WELL OVER $6OO PER MONTH PER PERSON HERE IN NEW YORK...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Those numbers come from the 13,000 different policies from 180 insurers sold on eHealthInsurance.com, the online shopping brokerage that works. (Technological wonders never cease.) Individuals can make the trade-offs between costs and benefits for themselves. This wide variety is proof that humans don't all want or need the same thing. If they did, there would be no need for a market and government could satisfy everybody.
That is precisely what the Obama health planners believe they can do.
* THEY CAN'T. (NOR DO THEY WANT TO!)
Regulators mandated a very rich level of "essential" health benefits that all plans in the individual market must cover, regardless of cost. This year eHealth reported that its data show individual premiums must be 47% higher than the old average to fund the new categories in the individual market.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Meanwhile, ObamaCare's plans are limited to essentially four.
Yes, four.
The law converts insurance products on the ObamaCare exchanges into interchangeable commodities that finance the same standard benefit at the same average expense over four tiers known as bronze, silver, gold and platinum.
[A] bronze plan covers 60% of health-care expenses and the beneficiary pays a lower premium to pick up the remaining 40% out of pocket. Platinum carries a higher premium for a 90%-10% split. But there can be little deviation from the formulas — that is, there is little room for innovation or policy choice — to suit customer preferences.
In any case all four tiers are scrap-metal grade, because the rules ObamaCare imposes to create a supposedly superior insurance product are resulting in an objectively inferior medical product. The new mandates and rules raise costs, so insurers must compensate by offering narrow and less costly networks of doctors, hospitals and other providers in their ObamaCare products. Insurers thus restrict care and patient choice of physicians in exchange for discounted reimbursement rates, much as Medicaid does.
Nearly half of the ObamaCare plans are tightly managed HMOs, according to a McKinsey & Co. analysis. In states like California, Missouri and New Hampshire, many networks are 40% or 45% the size of those offered for normal commercial coverage.
* THAT'S A HUGE HIT!
Patients face the prospect of waiting months and driving miles to clinics and county hospitals.
* YEP...
Narrow networks can be a useful cost-control tool, to the extent people choose to give up medical options in return for lower premiums. But that's rarely what people want when they're choosing with their own money. Some 82.5% of eHealth customers in 2012 purchased preferred provider organization plans (PPOs) that are structured so patients can visit virtually any physician.
The awful irony of this new ObamaCare health system is that all adults now enjoy mandated pediatric vision benefits, even if they don't have kids, but parents can't take their daughter to an expensive children's hospital if she gets really sick.
* AT LEAST AN EVER-GROWING PERCENTAGE WON'T BE ABLE TO...
Everybody gets "free" preventive checkups with no co-pays, but not treatment for a complex illness from specialists at an academic medical center.
* NICE "TRADE-OFF," HUH?
If the old individual market was as bad as Mr. Obama said it was, then he shouldn't pretend it's a place worth going back to, even for a year's delay. His "fix" is necessary politically because ObamaCare's willful destruction of this alternative is the worst act of government mayhem since FDR's National Recovery Act. The Affordable Care Act's main achievement is turning out to be diminishing affordable care.
* YEP...
(*SIGH*)
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/12/breaking-up-with-healthcare-gov/
Enrolling in healthcare.gov is not easy. In Alaska, just 53 people enrolled in the first month. Anchorage hair stylist Lara Imler is one of the few who got through. Now though, after she discovered problems with her application, Imler wants to cancel her enrollment.
“I don’t even know how to feel about the whole thing anymore because I can’t even get anyone who has an answer to help,” she says. “It’s just such a lost cause at this point.”
A few things went wrong with Imler’s healthcare.gov application. First, according to the website, she successfully enrolled in a health plan. But her new insurance company, Moda Health, didn’t have her application. When she called the healthcare.gov hotline number, no one could help her figure out what went wrong.
Then she found out the website miscalculated her subsidy amount.
* WHY IS SHE GETTING A SUBSIDY...???
She was supposed to receive a monthly subsidy of $366, but the website only let her use $315.
* WHY WAS SHE "SUPPOSED" TO GET A YEARLY SUBSIDY OF $4,392 FROM OUR BROKE-ASS U.S. GOVERNMENT...??? LOOK AT HER IN HER HOME (VIA THE PHOTO INCLUDED WITH THE ARTICLE) AND LOOK AT HER... WHY MUST YOU AND I SUBSIDIZE HER?
“The subsidy issue is weird,” she says. “If you look at my profile on the website it shows my full subsidy, but it says I’m only using part of it. So they know I’ve got a screwed up subsidy but they don’t know what to do with it. There’s no one directly you can talk to, to say, ‘Hey my subsidy is on there. How do I apply for all of it?’”
* MY PROBLEM IS WITH THE SUBSIDY! WHY IS THIS WOMAN GETTING A SUBSIDY...?!?! HOW IS OUR BROKE-ASS GOVERNMENT ADDING PEOPLE TO THE WELFARE ROLLS VIA HEALTH INSURANCE SUBSIDY GOOD FOR AMERICA...??? OBAMACARE IS A DELIBERATE EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE STATE.
It turns out everyone’s subsidy in Alaska was miscalculated. Enroll Alaska, a benefits consulting group, discovered the error in mid October and suspended enrollments. It took two weeks for the Health and Human Services Department to resolve the issue. Since then, Enroll Alaska has signed up about 80 people in the marketplace.
* YOU'RE READING THIS CRAP, RIGHT, FOLKS? CAN YOU IMAGINE THE MATH OF DIVIDING THE PERSONNEL COSTS AND OTHER COSTS OF THE BUREAUCRACY BY 80 PEOPLE - IN OTHER WORDS HOW MUCH "PER PERSON" PROGRAM COSTS RUN?
Chief Operating Officer Tyann Boling says half the people her insurance agents sit down with have tried to navigate healthcare.gov on their own and given up. “This is not an easy process. I think even if this website was functioning at 100% this would not be an easy process,” Boling says. “This is complicated. If you click on one wrong thing, there’s no back buttons, it can be a really, really nasty process to go through.”
* THERE'S... NO... BACK... BUTTONS...
(*HEADACHE*)
Boling is frustrated with the website, but not as frustrated as Lara Imler. After weeks of trying — and failing — to make her application work, Imler wants a break from healthcare.gov. She never got a packet from her insurance company asking her to pay the first premium. She figures canceling the plan — with the chance to start fresh later — is her best option.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://nypost.com/2013/11/30/the-fdas-crazy-crackdown-on-genetic-testing/
Here’s an interesting fight. On one side we have a group whose motto is “Don’t be evil.” The other side is very different: It’s the federal government.
(*SNORT*)
In keeping with the times, in which presidents enforce whatever rules they feel like enforcing on any particular day, the Food and Drug Administration has added a new dimension to its mission. Now it’s the Food, Drug and Information Administration, because this week it ordered an information source to shut down.
Its opponent is a company called 23andMe, which for six years has been providing consumers with 98% reliable data about what’s in their genes.
All of the sudden that must stop, said the FDA in a letter dated Nov. 22 that effectively ordered the company, which has one product, to shut down.
23andMe, backed in part by Google capital, is run by CEO Anne Wojcicki, who is currently separated from her husband, Google co-founder Sergey Brin. For the last several years, for 99 bucks, its customers have found that they swab some saliva, put it in a tube, send it to 23andMe’s labs and get back information on genetic traits. You may learn that you are predisposed to diabetes or cancer or merely that you lack the gene that causes “asparagus pee.” 23andMe isn’t, it seems obvious, a provider of drugs or medicines. It is simply an information service.
* YEP.
(*SHRUG*)
But the FDA has the power to regulate medical devices, which is the pretext it is using to stop 23andMe.
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Ordering it to stop selling its personal genome service, the FDA declared that the tube “is a device within the meaning of section 201(h) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 321(h), because it is intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or is intended to affect the structure or function of the body.’
* THESE PEOPLE ARE OUT OF CONTROL...
It would seem that 23andMe could simply put the words, “not intended for us in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease” on its website and satisfy the FDA, but we all know that the motto of today’s federales is “We make it up as we go along.”
* YES. UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS INDEED THE CASE IN OBAMA'S AMERIKA.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Stretching for examples of how 23andMe represents a public-health menace, the FDA came up with an absurdity. In its letter to Wojcicki, it cited the possibility that a gene linked to breast cancer, BRCA, could be revealed by 23andMe testing: “If the BRCA-related risk assessment for breast or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, intensive screening or other morbidity-inducing actions.”
* SO COULD A SELF-BREAST-EXAM! THIS IS ABSURD! WHAT GENETIC TESTING LEADS TO IN THE REAL WORLD IS PATIENTS AND PHYSICIANS HAVING MORE INFORMATION IN THEIR HANDS FROM WHICH TO DEPEND FOR FUTURE DECISION-MAKING!
23andMe never claimed its results are 100% conclusive, nor does it advise clients to go get a scalpel and a mirror and start cutting. From the 23andMe.com site: “Learning your genetic risk for various diseases and conditions will allow you and your doctor to focus on the lifestyle changes and preventative steps that matter most for you . . . you will learn about variations in your DNA that can help your doctor determine if you need more or less of a medication compared to most people.”
Using the same reasoning, the FDA might as well shut down WebMd.com because people might type their symptoms into the site, and the response might affect whether or not they choose to go to a doctor. Any computer or iPhone thereby becomes a “medical device” that people can use for the “diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.” Come to think of it, that thermometer you use to check your temperature is pretty dangerous too — it might give you either a false positive or a false negative — but why stop there? You exercise to mitigate or prevent disease, don’t you? Maybe the FDA should take your running shoes and your yoga pants away.
* FOLKS... GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL...
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365101/outbreak-lawlessness-charles-krauthammer
For all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of constitutional norms.
* THE BREAKDOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW...
Such as the one just spectacularly blown up in the Senate. To get three judges onto a coveted circuit court, frustrated Democrats abolished the filibuster for executive appointments and (non–Supreme Court) judicial nominations.
* THIS, BTW, IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF THE BREAKDOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW. RATHER, IT IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, THE DEMOCRATS WILL ALWAYS GO ONE STEP FURTHER THAN THE REPUBLICANS.
The problem is not the change itself. It’s fine that a president staffing his administration should need 51 votes rather than 60. Doing so for judicial appointments, which are for life, is a bit dicier. Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.
* THE PROBLEM BEING... THE COURTS HAVE "EVOLVED" IN THE PAST 225 YEARS TO THE POINT WHERE BEING A JUDGE IS NOW A VERY DIFFERENT THING THAN IT WAS AT THE NATION'S FOUNDING. (BUT I DIGRESS...)
The violence to constitutional norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force — a near party-line vote of 52-48. This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.
(*SAD NOD*)
What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
* KRAUTHAMMER EXAGGERATES... BUT THE POINT REMAINS THAT HISTORY WILL RECORD THAT WHEN IT CAME TO "THE NUCLEAR OPTION" IT WAS HARRY REID AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY... NOT A REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AND REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY... WHICH FIRST "WENT NUCLEAR."
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session.
* AGAIN... I DISAGREE WITH KRAUTHAMMER HERE. THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS... THEY TOOK PLACE WHEN FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE SENATE WAS OUT OF SESSION. (IT WAS A FAUX SESSION IF YOU ASK ME!)
It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the DREAM Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
* YEP. THAT HE DID!
We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
* HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO ALL THE "URGING" HE WANTS, BUT WHEN HE ACTIVELY AND UNILATERALLY FURTHERS VIOLATIONS OF LAW... HE'S CROSSED A LINE.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law.
* THUS... "CROSSED A LINE."
Under ObamaCare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not. The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House pressroom. That’s banana-republic stuff...
* IN MANY WAYS AMERIKA HAS BECOME A BANANA REPUBLIC.
Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone ObamaCare?
(Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”)
This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition).
After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e., in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.
* AS DO FAR TOO MANY RINOs...
Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit ObamaCare coverage requirements.
* FOLKS... WE ARE NO LONGER A NATION UNDER THE RULE OF LAW!
And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal — i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.
* THAT'S OBAMA FOR YA!
At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do, and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
A Senate with no rules.
A president without boundaries.
One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care website are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.
Post a Comment