Doug Ross @ Journal: November 2013

Saturday, November 30, 2013

RADICAL: MIT Scientists Invent Brand New Form of 3-D Printing

Two words: Mind. Blown.

3-D printing has become the rallying cause for a rising generation of designers, engineers, and architects. There seems to be few limits to what the technology can do or what range of products it can spawn, from lampshades to lunar bases. Amid all the hype, however, it’s easy to neglect one key factor: Printing capabilities are directly wedded to the size of one’s printer...

...MIT-based researchers and instructors Marcelo Coelho and Skylar Tibbits teamed up to tackle this very problem... The solution is breathtakingly simple. By merely folding the object you want to print, you can jig it to fit into a small-scale printer... [they use] a dense cluster of thin but sturdy polymer links packaged in a three-dimensional puzzle that can be intuitively assembled.

...The chains are programmed with multidirectional notches, so that they can be latched together at right angles. Assembly is quick because each chain can only bend in the way it's designed to, thus removing a large obstacle that plagues most 3-D-printing ventures. The final product, then, will look exactly as it does on your computer screen but will be structurally sound enough to stand on its own in physical space. In the process, Tibbits suggests, scale becomes virtually, if not entirely, irrelevant...

Please don't tell any Democrats about this innovative new technology, because if they find out about it, I'm betting they'll invent 12 new ways to tax it.

Hat tip: BadBlue Tech News.

THE DUPLICITOUS CHRIS CHRISTIE: Man Who Refused to Oppose Obamacare Now Says It Was ‘A Train Wreck Anybody Could’ve Seen Coming’

Anybody could have seen it was a train wreck except him, apparently.

New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie slammed Obamacare as a “train wreck” in comments made at a Jersey radio station on November 25.

...Christie was asked why he didn’t join in on the state side and create a state exchange for Obamacare in New Jersey.
“This is just an awful law that made no sense and that’s why I didn’t get into a state exchange. And no, I have absolutely no regrets. In fact, I’m really glad that the train wreck’s not mine, it’s his,” the Governor said of Obama’s signature healthcare law.

Christie went on to slam the President as an example of someone who has never run anything in his life.
“This is a disaster. And it’s a train wreck that anybody who’s managed anything, ever in their lives could have seen coming.”
Governor Christie also said that the whole Obamacare program is a “failure.”

Christie's comments are, at best, disingenuous.

This is a man who wouldn't lift a finger to fight Obamacare, as Mark Levin observed at the time.

It costs nothing for the taxpayers of NJ to join the other states challenging Obamacare. All he needs to do is add his name on behalf of NJ to the other states. He didn't take the lead and now he won't bring up the rear. And just because Corzine ducked doesn't mean he has to. For all the loud bravado, on this hugely important issue he's a wimp. While others are doing all they can to kill Obamacare, spending the time and effort in federal court trying to protect the citizens of their states, Christie does nothing...

...Keep in mind that Obamacare creates massive new expenses for states via Medicaid. It's fiscally irresponsible for Christie to sit on his butt and do nothin. Is this what they mean by frank talk? Maybe his supporters inside the beltway can help us better understand while they're touting him for president.

I can't wait for the 2016 election season to heat up.

Then we can hear the nation's biggest electoral loser of 2012 -- Karl "2% Victory Rate" Rove -- whine that Christie is "the only one who can win".

Which will be as accurate as his predictions about Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008.

Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Larwyn's Linx: Surrender in Geneva; The Problem of Selfishness

Send us tips! Bloggers: install a Larwyn's Linx widget. Get real-time news, 24/7, at BadBlue.

QOTD: "In Geneva, the participants came to the talks with different goals: The Americans and Europeans wanted an agreement; the Iranians wanted nukes. Each party got what it came for. Before the deal, the mullahs’ existing facilities were said to be within four to seven weeks of nuclear “breakout”; under the new constraints, they’ll be eight to nine weeks from breakout. In return, they get formal international recognition of their enrichment program, and the gutting of sanctions — and everything they already have is, as they say over at Obamacare, grandfathered in.

Many pundits reached for the obvious appeasement analogies, but Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal argued that Geneva is actually worse than Munich. In 1938, facing a German seizure of the Sudetenland, the French and British prime ministers were negotiating with Berlin from a position of profound military weakness: It’s easy to despise Chamberlain with the benefit of hindsight, less easy to give an honest answer as to what one would have done differently playing a weak hand across the table from Hitler 75 years ago. This time round, a superpower and its allies accounting for over 50 percent of the planet’s military spending was facing a militarily insignificant country with a ruined economy and no more than two to three months’ worth of hard currency — and they gave it everything it wanted. " --Mark Steyn

Friday, November 29, 2013

DON'T LET THEM CHANGE THE SUBJECT: Seven Lies and Seven Liars of Obamacare

Guest post by Herman Cain

Seven lies from seven Democrats about ObamaCare, just so you don't forget the matter at hand.

When you're as desperate as Barack Obama is right now - with your approval ratings plunging and people no longer even finding you to be an honest person - you're willing to try almost anything to make people focus their minds on something else. Well, I should qualify: That's what you do if your priority is your own political viability. If you're a real leader, you man up and solve the problem. But we don't have a real leader. We have Barack Obama.

So he is desperately trying to change the subject from ObamaCare to just about anything else. As Dan wrote this morning, he sent John Kerry off to get a deal with Iran at any cost so the two of them could wave the piece of paper and pretend they had accomplished something. At the same time, they are once again pushing an amnesty bill that they hope will lock in illegals as loyal Democrat voters fix the immigration system.

But none of these are serious policy initiatives. Their purpose is simply to change the subject from ObamaCare, which is quickly turning into a political crisis of historical proportions for the Democratic Party. And we're not going to let them do it. We're not going to let them make you forget that Democrats lied through their teeth about letting you keep your policy, about your premiums going down, about letting you keep your doctor and your hospital, about what the whole thing would cost . . . I could go on, but you get the idea. So in the spirit of refreshing your memory, I herewith present seven lies from seven Democrats, at least one of whom thinks she should be the next president.

I think you know what to do with these:

1. Max Baucus
"If you like what you have you can keep it."

2. Harry Reid
"Those fortunate enough to have health insurance will be able to keep theirs."

3. Mark Begich
"If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of (inaudible), you keep it"

4. Mary Landrieu
“While those individuals who like the coverage they already have will be able to keep their current plan. This is a very accurate description of this bill before us - The Patient Protection and Affordability Act. It's very accurate."

5. Hillary Clinton
"You keep the insurance you have if you like it."

6. Nancy Pelosi
"If you like what you have and you want to keep it, you have the choice to do that."

7. Barack Obama
“If you like your health care plan you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

Liars. Every single one of them. The only conceivable defense against this charge would be for them to say that they trusted Obama, and if that's what the did, they're fools. But I don't buy it. They're all liars, and that should never be forgotten, especially not at a time when the president is so desprately trying to change the subject to anything else.

Follow Herman Cain at CainTV.com

CHARTS - ALL 50 STATES ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN EVER: Race-, Gender-, Ethnicity-panderers hardest hit

Last month Cornell political scientist Peter Enns published an interesting op-ed in The Washington Post.

Recently on this blog, Larry Bartels drew attention to an astonishing fact: the public is as conservative as it has been in 50 years. To highlight this point, Professor Bartels presented the public’s policy mood — James Stimson’s measure of public support for government programs—from 1950 to 2012. In a recent article, Julianna Koch and I generated measures of policy mood for each state from the 1950s to 2010 (our measures our here). What we found is that the conservative opinion shift Professor Bartels highlighted repeats itself in every state.
The figure below presents one illustration of this pattern. Here we compare the policy mood in each state in the early 1960s (hollow dots) and in the early 2000s (solid dots). Higher values indicate a more conservative policy mood. In each instance, the solid dot is to the right of the hollow dot, suggesting that the public’s policy mood has moved in a conservative direction in every state...
...Surprised by this uniform shift across states, we examined two questions about government that the American National Election Study asked in the early 1960s and 2000s. Because we were dealing with much smaller sample sizes, we analyzed regions instead of states. Again, the data suggest that all regions of the country have shifted in a conservative direction.
The first question, reported in the left panel of the figure below, asked whether the government in Washington should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living or whether the government should let each person get ahead on their own. The fact that the solid dots (2002) are to the right of the hollow dots (1964) supports the view that all regions of the country became more conservative. Interestingly, in 1964, the South appears to have been the most supportive of the liberal response (the government should ensure a job and a good standard of living). The second question, reported in the right panel, asked whether or not the government in Washington was getting too powerful. Across all regions, we again see opinion has shifted to the right.
Importantly, the public has not moved in a conservative direction in all issue areas. For example, support for same-sex marriage has been increasing across all states. It is also worth noting that our findings on the 1960s and 2000s hides important shifts in policy mood between these periods, such as increased policy liberalism during the 1980s. However, when it comes to support of government programs, the net conservative shift is clear...

This the kind of data that drives me nuts. The Republican establishment keeps insisting that we nominate "centrists" who are "the only one[s] who can win". Karl Rove got his guy in 2008 in John McCain. Karl Rove got his guy in 2012 in Mitt Romney.

Now these same geniuses -- John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Rove among them -- insist that only by pandering to different ethnic groups can the GOP succeed. Their latest push is a hugely unpopular Amnesty bill.

They are either ignorant or lying.

According to Pew Research (PDF), the percentage of Hispanics voting Republican in presidential elections has always traded in a very narrow range.

Instead of pandering to different segments of the American population, why don't we nominate a confident, articulate candidate with truly conservative values?

Wouldn't people of all races, religions and ethnicities find the principles of liberty, private property, and economic opportunity incredibly attractive? Yes, of course they would: blacks, Hispanics, whites, Asians, you name the segment, every open-minded American would gravitate to an eloquent candidate with conservative, free-market principles in his or her blood.

Instead of nominating conservatives, Rove and his claque of losers keep pushing "moderates". Unfortunately, GOP "centrists" aren't differentiated enough from the progressive Democrats to energize conservatives and the Reagan Democrats.

Now Rove is pushing a new set of moderates like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, both of whom appear to support Amnesty.

In 2012, Rove's American Crossroads fundraising operation won less than two (2) percent of the races it invested in.

Why would we listen to losers like these? I, for one, reject their pablum unconditionally.

Hat tip: BadBlue News.

The Hoover Myth

Excerpted from Jonah Goldberg's invaluable The Goldberg File

My friend and AEI colleague Nick Schulz has done something I don't have the intestinal fortitude to do: Read John Judis's New Republic cover story on the economy. Apparently Judis believes he's cornered Mitt Romney on the Achilles heel of Romney's -- and the GOP's -- economic agenda. Judis confronted Romney and asked
him:

I want to ask you something about history. You know, when Herbert Hoover had to face a financial crisis and then unemployment, his strategy was to balance the budget and cut spending, and that made things worse. When Roosevelt came in, unemployment was twenty-five and went to fourteen percent by 1937. With deficits. Aren't you repeating the Hoover mistake?

Ah, the "Hoover Mistake," capitalized for your eternal reifying pleasure.

If you ever doubt that liberal historians have imbibed the partisan talking points of the New Deal, you need look no further than the maligned figure of Herbert Hoover. Judis's characterization is simply what "everyone knows" to be true about Hoover's response to the Depression of 1929. I say "the Depression" and not "the Great Depression" because it took FDR, the Tony the Tiger of liberalism, to make it Grrrrrrrrrrreaaat!

The problem is that almost everything "everybody knows" about Hoover is wrong. This creates a real challenge for conservatives and libertarians because while Hoover the man was very impressive, Hoover the Progressive Republican was, well, a Progressive Republican. As anyone who's read Liberal Fascism should remember, Hoover was all-in on Wilson's war socialism, serving as national food administrator; he considered "supper . . . one of the worst pieces of extravagance that we have in this country." He promulgated the Little American's Promise, a pledge card every child was expected to sign:

At table I'll not leave a scrap
Of food upon my plate.
And I'll not eat between meals but
For supper time I'll wait.
I make that promise that I'll do
My honest, earnest part
In helping my America
With all my loyal heart.
For kids who couldn't read yet, he offered them a nursery rhyme:
Little Boy Blue, come blow your horn!
The cook's using wheat where she ought to use corn
And terrible famine our country will sweep,
If the cooks and the housewives remain fast asleep!
Go wake them! Go wake them! It's now up to you!
Be a loyal American, Little Boy Blue!

Hoover was such a card-carrying Progressive, guess who considered running on his ticket as vice president in 1920? Wilson's toady at the Navy Department, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

But none of that matters. Hoover was a crazy, heartless libertarian, don't you know anything?! I mean, just look at what a spendthrift he was during the Great Depression! Hoover mistake, Hoover mistake, Hoover mistake! I'm not listening to you!

Well, if you tell a certain breed of libertarian that Hoover was a budget-balancing fiscal tightwad, you'll get punched in the face, at least figuratively. Here's Tim Taylor:

Hoover's budget strategy over his term of office was not to balance the budget. The budget ran a small deficit of -.6% of GDP in 1931, followed by a much larger deficits of 4.0% of GDP in 1932 and 4.5% of GDP in fiscal year 1933 (which, as Judis points out at a different point in his discussion, started in June 1932 and was thus mostly completed before Roosevelt took office in 1933).

Let me say it clearly: Hoover didn't cut spending. In nominal terms, federal government spending went from $3.3 billion in 1930 to $4.6 billion in 1933. As Taylor notes, given the price deflation that came with the crash, the real federal outlays nearly tripled from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 8.0 percent of GDP in FY 1933.

In the spring of 1930, the New York Times said of Hoover's efforts, "No one in his place could have done more" and "very few of his predecessors could have done as much."

But, hey, maybe Hoover's reputation as a spendthrift of Jack Fowlerian proportions (Jack, as you should know, is the head suit here at NR; he'd object but he's busy searching for a 10 percent off at Arby's coupon I told him was in the corner of a round room) is derived from his effort to cast himself as a responsible steward of the public fisc. Er, no. Here's Hoover defending his record in his acceptance speech at the 1932 convention as he prepared to run for another
term:

Two courses were open to us. We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put that program in action. Our measures have repelled these attacks of fear and panic . . . We have used the credit of the Government to aid and protect our institutions, both public and private. We have provided methods and assurances that none suffer from hunger or cold amongst our people. We have instituted measures to assist our farmers and our homeowners. We have created vast agencies for employment.

Perhaps because I am so cynical, I'm no longer shocked that liberal historians and Democratic politicians still cling to the Hoover myth, but what is amazing to me is how liberal economists who swear they are empiricists and fact-finders propagate it as well. Paul Krugman is constantly invoking the Hoover myth. So is Brad DeLong, who has driven many decent students of economic history to the point of sputtering rage with his insistence that Hoover was a "liquidationist."

The Hoover myth endures for a simple reason -- it has to. Because otherwise the FDR myth will tip over.

Subscribe to Jim Geraghty's MORNING JOLT and Jonah Goldberg's G-File at National Review Subscriptions

Will the West withstand the Obama presidency?

Guest post by Martin Sherman

The really chilling aspect of the Obama-incumbency is that it is difficult to diagnose whether the abysmal results it produced—including the recent Geneva debacle—reflect crushing failure or calculated success

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. – Barack Hussein Obama, Cairo, 2009

For anyone who understands that the US Constitution is not a Sharia-compliant document –neither in letter nor in spirit – it should be alarmingly apparent that the Obama-incumbency is a dramatic and disturbing point of inflection in the history of America and its “Western” allies. By “Western” I mean countries whose political practices and societal norms are rooted in Judeo- Christian foundations in a cultural rather than in any religious sense.

The devil is not in the details

One does not have to be an expert in Islamic history or culture, or be familiar with the details of Koranic verse or Hadithic texts to realize that Obama’s characterization of the alleged affinity between America and Islam is entirely detached from any reality on the ground–particularly with regard to the matters he enumerates in the preceding excerpt from his 2009 Cairo speech.

All one has to do is follow the daily news that routinely convey reports of the Hobbesian horrors that flared across Syria, Libya, Egypt and other Arab countries once the Leviathan “cap” of tyranny, holding these bestial impulses in check, was “uncorked.”

Worse, in some parts of the Muslim world, blood curdling atrocities have become so commonplace they hardly make the news at all.

For when it comes to issues such as justice, progress, tolerance and respect for societal and/or religious diversity, a yawning chasm divides America from Islam. Indeed, American society, as a product of the values embodied in the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian values it draws on; and Islamic society as a product of Sharia and the Muslim values it draws on, are irreconcilably exclusive and antithetically opposed to one another.

No amount of convoluted scholarly debate on the intricacies of Islamic scriptures or benign interpretations of their “real” significance, can change the gruesome facts that prevail throughout Muslim-majority societies – from West Africa to East Asia.

Larwyn's Linx: Ten Thanksgivings Ago

Send us tips! Bloggers: install a Larwyn's Linx widget. Get real-time news, 24/7, at BadBlue.

Nation

Ten Thanksgivings Ago: Black Five
The Obama who Stole Thanksgiving: Daniel Greenfield
"Well-regulated": David Hardy

Obama finds a way to ruin Thanksgiving: Cal Thomas
Thanks for the Heritage: Protein Wisdom
Spread the Word: Western Rifles

Communist Party USA: protect Obamacare by crying “Racism!”: John Hawkins
Krauthammer mocks ‘creepy,’ Soviet-like Obamacare Thanksgiving ad: BPR
Hillary Backers Begin to Realize She the Truth: Daniel Greenfield

Economy

America’s Coastal Royalty: Victor Davis Hanson
Broken Families Dragging Down Growth: Michael Barone
Nuclear Response to Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option: CFP

Scandal Central

The Vindictive Totalitarian Hand of the Obama Regime: iOTW
Issa accuses Obama IRS appointee of ‘deliberate’ distortion: BPR
An outbreak of lawlessness: Krauthammer

The IRS Continues to Punish Obama’s Enemies: Nice Deb
Cancer Patient Who Spoke Out Against ObamaCare Now Being Audited: Daniel Greenfield
NYC alarms with notice: ‘Immediately surrender your rifle’: Times

Climate & Energy

Environmentalism Is the New Racism: Daniel Greenfield
As temperatures drop, talk of ‘global cooling’ heats up: Twitchy

Media

Why Reporters in the U.S. Now Need Protection: Paul Steiger, ProPublica
MSNBC Just Proved They Take Direct Orders from Barack Obama: TruthRevolt
The Nadir of Hackery: R.S. McCain

WW2 Navajo Code Talkers Appear in Redskins Jackets; Liberal Heads Explode: Daniel Greenfield
Thank You, Senator Cruz: William A. Jacobson
RUSH: Communism Today, In Large Part, Is The Democrat Party.: Daily Rushbo

Is It Too Soon To Say “I Told You So”?: Ann Coulter
Larry Elder: Media Ignoring Knockout Game Due to Racial Implications: Albert Merrick
These Wild Claims By The President Suggest He May Not Be Sane: Allison Martinez

World

WHAT? Obama Tells Netanyahu To Shut Up About the Iran “Deal”: Minority Report
Dem: Obama 'fear-mongering' on Iran: Blake Neff, The Hill
Irish Citizens Rise Up Against Islamic Invasion: Rick Wells

Don’t forget to give thanks to our troops on Thanksgiving [photos]: Twitchy
A Vastly Changed Middle East: Caroline Glick
Hatin’ on the drones: This Ain't Hell

Sci-Tech (courtesy BadBlue Tech News)

The Mystery Is Resolved: GIFs, Crazy People and All That Malarkey: Vitaly Friedman, Smashing
Is your TV spying on YOU?: Guy Adams, Daily Mail
Ever want to be invisible? It could happen soon in America, unless Canada beats us to it.: Ben Terris

Cornucopia

The Best Quotes of Cardinal Arinze: The Young Apostle
Happy Thanksgiving email For Friends and Family: MOTUS
Shoppers gone wild: Black Friday fights at Walmart, Best Buy, and malls: Twitchy

Image: Inflation, Shortages, and Social Democracy in Venezuela
Today's Larwyn's Linx sponsored by: JOIN ME IN FIRING MITCH McCONNELL!

QOTD:

Followed obama's advice to discuss #obamacare during turkey dinner. Family consensus was obama is worst Pres in US history. @DrMartyFox
— Don Fryer (@Donfryer) November 29, 2013

Thursday, November 28, 2013

After Undermining Efforts to De-fund Obamacare, GOP Establishment Ready to Jam Amnesty Down Our Throats

Courtesy of Mark Levin, we find that the Republican establishment is urgently trying to find ways to pass an amnesty bill.

Is immigration reform dead?

"No, immigration reform is going to happen," Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House Republican whip, told CBS's Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation."

"But it's going to happen in a step-by-step method. And I will tell you, the president came out and supported that the other day." ...

...The current immigration system is "broken" and "needs to be fixed," McCarthy said on Sunday. "Forty-two percent of everyone that's here illegally came here legally," he said, a reference to people who overstayed their visas. "We need to fix this system."

President Obama has said "there's no reason why we can't get this done before the end of the year."

What's driving Amnesty? Here's a hint: it starts with the letter M and ends with the letter Y. And has cash in the middle.

After decades of political quietism during which Silicon Valley entrepreneurs expressed libertarian sentiments but mostly voted Democratic and funded Democratic candidates who shared their elite-class social and political views, Silicon Valley has finally mobilized—for immigration expansion. In April Mark Zuckerberg, with help from Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, and venture capitalist John Doerr, launched FWD.us, a $25 million-and-counting lobbying group aimed at lawmakers in both political parties. FWD.us, unlike other pro-immigration groups, isn’t much interested in amnesty for illegal immigrants or easier border-crossing for lettuce-pickers. Its chief interest is in expanding the H-1B work visa program for “highly skilled” workers that’s mostly used by tech employers to hire temporary guest-workers from foreign countries, usually from East and South Asia….

...The anti-H-1B faction has a response to that: statistics. One of them, from an April 24 briefing paper produced by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, is that only one out of every two U.S. college graduates with a degree in engineering or computer and information science is hired into those fields, despite a doubling of the number of homegrown computer-science graduates between 1998 and 2004. Others argue that employers mostly don’t use H-1B workers to fill “best and brightest” jobs, but, rather, relatively low-paying routine programming positions, and that the most avid users of the visas are India-based outsourcing companies that use the visas to provide a few months of U.S. training for their employees, who then return to India.

Most damning of all is that, despite persistent claims of tech-worker shortages, programmer salaries overall have inched only slightly higher from what they were 20 years ago: from $60,000 a year to about $75,000 a year in 2012 dollars, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Engineers fare somewhat better: The average annual starting salary at top valley employers such as Google is about $100,000, with the median for experienced engineers at about $150,000...

Put simply, the oligarchs in Silicon Valley are spending millions lobbying Congress to import cheaper technology talent. They don't want to pay American wages, they want to pay Indian (or Chinese, or wherever) wages here in the states.

As for McCarthy, Cantor, Boehner, Karl Rove and the rest of the GOP Old Guard? They want some o' that Silicon Valley Cash!

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is, as usual, on top of the imminent debacle:

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions wants wealthy CEOs to butt out of immigration policy.

“America is not an oligarchy… A Republic must answer to the people,” Sessions said today, in a direct response to President Barack Obama’s latest effort to get wealthy California CEOs to increase their support for his unpopular push for increased immigration... “Congressional leaders must forcefully reject the notion, evidently accepted by the president, that a small cadre of CEOs can tailor the nation’s entire immigration policy to suit their narrow interests..."

...Obama has been working with top CEOs since summer to push the Senate’s immigration expansion that would welcome 30 million immigrants, plus millions of temporary guest workers, over the next decade...

The push is being supported by numerous billionaires, including New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Fox News’ Rupert Murdoch and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg... Since 2007, progressive and business groups have spent more than $1.5 billion on advocacy and lobbying to pass an immigration bill, despite massive unemployment, stalled salaries and negative polls. Other business groups have been pressured by the federal government and progressives to provide rhetorical support for the push.

So once again I ask Karl Rove:

Say, @KarlRove - next time you're on @FoxNews please show us on your whiteboard how the @GOP wins without the conservative base. Schmuck.
— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 1, 2013

I give thanks for many things in this great country, but the Republican crony capitalists ain't among them.