JG55

 Agreed. Even bystanders where hollering don't hit the officer.. 

I agree tough situation for all concerned. Officer had to draw and shoot. Intoxicated Angry Man lost his mind as well as his life being ________.    Point i was making by posting the video was how fast a situation can turn against you... Be mindful of that..  

The below link is to an article and video of a police shooting from the Kansas City Star.    http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/25/4848650/case-file-reveals-moments-before.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g9wXBkdWEg

I have auto owners no changes . Also when I shopped prices they were less expensive for same coverage compared to farm bureau.

http://imgur.com/gallery/IIYp2lR My niece wanted to show me that she learned how to sign her name... I took advantage of the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnWHC7B34Qw

 Costco donates and heavily supports the Obama and democrats, if that matters to anyone. I still shop there.   I like going to Costco's over Sam's just because it is nicer.  Sam's like Walmart just seems so cramped with merchandise.  I did some price checking on different items and what I found was there was no difference in price between the either on price per use basis. . That doesn't mean that there might not be some differences but all and all they are basically the same in price.  I do like that Sam's will cut meat for you, Costco will not.  

Any chance you could film the attack and destruction. Could be fun to watch.

Not my store,  saw it on the net and thought it was fun video advertising a local business.   It made me LOL.    Just to be clear I have nothing to do with the business. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyuiB7muh0o   :rofl:  

The establishment Republicans are fighting back hard against the conservatives. This will make it harder for the new Ted Cruz/Rand Paul types to win but it can be done. The establishment Republicans where surprised by these guys last time. They don't  plan on being surprised this time. Look how Alexander has already started spending money and getting co-sponsors for his re-election.  Carr will need to go door to door- county by county and be able to explain in a calm articulate voice why conservatism is the way to go.  Seems a lot of so-called faux conservatives can't make the case only the cliches for the misinformed.    For those of us who are complaining about RINOS and the such,  shame on us if we don't put our money and effort where out mouth is.. Don't get sidetracked and hoodwinked again by Faux conservatives, make the effort to find the real conservative and help him get elected.... if it's Joe Carr than support him 

 I vote for the G26

Saturday, the Alexander team announced that Rep. Jimmy Duncan of Knoxville will chair his re-election bid to the U.S. Senate and that the "Honorary Co-chairs" are Gov. Bill Haslam, Sen. Bob Corker, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, Speaker Beth Harwell and Congressmen Marsha Blackburn, Phil Roe, Diane Black, Stephen Fincher and Chuck Fleischmann.   quoted from Nashville City Paper

  I thought i had read that Blackburn was supporting Lamar, is so why would anyone support her. Seems kinda of Rinoesque ? 

I Am Spartacus Posted on August 15, 2013 | 212 Comments I am Spartacus* because for all too long I stayed quiet.  I stayed quiet because baby needed shoes (often literally) and I needed work in a biased field that would blacklist me as soon as they knew my true self. I allowed my loyalties and beliefs to be assumed from external appearances and origins – I allowed them to believe I must be extreme left because I’m female, of Latin origin, and have somewhat more than a Master’s degree in Modern Languages and Literature. (I would go back for the doctorate, I would, but I’m not willing to stay quiet anymore.)  Those years of festering silence weigh within me, and in the scales of eternal justice I’m afraid I’ll get counted with the enemies of Liberty, because I was quiet, I consented. I am no longer quiet. I am Spartacus writ small.  I am Spartacus praying that I never need to stand  physically facing the might of the largest power the world has ever known.  I can tell who would lose. Because of that I am battling in the mind, to avoid the evil hour as long as I can yet. Maybe, if a miracle occurs, to avoid it altogether. I’m fully aware that even in this battle of the mind the consequences can be death or worse.  I’m fully aware that once you identify as an enemy of the utopia to come – or even if you just fall in a category they don’t like – there are a million ways for death to come: in the dark of night, with a bullet to the back of the head, like the Polish officers in the Katyn forest; in public trials like the people who thought “if only Stalin knew”; in the despair of an engineered famine like the victims of the holomodor.  No, we haven’t got there yet, but there are ways for a living death too: anyone know where Nakoula B. Nakoula is?  And we won’t talk of the unjustified hounding of the lady who runs True the Vote.  There are ways to drive you to darkness and despair, even now.  And if they can get away with it, it will only get worse. Here's the link to the rest of the post. http://accordingtohoyt.com/2013/08/15/i-am-spartacus/

Posted this because it is one of the best descriptions , I has seen describing the flaws and the farce that Is the Senate bill. The article takes the bill apart point by point. POSTED ON JULY 10, 2013 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IMMIGRATION, TOM COTTON TOM COTTON HAMMERS SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL Our friend Rep. Tom Cotton has ripped the Schumer-Rubio bill in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Because that legislation is so scandalously flawed, Tom maintains that there should be no House-Senate conference. In other words, House Republicans should not pass any bill, regardless of its merits, unless the leadership agrees to no conference. As the title of Tom’s op-ed states, “It’s the House Bill or Nothing on Immigration.” I understand that Tom forcefully advocated this position today at the closed-door House Republican immigration strategy meeting. Tom’s op-ed is behind the WSJ’s subscription window, so I have taken the liberty of reproducing it in full. It’s well worth your attention: America is a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws, and the U.S. immigration system should respect both traditions. Unfortunately, the Senate immigration bill undermines the rule of law without solving the country’s illegal-immigration problem, and it will harm American workers. The House of Representatives will reject any proposal with the Senate bill’s irreparably flawed structure, which is best described as: legalization first, enforcement later . . . maybe. This basic design flaw repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty law, which, according to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, President Reagan considered the biggest mistake of his presidency. The Senate bill ensures, as did the 1986 law, that we’ll have full legalization but little-to-no enforcement. The Senate bill’s advocates argue that its implementation of enforcement measures, such as extending the security fence on the border with Mexico, will precede and be a “trigger” for opening a path to citizenship. But these advocates are conflating legalization and citizenship. America has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants, who chiefly desire the right to live and work here legally. The Senate bill legalizes them a mere six months after enactment. In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a “fine”? Yes, but it’s less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors—or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day—even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving. This approach is unjust and counterproductive. We should welcome the many foreigners patiently obeying our laws and waiting overseas to immigrate legally. Instead, the Senate bill’s instant, easy legalization rewards lawbreakers and thus encourages more illegal immigration. What’s worse, the bill’s illusory enforcement mechanisms won’t stop this illegal immigration. Effective enforcement requires a border fence, a visa-tracking system to catch visa overstayers, and a workable employment-verification system. The Senate bill fails on all three fronts. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated 700 miles of fencing, but the Senate bill merely restates this long-ignored requirement without mentioning specs or locations. It also doesn’t prohibit delay-inducing lawsuits from fence opponents. Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it’s not “appropriate.” Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter. That’s because fences work. The fence built in the San Diego border sector dramatically reduced border crossings there from 100,000 per year to just 5,000 per year when it was completed in 2006, a 95% drop. Earlier this year, Israel reduced illegal crossings at its Sinai border to two per month from 2,000 per month by completing a fence. Why doesn’t the Senate bill mandate an effective fence? The answer, plainly, is that the intention is not to build one. Similarly, the Senate bill restates a 17-year-old requirement in federal law that the government have a functioning visa-tracking system. But it delays implementation for six years and increases by millions the visas available for low-skill immigrants. This will lead to more illegal immigration by visa overstayers, while depressing wages for young and lower-skill Americans. The bill also delays implementation of the employment-verification system by at least five years and doesn’t require mandatory effectiveness levels for the system. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recognizes that these enforcement measures will be largely ineffective. The CBO estimates that, even with them, annual illegal immigration will decline by only one-third to one-half compared with current projections. After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today’s 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we’re doing is setting up the next amnesty. But it’s actually worse because even these modest enforcement measures likely won’t happen. Any future Congress can defund these programs, as has happened too often. The bill grants enforcement discretion to the bureaucracy in hundreds of instances. Opponents can tie up the bill in court for years, which would block implementation of key enforcement measures but not the path to citizenship. This is exactly what happened with the 1986 law: legalization now and enforcement never. And what’s to stop President Obama from refusing to enforce this law? After all, he just announced he won’t enforce ObamaCare’s employer mandate because of complaints from big business. If that’s his attitude toward his biggest legislative accomplishment, imagine what he’ll do when big business complains about, say, an employment-verification system he never wanted to begin with. If enforcement fails, what’s more likely: that legalized persons won’t become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required “triggers”? If past is prologue, we know the answer. Given all this history, the American people rightly doubt that the government will finally enforce immigration laws. Thus the best solution is to abandon the Senate bill’s flawed framework and proceed with an enforcement-first approach that assures Americans that the border is secure and immigration laws are being enforced. The House is already pursuing that goal with committee-approved bills such as the Legal Workforce Act, which expedites the employment-verification system, and the SAFE Act, which empowers local and state law-enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. If the full House approves such bills, they should be sent directly to the Senate for consideration. They should not be handed to a conference committee so that they can be reconciled with the Senate bill—the Senate and House measures are irreconcilable. Instead, the Senate must choose whether it wants common-sense, confidence-building immigration legislation this year. If the Senate insists on the legalization-first approach, then no bill will be enacted. Meanwhile, the House will remain focused on addressing ObamaCare, the economy and the national debt—which, after all, Americans overwhelmingly regard as higher priorities than immigration reform. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/tom-cotton-hammers-senate-immigration-bill.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVeo6QMcbW4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.redstate.com/2013/06/20/corker-hoeven-schumers-wimp-brigade-rides-to-the-rescue/ Corker-Hoeven: Schumer’s Wimp Brigade Rides to the Rescue   By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  June 20th, 2013 at 06:42 AM  |  1   WIMP  (wmp) n. A subatomic particle that has a large mass and interacts with other matter primarily through gravitation. n. Informal. 1. a weak, ineffectual, timid person. Political Representing a state like North Dakota and scoring a 47% from Heritage Action while working overtime to save Democrats and pass a dying amnesty bill Imagine if Democrats elected senators from blue states in the northeast who worked behind closed doors with Ted Cruz to craft national right to work legislation or a compromise plan to privatize Social Security?  That’s about as likely as Lady Gaga joining the Family Research Council. Yet, we continue to elect Republicans like John Hoeven who work behind the scenes to carry water for the progressives.  They gravitate to one-sided compromises that sell out our Republic like flies on ethanol. By now, you’re probably asking, John who? Yes, Hoeven has been awfully quiet since being coroneted in 2010.  Aside for the occasional noise about the Keystone Pipeline, he doesn’t do much in the Senate…other than vote to raise the debt ceiling, fund Obamacare, implement an internet sales tax, support earmarks, increase food stamp spending, and vote for every subsidy under the sun. Now he has taken it upon himself to serve as the less charismatic appendix to Bob Corker in saving Schumer’s dying amnesty bill.  After being outspent exponentially in this fight by the insidious open borders lobby, the truth that We the People have disseminated on this issue is taking its toll on Schumer and his allies.  Nobody in the House wants to touch this bill with a 10-foot pole, and the pathway to 60 votes is diminishing every day. In come Corker and Hoeven to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and negotiate a poor-man’s Cornyn compromise with the Gang of 8.  In their ineluctable desire to pass an amnesty bill with the requisite window dressing, the new wimp coalition is pushing yet another phony compromise.  Yes, because constituents from states like Tennessee and North Dakota are flooding their offices with calls demanding “give us amnesty or give us death.”  According toPolitico, this deal would be a watered-down version of Cornyn’s amendment, which Erick already exposed as pathetic: The emerging deal would soften Republican requests for a strict requirement that 90 percent of illegal border crossers be apprehended to hit a “trigger” toward a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but would provide an unprecedented increase in border security funding and officers and a guarantee on finishing the fence along the Southern border, sources said. They also say they will double the border patrol.  But what good is more border agents if the administration ties their hands?  Most importantly, all the triggers in this plan will occur after legalization.  So somehow we are supposed to believe that they will actually implement these enforcement triggers after they already have their amnesty.   Needless to say, Schumer calls their work “really productive.” Folks, at some point we need to start gaming out red state Senate races far in advance in pursuit of a real Republican instead of reflexively thinking about picking up the state with just any R.  It is that mentality – a lazy tendency to pick the first candidate with high name recognition months in advance – which has saddled us with a bunch of prairie progressives from the red states in the Great Plains. This cycle we have opportunities to pick up seats in Nebraska and South Dakota (and maybe some other states nearby).  We can easily settle for the candidates with the highest name ID without lifting a finger to change the dynamic like we did in Texas with Ted Cruz.  We can easily support another progressive like Mike Rounds to run in South Dakota and have a John Hoeven  clone in the Senate; another man who interacts with Schumer-matter primarily through gravitation to Democrat deal making.  But what’s the purpose of electing a Republican who will use his party ID as leverage to allure fellow Republicans into the Schumer trap? If these people can’t even stand strong on such a bedrock issue from a state where the people sympathize with our views, they can’t be trusted on anything. It’s time to paint the Great Plains red.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/liberals-prepare-to-sell-out-americas-working-class.php POSTED ON JUNE 14, 2013 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN IMMIGRATION LIBERALS PREPARE TO SELL OUT AMERICA’S WORKING CLASS The Gang of Eight’s immigration bill is nothing less than a frontal assault on America’s already-struggling blue collar population. Forget border security–the bill would be an abomination even if it could magically guarantee that upon passage, not a single person would ever again cross the border illegally. The bill is a disaster because of the legal immigration it will authorize, estimated at somewhere between 30 million and 57 million above current levels over the next ten years. And these new legal immigrants will be overwhelmingly–like, 90%–low-skilled and low-wage. What will that do to the employment prospects and wages–if they’re lucky enough to be employed–of America’s already largely underemployed working class? Unless the Gang of Eight can repeal the law of supply and demand, it will unemploy millions of them and drive down the wages of the rest. Which, of course, is why some business interests are so enthusiastic about the bill. It sometimes seems that Jeff Sessions is the only voice of sanity in Washington on this issue. Today he said:   There are a lot of bad economic arguments being made by supporters of the Gang’s proposal. Their most common theme is that adding 30 million to 50 million new immigrants will increase the country’s GDP. Good Lord, I should hope so! That would be the case, unless every single one of them was unemployed. But that isn’t the standard. If millions of new immigrants do nothing but sell each other tacos and clean each others’ houses, GDP will rise. The question is, will per capita income rise for those who are already here, before the massive influx of tens of millions of new (or newly legal) immigrants?Everyone understands that a large increase in the number of immigrants increases the GDP: more people means more overall consumption. But the question is: who benefits from such a large surge in the available supply of labor into a country? If you suddenly provide legal status to 30 million immigrants, most of whom will be lower skilled, it will simultaneously increase the GDP while reducing per-capita GDP—and reducing the wages of the current workforce. It will hit the lower-income worker particularly hard.   Fortune 500 companies will always enhance profit margins from the availability of an increasing supply of lower-skill, lower-wage labor. Any discussion of increased GDP from more foreign workers, therefore, must also look at whose wages are being reduced and whose jobs are being lost. As Dr. Borjas, the nation’s leading expert on this issue, reported in 2012, recent immigration has reduced the wages of native workers by 5.3 percent, and reduces the incomes of native workers by $402 billion per year. At the same time, the incomes of businesses would go up by $437 billion per year. A report from Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies found that unskilled immigrants were taking jobs in the construction sector, a sector many young Americans seek to enter. Right now, nearly 1 in 2 African-American teenagers looking for work cannot find a job. In Washington, D.C., 1 in 3 youths are living in poverty. In Detroit, 1 in 3 households are on food stamps. Is our top economic priority really to provide immediate work permits to 4 million people who overstayed their visas, as this bill does? In addition to the amnesty, the Senate bill proposes, over the next decade, to at least double the annual flow of guest workers while tripling the number of mostly lower-skill permanent legal immigrants. These staggering increases come at a time when 21 million Americans are struggling to find full-time employment. This is not only an abstract economic issue but one of great human importance. Will this bill make is easier, or harder, for out struggling residents to find a job? Will this make it easier, or harder, for those living in poverty to get a raise and work their way into the middle class? So while the authors of this bill will inevitably tout the fact that adding 30 million immigrants to the nation will increase the GDP, they won’t say it will be at the expense of struggling U.S. workers—immigrant and native born—who are trying to support their families and climb into the middle class. This is what Dr. Borjas has found. The Senate immigration bill would be the biggest setback for poor and middle-class Americans of any legislation Congress has considered in decades. We all believe in immigration and will continue to be the most generous nation in the world when it comes to welcoming new people into our country. But a reasonable level of immigration that promotes assimilation, upward mobility, self-sufficiency, and rising wages is in the best interests of both U.S. workers and future immigrants themselves. Polls show the American people overwhelmingly reject a dramatic surge in immigration and, as usual, their common sense is right. The grand plans of business interests for a large increase in immigration may indeed increase the businesses’ income, but it will further expand the wealth gap as incomes for struggling workers will decline. A friend who is an expert in the field and follows the immigration debate closely comments on the economic fallacies employed by the bill’s proponents: That pretty much sums up the Democratic Party, but why on Earth are any Republicans on board with their program? Total output is a completely false measure of prosperity…only output per capita matters, with output relatively broadly distributed based on marginal contribution to output. On the total output measure China is about to surpass the U.S…but with over 4 times the population, and with their economic growth achieved at the cost of massive over-crowding, environmental destruction and pollution it is absurd to think China is more prosperous than the U.S. It’s all of a piece–extensive growth and aggregate GDP, rather than intensive growth–GDP per capita. And at any price, including huge unprecedented population increases. Unstated, but in the background, is the notion that since we “need” greater population, and greater population growth, for prosperity, defined as aggregate GDP growth, and if we can’t have higher native fertility rates, then let’s have unlimited immigration of highly fertile 3rd world immigrants! It will really crank up the GDP growth engine! Think of all the taco stands and Charles Ponzi nail salons!   But the real not-so-hidden agenda is the entitlements regime–unfunded, un-means tested, and unsustainable, all exacerbated by a population shift to relatively more elderly but NOT by itself from change in total population. They would rather reinforce the entitlements regime with huge demographic change, actually grossly swindling the New Brown Americans as they take their places as the newcomer Ponzi suckers, than reform the system permanently. If they did reform the system, the entire political structure of the New Class would be seriously damaged. They would rather sell their birthright than suffer a loss of political power.

Wake Up! <12:50 AM 06/11/2013 Mickey Kaus 1 inShare 1 Mickey Kaus In 2007, John McCain’s “comprehensive” immigrant-legalization bill failed after opponents flooded the Senate with calls, shutting down the switchboard. Despite considerable press hype, the bill didn’t even muster a majority on the crucial cloture vote. It won’t be that easy this time. For one thing, they have a better switchboard, I’m told. For another, the Republican consultants–e.g. Gillespie, Rove–who helped Mitt Romney lose the 2012 election have taken their own failure as an excuse to push what they’ve wanted all along–a business-pleasing immigration policy guaranteeing a supply of inexpensive labor from abroad and a stream of campaign donations to pay Republican consultants. It beats rethinking the rest of the GOP agenda. In fact, despite all the talk of polarization and Citizens United, the big money in the immigration fight almost unanimously favors a bipartisan, legalization-first bill. Kochs included. The GOP donor class is asserting itself, Ross Douthat has noted. It’s spotted what it thinks is an intersection of crude self-interest, high-minded tolerance, partisan strategy and libertarian philosophy. Ads by Google One of the more influential members of this “donorist” class is Rupert Murdoch, which means that FOX News has for all intents and purposes switched sides, giving immigration “comprehensivists” a monopoly in the MSM–five networks to none. As goes Murdoch, so goes Hannity. If you are a Republican who worries that a flood of low-skilled immigrants would drive down wages and make America an uglier place, where the rich have cheap servants but even diligent unskilled work doesn’t afford a life of dignity–well, we’re sorry. We’ve booked our Republican for the panel this week–Senator McCain! A member of the famous Gang of 8! He always puts on a good show, don’t you agree? (If you are a Democrat who worries about immigration and low wages, you probably don’t exist, and certainly don’t hold elective office. In 2007, populist Dems like Senator Byron Dorgan still walked the halls. Now they’ve been driven out–or underground–by the lure of ethnic identity politics). Worst of all are distractions that weren’t around in 2007. Probably through sheer bad luck, a series of dramatic scandals has captured the attention of both the press (which would ordinarily be celebrating the Gang of Eight’s epic achievement) and conservatives, who would ordinarily be kicking up a fuss. The distraction factor applies with special force to right-wing talk radio hosts, who instead of mobilizing opposition are pontificating in a daze of either overconfidence (i.e., ‘Democrats want this bill to fail’) or fatalism.You’d think Rush Limbaugh–a rare non-Fox conservative star, who understands what is at stake– might have a good deal of time to spend on the Gang of 8 bill the day before its first test vote in the Senate. You would be wrong. Rush talked mainly about the NSA. If the conservative public were paying attention, the flaws and crude deceptions of the Schumer-Rubio bill would be common knowledge. They are so obvious, especially in the border enforcement area, that even Sen. Rubio pretends to be dissatisfied with his own bill. Byron York reports that many conservatives are shocked when they learn that Rubio’s bill doesn’t secure the border before legalization. It doesn’t! ”First comes the legalization,” as Rubio boasted yesterday. That’s been obvious for months, but now it’s news. (The border security requirements, themselves evanescent, would only prevent legalized illegals from moving to upgrade from legal status to getting green cards and citizenship.) It’s time to wake up! Conservatives–while you are (rightly) excited about NSA snooping and partisan IRS corruption, the Congress is about to change America in a more profound, permanent way right under your noses. In the process it will hand President Obama the major second term achievement that will help him overcome the very scandals that are distracting you–or, rather, make his survival or re-ascendance unimportant. He will have won. Democrats will have shaped the future electorate to their own liking. They’ll have transformed what America is. Please forget about Benghazi and Cincinnati and Edward Snowden’s girlfriend for a minute and pay attention to the main event. You have one weapon in your arsenal that can trump the big money behind the Gang of 8 bill (S.744). That weapon is fear. It’s not as if the Republican elite has suddenly been persuaded that an amnesty-first immigration bill is a good idea, after all. They’ve always preferred amnesty. They were just too scared to pursue it. What stopped them was the prospect of swift retribution from the electorate, not limited to the Republican primary electorate. This fear hasn’t disappeared. The elites were scared of voters before and they can be scared again. This applies to red state Democrats like Mark Pryor and primary-able Republicans like Lisa Murkowski. It applies to fence-sitters like Lamar Alexander. It even applies to those like Kelly Ayotte who have now committed to supporting instant legalization (despite having campaigned against it). If voters now make their displeasure with Ayotte known–well, politicians at the top have a way of backtracking from unpopular stands. That’s how they got to the top. At the very least Ayotte’s difficulties would serve as a cautionary example to others. There will probably be several big votes–most likely on a House-Senate conference bill–before any amnesty can become law. Speaker Boehner will have to make a crucial decision on whether to break the “Hastert Rule” and try to pass a bill in the teeth of his own caucus’ strongly held views. In every case, fear will be the crucial factor. If Senators fear losing their office if a bill becoming law–and they tend to be highly risk-aware–it often has a way of dying without any fingerprints on it (which is arguably what happened in 2007). There’s a list of Senate phone numbers and emails here. Numbers USA has a handy page that lets you send a fax here–and a phone option here. The Capitol switchboard is 202 224-3121. Ignore the f—ing scandals for a few days and save the country from Chuck Schumer. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/wake-up/#ixzz2VvOnyXnY

I used this guy for a flip. He did 1300 sq ft of prefinished bruce hardwood. Did a good job  http://douglasflooring.weebly.com/

  The NRA has only given him a B+ rating, not exactly a glowing endorsement.   In the exchange with O'reilly, why did O'Reilly think Rubio was for registration if he is not. There's more there than the "lapse of the moment in a rapid fire exchange" you mention.   I think Rubio is a good talker but not the straight walking conservative many think he is.     Exactly right !!!!   And these conservative talk show hosts are going to get egg on their faces if they start milly mouthing about him..

Rubio has blocked border enforcement  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/rubios-history-of-obstrcting-immigration-enforcement.php   Rubio is a polished speaker like someone else we know. You have to listen to what he says then read between the lines to get the try meaning.