Trump Scoops CNN

Monday CNN reported a breaking, exclusive story: the FBI had tapped the phones of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager, during the campaign and after the election. Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower. It has also come to light that Trump foreign affairs advisor, Carter Page, was also surveilled. It is a near certainty that Manafort and Page spoke to Trump during the surveillance period. And since almost anyone in the Obama Administration appears to have had the authority to have the identities of individuals who were "inadvertently" surveilled unmasked, Trump was also almost certainly indirectly wiretapped.

Back in March, President Trump claimed that President Obama had his phones tapped during the campaign. As a result of this new revelation, looks like he was probably right. Sorry CNN, Trump scooped this story 6 months ago.

Obama's DACA Was Brilliant - Unconstitutional but Brilliant

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was a brilliant move by President Obama. Even though he publicly said at least 7 times (it is documented on video) that he legally couldn't do it, he went ahead and eventually did it anyway. It took no effort on his part. He didn't have to expend any political capital. He didn't have to work with Congress or do anything to convince anyone. Since no one was actually being deported anyway, it did nothing to change anyone's life.

What DACA did do was create enormous goodwill for Obama and the Democrats. What it did do was  provide cover for Congress by preventing them from having to take a stand on the issue and possibly suffer the consequences at re-election time. What it did do was create a first step on a path to citizenship for 800,000 illegals and future Democrat voters. What it did do was violate the Constitution and create a situation that has now forced Republicans to do the right thing but end up appearing to be "the bad guys" for following our Constitution.

DACA was brilliant. Brilliant but unconstitutional yet still manages to achieve so many Democrat goals.

Racial Politics Creates Racism

There is a principle in leadership that says if you want someone to do something, make them think it is their idea.

Think about how things have come full circle since the 60's. The Democrat Party was for segregation, the party of the Klan, Jim Crow laws, etc. All that ended for the most part but after 8 years of racial politics under Obama, this year African Americans began demanding white-free zones on campus and Harvard actually had an all black graduation ceremony i.e. segregation! What next? Will they demand their own water fountains and bathrooms and to have their own section in the back of the bus?

Seems like the old time Dems are getting what they wanted after all by making modern African Americans think it's their idea. And Republicans are the racists? Fascinating!

Fallout From Nuclear Option Won't Settle Where Dems Think

Any nuclear option will have fallout and the big question is always "Where will it settle?" In forcing the nuclear option in the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, the Democrats have miscalculated where the fallout zone will be. Rather than landing on the Republicans and hurting Trump, it will come to rest squarely on them.

In their petulant effort to get even with the Republicans for not allowing Obama'a Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to come up for a vote, not only will it not prevent Gorsuch from becoming an associate Justice, it will pave the way for potentially three more conservative Trump appointees who might have been effectively opposed had they not caused this new precedent. This was a wasted maneuver over a seat on the bench that would not have changed the balance of the court anyway because conservative Gorsuch will be replacing the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
A much better strategy would have been to oppose the next Trump nominee who will most likely be replacing a retiring liberal Justice Ginsburg which could effect the balance of the court. Further, although it may play well with their far-left base, it is equally likely to shore up Trump's base.

Additionally, because the Supreme Court was such an important topic with Independents as well as Republican in the last election, this latest move by the Democrats, may push the Independents to support Trump and jeopardize the 2018 re-election chances for several more moderate Democrats in states that went for Trump in 2016. This would ultimately give the Republicans even larger majorities in the House and Senate making opposing their agenda even more difficult.

As the saying goes, "When your opponents are busy destroying themselves, don't get in the way."

Obama Commutes Sentence of Chelsea Manning

Today President Obama commuted the sentence of confessed spy and traitor Chelsea "Bradley" Manning. WTF? Can anyone explain the rationale behind this?

Does Mr Obama ever do anything that is in the best interest of the United States?

Do liberals ever do anything that doesn't indulge the perverted?

Man I cannot wait for this eight year nightmare to end!

Another Worthless Obama Statement

President Obama made yet another addition to his list of worthless and forgettable statements. He claimed had he been able to run again, he would have beaten Trump. Well he couldn't; he didn't and we will never know if he was right. It's just more wind from a president hoping for a legacy of more than just being the first African American President of the United States. Unfortunately, legacies are created throughout a presidency not in the final days of one. This latest claim will go down in history along with "Hope and Change" and "Today is the day when the rise of the oceans will begin to slow..." as just more empty words if they are remembered at all. Mr Obama's legacy will be one of squandered opportunities to change America for the better and  "fundamentally transforming" the country for the worse.

The Day After: Return of the Prodigal Sons (and Daughters)

Now that the 2016 election is over and Donald Trump is the president-elect, the long parade of "Never Trumpers", Republican establishment types, and RINOs are slinking back home like the "Prodigal Son." Hopefully for them, Mr. Trump will be as magnanimous as the father in Christ's parable.

2nd Grand Obama Policy Deception

Well we now have proof that a second of President Obama's accomplishments is based on a big fat lie. First we learned from Jonathan Gruber, the economist and consultant paid $400k to help create and sell Obamacare to the American people, that we were intentionally deceived. As reported by Marc A. Thiessen in the Washington Post on 17 Nov 2014, "...there are now seven Gruber videos, in which he mocks the “stupidity” of American voters and boasts of the Obama administration’s ability to take advantage of it. In a new video that surfaced Friday, Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

Now we have an Obama Administration official admitting that the people (and Congress apparently) were lied to regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal. In a New York Times profile of Obama Administration National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Rhodes himself details the level deception and lies told to the country in order to get support for the deal.

If progressive ideas are so good, why do they so frequently require some initial lie? The power of propaganda!

Pundits Left and Right Continue to Misinterpret Anti-Establishment Movement

One should not take what I am about to suggest as an endorsement of Donald Trump. I think the pundits are failing to correctly interpret the anti-establishment movement we are witnessing and the continuing primary success of Trump, so I'd like to pose a different take on what is happening. Here goes.

When the presidential primary process failed in 2008 as the political "eHarmony" Conservatives had hoped it would be and gave them a candidate who was not a perfect ideological match, they stayed home on election day. The result was Obama. The scenario repeated itself again in 2012 and President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

In the off-year elections, Conservatives tried to remedy the situation by electing senators and representatives who promised them 100% of what they wanted. Unfortunately, those they sent to Washington delivered 0% of what Conservatives were hoping for. They didn't oppose the progressive agenda at all. [Incidentally, when President Obama succeeds in closing the prison at GITMO (notice I say when not if), he will have secured his legacy as one of the most successful presidents in US history for implementing his agenda. Ultimately, history will show that these policies were terribly damaging to America and the rest of the world but this is a topic for another time.]

Conservatives learned a tough lesson from the 2008-2012 election cycles. If you need a 100% ideological match in order to support a candidate or stay home, you get an "Obama". They elected people in the off-year elections who promised 100% and delivered 0%. The result was they got 100% of what they didn't like and nothing they did. They should keep this in mind this November or they may get another Obama term in the form of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is obnoxious. He is abrasive. Trump speaks in generalities but Trump loves to win. Even if Conservatives, and even many Independents, only agree with 50% of what he says, they will get 50% of what they like and maybe only 50% of what they don't. That puts them miles ahead of where they are now. One must also keep in mind that nearly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to 20% who call themselves liberal or progressive.

The pundits from all points on the political spectrum can continue to explain away Trump's primary performance based on their hopes, biases, and faulty polling data but if they do not start factoring in the root cause of the anti-establishment ire I have suggested, they will continue to be wrong.

ISIS vs ISIL

It has been suggested by some that the use of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) by the president and his administration is somehow meant to be a poke in the eye to Israel. Maybe but I really don't see it. A much simpler explanation in my opinion is that it is just pretense. We have a very pretentious and professorial man in the White House. It is just his way of continuing the narrative of how smart he is. It is his way of saying, "Hey all you dummies. I know most of you are not smart enough or educated enough to understand the term "Levant". Why don't you look it up. Then maybe you will be smart like me." Another example of  Obama's pretense is the way he pronounces certain words with their foreign pronunciation. Hey just a suggestion but unless you are speaking in that foreign language a la the equally  pretentious, John Kerry, use the English pronunciation. And while you are at it, call the radical Islamists in that region what the rest of the world calls them either ISIS or maybe even DAESH. Drop the pretense for heaven sakes.

Compromise Syrian Refugee Plan

Lest my readers and especially my critics think I am unsympathic to the plight of the refugees trying to flee the civil war in Syria, I offer the following plan that would provide safety to them while at the same time ensure our own security.

Accept the 10,000 refugees - Muslims, Christians,  Jews, Yazidi, etc.

Settle the women and children (all girls and boys under 15 years old) with the general US population. Place the men in refugee camps where they will be safe while we take the time to properly vet them to ensure they have no ties to terrorism. No time limit will be placed on this process - it takes as long as it takes. If they become impatient, we can offer to send them to another safe location in a different country.

Those that successfully assimilate into American society - learn basic English, have found productive work, have no criminal record, and are not on any public assistance - will be able to become permanent residents and even seek naturalization. Everyone else will be repatriated once it is safe.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise. How many, liberal or conservative, agree?
Be the first to comment by clicking on "Post a comment" below.

Obama's Keystone Decision Purely Political

So President Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline deal but what did this actually accomplish?

Well first of all it succeeded in ruining a deal with Canada - our close ally, good neighbor, and number one trading partner. It succeeded in killing potentially thousands of good, high-paying jobs for for mainly middle-class Americans. It might not be the numbers that proponents claim but there can be no denying that jobs that would have otherwise been created have just been prevented from seeing the light of day.

It prevented additional greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. Wait! No, actually it won't do that at all. As a matter of fact, it will probably result in a net increase in greenhouses gases. How you may ask? The answer is perfectly straight forward. The Canadian tar sands oil isn't going to be left in the ground. That much is certain. The Canadian government indicated that they wanted a decision from the U.S. government so that if America chose to not go through with the deal, Canada could pursue other options. Most likely the Canadian government will sell the oil to China. At best, that would be a net sum zero. However, that won't be the case. Petroleum refining in China is far less environmentally friendly than in the U.S.. Further, when the crude oil is converted into its end products, those that will be consumed in China will be used far less efficiently there than they would be had they been sold and consumed in the U.S. or Europe. Remember the scenes from the Olympics in Beijing? The smog there was so thick that one could barely see and people has to wear masks to protect themselves from the filth in the air. Events even had to be delayed or moved because the air was unsafe for the athletes to breath.

At least the environmental impact to America will be less. This was the major objection to the project by environmentalist groups. Again, actually it won't. Since the prevailing winds go from west to east, the pollution originating in China ultimately makes its way to America. Additionally, it will be potentially more dangerous as the risk of oil spills will increase dramatically. The reason again is simple. Crude not going through  a new, modern Keystone pipeline will either be transported by rail, truck or existing older, less safe pipelines. Once that crude makes it to the Canadian coast, it will be loaded on old, single hull construction Chinese tankers which, if involved in an accident such as a collision or grounding, will result in catastrophic spills. Moreover, rail and truck transportation is far riskier than pumping crude through a modern pipeline with its numerous safety features such as automatic monitoring and shutdown. Environmental activists like liberal billionaire Democrat donor, Tom Steyer (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/politics/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-environment.html; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/billionaire-has-unique-role-in-official-washington-climate-change-radical/2013/02/17/23cdcf4c-6b26-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html) argue that the Keystone project posed a risk to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides drinking water to millions of people, plants, and animals. However, based on this concern, the route of the pipeline was changes to mitigate the danger which led to both the EPA and the State Department as well as other government agencies approving the project. 

It is pretty clear that killing the Keystone deal was more about politics than economics or the environment. For example, Mr. Steyer has fossil fuels and green energy business interests that stand to gain greatly from the death of Keystone and he used his influence to help elect candidates who opposed the deal. Steyer's supporters on the Left will be quick to point out that Mr. Steyer has divested himself from those businesses but aren't those the very same people who said Vice President Cheney was personally benefiting from the Iraq War because of his past association with Halliburton even though he no longer has any dealings with the company?

Politics - pure and simple! 

Spike (Putin) and Chester (Obama)

This old Warner Brothers cartoon reminds me of the relationship between Putin and Obama.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg

Boehner is Just Plain Wrong

When the Democrats won the White House in 2008, they also had the House and the Senate. When it came to objectives, they got everything they wanted. In 2010, the Republicans took back the House but still the Democrats were able to achieve their objectives. Then in 2012, the Republicans were able to retake the Senate and still the Democrats were able to find ways to push through their agenda. So on the Sunday morning talk shows when Speaker Boehner claimed there was no way the Republicans could defund Obamacare or block the President's illegal executive amnesty for illegal aliens, he was just plain wrong. The Democrats proved time and again that if you want something bad enough, you can find a way to get it regardless of the odds. They are just better politicians and parliamentarians with better leadership.

The problem is that unlike the Democrats who spend time well in advance plotting, planning and scheming to find Plans A, B, C and D in order to achieve their goals, under Boehner's lack of leadership, the Republicans wait until the last minute, lay out a single often not well thought out strategy, and when it meets the first bit of opposition, they preemptively give up. They just don't seem to have the same desire to win that their opponents have.

Whether it is due to a lack of courage, commitment, laziness, limited imagination, or any number of other possible faults, the responsibility for the failure of the Republicans to achieve any of their goals or even block any of the Democrat's misguided and dangerous agenda items, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker. It was a complete failure of leadership and it cost him his job as it should have.

Boehner isn't alone in his lack of leadership. Senate Majority McConnell probably isn't far behind him on the way out. Again, completely justified due to his abject failure to lead effectively. Hopefully, those elected to take Boehner and McConnell's place will have the ability to lead so that when the Democrats complain about the obstructionist Republicans, there will actually be some evidence to support their accusations.

Really, Hillary?

Last week shows once again why Hillary's campaign is in a tailspin.

On Monday, in a speech at the University of Northern Iowa, Clinton said the following about campus sexual assault: “I want to send a message to all of the survivors, Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.” This was an obvious effort to try to regain support from women which has plummet to 42%. What makes this so remarkable is her history on sexual assault victims. After all, she was the architect of the "Bimbo Eruption" strategy used to defend her husband, President Bill Clinton, against numerous claims ranging from unwanted advances by Paul Jones, assault by Kathleen Willey and a rape by Juanita Broaddrick. Perhaps the difference in her mind is none of the accusations against her husband were reported to happen on a college campus?

Then came the dust up about Trump not correcting an attendee at a town hall meeting when he claimed that President Obama is a Muslim and not an American in his lead up to his question. Hillary wasted no time attacking Trump for not correcting the man's assertions that Mr. Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the United States. What makes this so ironic is that during the 2008 Democrat primary, Mrs Clinton gave a lukewarm defense of Mr. Obama when questioned about his religion by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. In her response to Blitzer, Clinton said she had no reason to believe Obama is a Muslim - hardly a strong statement of support. Further, it has been widely reported that the 2008 Hillary for President Campaign was the source for the birther movement that claimed Obama was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. 

What a deeply flawed candidate. What a troubled campaign. What a misguided party.

The Delusional Iranian Nuclear Deal

Apparently only the Obama Administration and a small band of "true believers" actually consider the Iranian nuclear agreement an actual deal. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals don't, most of Congress (just not enough to over-ride a presidential veto) doesn't, the Israelis don't, 81% of the American people don't and most importantly, the supposed partner in the deal, the Iranians themselves, don't think this is a deal. When asked about any aspect of the deal that could be considered beneficial to the U.S. (by definition, both sides of an agreement must receive some benefit in order to make something a deal.), the Iranians adamantly deny that it is part of the agreement. It baffles me how anyone can believe that there is an agreement when one of the parties doesn't agree to any of the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to deter the progressive, "we are just smarter than you are" crowd. Their delusion is complete.

Another Doomed Nuclear Agreement

After seeing Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris hit several consecutive back-to-back home runs in the early 1960's, fellow Yankee great, Yogi Berra quipped, "It's like deja vu all over again." This comes to mind as I consider the recent nuclear agreement with Iran because we have seen this before. In 1994, a similar agreed framework was adopted that was supposed to freeze and eventually eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. We were told that the agreement would guarantee that North Korea would not produce a nuclear weapon by putting in place strong control measures, a sophisticated monitoring  regime and unfettered inspections of all North Korean military and civilian nuclear sites. In exchange for these concessions, the North Koreans received billions of dollars worth of fuel, food and economic aid. The North Koreans began cheating on the agreement almost immediately and by 2006, they had tested their first nuclear device.

Yesterday, President Obama announced that Secretary of State Kerry successfully negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran after nearly 18 months of talks. The agreement doesn't provide for the 24/7 anywhere/anytime inspections that we were promised; it didn't require Iran to renounce its call for the destruction of the state of Israel and in fact required no concessions from the Iranians at all. In addition, the deal ends the sanctions against Iran and frees up nearly $150 billion in frozen assets to a country that is still listed as the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Do we really think that this money will be used to improve the life of the Iranian people and not to spread terror and chaos throughout the world?

If you go back and read what was reported by in the press about the North Korean nuclear deal or listen to President Clinton's announcement of the agreed framework, one could substitute Obama for Clinton and Iran for North Korea and the two situations are nearly identical. Why does anyone believe the ultimate outcome of the Iranian nuclear agreement will be any different than that of the North Korean deal?

Doing the exact same thing and expecting a different outcome has been described as one definition of insanity. Ten years from now, Iran will have nuclear weapons. This agreement almost guarantees it and believing otherwise is clearly crazy!

The Illogic of Democrat Ebola Logic

Healthcare professionals who are compassionate enough to travel halfway around the world, live in 3rd world conditions and risk their own lives to work with Ebola patients will be discouraged from doing that in the future by a 21-day quarantine requirement? Do Democrats really think that makes sense?

You have to be in direct contact with someone infected with Ebola to contract the disease, right? So healthcare workers who will be up to their elbows, so-to-speak, in the blood, vomit, and feces of infected patients, don't need to be quarantined but our military personnel who won't be in direct contact with infected patients do? What???

Requiring a 21-day quarantine for healthcare worker returning after treating Ebola patients in west Africa, would be disrespectful to them but it isn't disrespectful to our returning troops. Really?

Calling for travel restrictions to affected countries and quarantines for those coming from those countries is anti-science, right? It is also implied that it is racist. So I guess all these countries and organizations are backward, racist, anti-science types.  
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
Côte d'Ivoire 
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon 
Gambia 
Kenya 
Mauritania
Mauritius 
Namibia
Nigeria
Rwanda 
Senegal 
Seychelles
Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states – Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe South Africa on 21 August restricted entry for all non-citizens travelling from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The government subsequently clarified that this was not a blanket ban and could be waived for 'absolutely essential travel'.
South Sudan 
Antigua and Barbuda
Belize
Colombia
The Dominican Republic  
Guyana
Haiti
Jamaica
Panama
St Kitts and Nevis
St Lucia
St Maarten
St Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
North Korea
Australia 
Air France
The Togo-based carrier Asky Airlines
Arik Air (Nigeria)
Gambia Bird
Kenya Airways  
British Airways  
Emirates Airlines  
Korean Air
Senegal Airlines
Royal Air Maroc 
Brussels Airlines.
Racist, anti-science bastards ALL!

Appointing lawyer, non-doctor and political fixer, Ron Klain, as Ebola Czar makes perfect sense, right? By the way, has anyone seen him lately? He hasn't been to any of the meetings.

A Few Thoughts on Sgt Bergdahl Situation

1. As a policy, the US military doesn't try to apprehend AWOL service members or those who desert yet we tried to find Bergdahl who seemingly was either a deserter or AWOL - there is a disconnect here. 2. With all the evidence that he willingly left his post, the news media compulsively questions the honor of the soldiers who did their duty but who are critical of Bergdahl. They also speculate about the leadership of Bergdahl's commanders without any hint of there being a problem. 3. Susan Rice says Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Really? He left his guard duty post endangering his fellow soldiers. He willingly sought out the enemy. The enemy's effectiveness suddenly increased after Bergdahl disappeared. Coincidence? Maybe. Who did he served with honor and distinction? Certainly not the US! 4. Two of the Taliban prisoner released were accused of crimes against humanity by the UN for killing thousands of people. Do you think the media would let a Republican president get away with that? 5. If Osama bin Laden had been taken to GITMO rather that turned into fish food, would the Obama administration have traded him as one of those returned for Bergdahl? Think about it. Honestly think about it you liberals out there!!! 6. This administration couldn't even track the guns they illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious fiasco. Do you really think they can track those 5 released terrorists? 7. The Taliban immediately released a statement saying they would make abducting Americans to use as bargaining chips for other prisoners a priority. Surprise!!!! 8. The story about why the trade was made, in typical Obama administration fashion, seemed to change every other minute. All parents recognize this as an indication of lying. These are just a few thoughts. I could go one but why bother. This scandal has already been replaced by another.

Democrat High Fives All Around for Meaningless ACA Enrollment Number

There is an old military saying, "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's easy to forget that the original mission was to drain the swamp." For the Affordable Healthcare Act this seems very apropos. The liberals won't remind you but the original goal of healthcare reform was to insure the alleged 40 million Americans who didn't have health insurance. Now for a little math: 7.1 million divided by 40 million is 17.8%. Would most reasonable people consider this success? This is just one of the many ACA "alligators". Even if one believes the number provided by the Obama Administration, there is no way to draw any real conclusions from the enrollment number reported Monday following the end of the first open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) but that didn't stop the President and his fellow Democrats from crowing and doing a victory dance at a press conference. Funny how Mr. Obama didn't take any questions from the media - as if they would have asked any tough ones. In order for the number to have any meaning, we need to know the details. How many of the 7.1 million didn't previously have health insurance and how many of that number had to replace the insurance that they had and were happy with but lost because the new law 'declared' it inferior? Well the Administration won't tell us. There are many reports that millions of Americas were in this situation. Rand, the highly respected think tank, has determined that 6.3 million Americans lost their insurance due to the ACA. That would mean that only about 900,000 of the 7.1 million are actually newly insured. And how many of those who had to replace their insurance now have higher premiums and higher deductibles? Uh, well we don't know. How many of the supposed newly insured have actually paid their first premium? Again, we don't know but can one really be consider enrolled if you haven't paid? What about the percentage of the 7.1 million enrollees are having their new insurance subsidized by the government or how many people have been added to the Medicaid rolls? Again, no answers are forthcoming. Why not? When you have a program that encompasses one sixth of the U.S. economy, it is essential to set up a mechanism to accurately assess its effectiveness. You need metrics and getting those metrics would have been easy to get, if they had only asked these questions on the website but they didn't? Why? The answer is because they didn't want to know. This is precisely why conservatives hate big government programs like this. One would have to be ignorant, profoundly stupid or an ideological zealot to believe that the enrollment figure is any indication of success at all. If you are among the believers, you now have the facts, so you are down to two choices. So which one are you?