Put a name to the FAIL: Obama Arab Spring, Obama IRS, Obama Recovery, ObamaMedia

I've got something figured out here, and I'm really excited about it. It is time for some name changes.

It seems to me, where Prezzy Barry O is involved, if a problem doesn't have his name on it, he will not take any blame for it. None. It's Bush's fault. It was the video (Benghazi). It was the weather system. It was the House's fault (shutdown, budget not being passed, etc., etc).

But if his name is on it... it seems even the ever-conceited Obama can't pretty talk his way out of it. OBAMACARE is creating a climate where insurance companies are tossing folks overboard like buckets of water on a sinking ship. Democrats who are up for election aren't thrilled, nor are former Democratic officials. And Obama had to apologize for it. Like, literally said "I am sorry."

SORRY? What a guy. He insisted, 24 times, and there's even content on WhiteHouse.gov that IF YOU LIKE YOUR COVERAGE YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR COVERAGE. PERIOD. But he's sorry. Oopsie!

I'm sorry I ever spanked my kitten for clawing the underside of my foot at night. That's something to be sorry over. People have lost their insurance, a Mr. Obvious outcome of the way Obamacare so infringes on segments of the insurance market. And he's sorry.

The problem of millions losing their insurance is just the latest lameness, of course. It's in addition to lots of other problems with the law and it's policies. It's expected to almost universally raise rates for insurance, not lower them. Plus, there's the unimpressive performance that is known even by those not paying much attention: the failed Healthcare.gov site booting millions off it; in one state, Tennessee, merely 600 people had signed up as of this week; any number of felons could be taking personal financial data over the phone as Obamacare "navigators," because there is no criminal history screening for the position.

The problems with the Affordable Care Act, mind you, were widely expected problems, and widely predicted problems. People chose to ignore it, including the majority of news outlets.

Luckily, I've figured it out. This is what has to happen: We name the IRS, Benghazi, the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, jobless claims, the jobless recovery, the debt, the budget deficit, the ensuing doctor shortage, the lack of a federal budget, NSA data mining, and media spying tactics, after Obama.

Maybe we should name the mainstream media after Obama, too. Heck, much of the media has managed to be the Obama media for the last six years, haven't they?

Maybe if we name all of these things after Obama, then he'll be cornered into owning up to what's going on with them, too.

That's no bullObama. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Very American, Tea Party Republicans

This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan

MORE FAKE BLAME: It's almost entirely the Republicans' fault we have political discord and federal economic problems. Oh yeah?
Aside from the helping-nothing partisan bias and rampant mass media affection for sloppy budgeting, the tragically disinterested and ignorant (the nanny state lovers among which the Democrats are fully invested in pandering to), and the feckless "I wanna be on the smooth talkers' side" fanboy-ism among otherwise seemingly healthy population, there's this:

Obama called GW Bush's efforts to lift the debt limit "un-American" in a lengthy lecture about how terrible it is back when he was a senator and our fiscal situation was far less dire -- thanks to the Bush and Obama agendas, however, it is worse.

But Obama has seen to it that it got much more worse, while he and the Democrats had all the cards. In Jacksonville, Fla., recently, as Sunshine State News spelled out, "Obama boasted of 'halving the deficit.' That means every year [of his administration] the government has spent FAR MORE than it took in but now the OVERspending has diminished yet STILL IS MUCH HIGHER than the highest deficit that occurred under [GW Bush]. That's his (OBAMA'S) measure of success?"

Uh, yes it is? 

What else is there to brag about, but backing out of Iraq (leaving a mess: how very hopey changey and caring that was, Mr. President) and killing bin Laden (ooo, no other president would have signed off on that, what a big man)? What else: ObamaCare? That isn't a success and probably won't be, because the very propaganda about it deceives everyone and the nearly all the mass media IGNORES THE GORILLAS PANTING IN THE CORNERS.

One example: the WH and nearly every story I stumbled across does not mention -- and certainly aren't doing it clearly, if they do -- that the deductibles under Obamacare's "low-cost" health coverage plans are ENORMOUS. Like, around $3500 or $6000 per year, to start. So, are we just wanting to have the poor to pretend they have insurance that means something, like the poor were allowed to pretend they could afford to buy a house under a horrendous 1990s federal mortgage program?

The unseemly propaganda machine behind ObamaCare seems to me to be simply a multilayered, purposefully confusing pressure sales effort to badger anyone who's breathing, a citizen, and not insured (or insured and looking) into getting this subsidized insurance. As if those who use ERs for general medical care will no longer do so, just like that, in a matter of years. Problem solved.

Nope. Still going to happen.

We need to change the system, and Obama deserves respect for being idealistic enough to put health care reform out front back in 2008-09. But too much about ObamaCare is just bureaucratic and regulatory carpet-bombing of the medical industries, hurting professionals, certain types of jobs, various providers, small businesses, and even the economy as a whole. Health care is often claimed to be 1/7 to 1/5 of the entire economy.

Yet, Obama and the Democrats REFUSE to consider adjustments to that one-party law -- no Republican voted for ObamaCare. The Democrats are casting outrageous names and phrases against those who have refused to accept no for an answer from the White House, regarding fiscal compromise. That is the White House and Democratic leaders compromising? How so, exactly??!

ObamaCare's estimated costs have risen so fast, and it's tie-in with the growth of the IRS (what's the IRS got to do with health care otherwise, for crying out loud?) is so ominous, that it seems obvious that it is more a government growth plan than a help to citizens. It will mostly build federal and state bureaucracies and burden a chunk of medical industries and not really "save money" for government or industry, or help poor and uninsured people. Why is this OK with people? Lack of awareness? Is it the desire to adore the U.S. President, no matter what? Is it a blind belief it will help the poor?

Don't discard all that is ObamaCare, but work it into something... less pro-government.

But maybe too many Americans are no longer in favor of America. A recent poll showed that the huge majority of people in the U.S. think government is supposed to control the people. Guess what: America was founded on the idea that government isn't supposed to do that. Ever heard of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Look it up if you haven't. Government is supposed to be servant, not master, in America. Kinda the reason why we busted Britain's chops in the 1700s -- too much elitism in government. 

There's no reason to stop piling regulations onto private industry if the public and the industries don't push back. So, who's pushing back?

In the case of ObamaCare, it looks like it's primarily some House Republicans who are treated like the unwanted stepchildren of a miserable dysfunctional home, by the crusty, nanny-state bureaucrats they are acting out against. This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan.

Tea Party Republicans are traditionalists, not radicals, not extremists, except by contrast to the sad state of politics in America today. Their views are simple: limited government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. In other words, more freedom for the people, not for the government to control the people. That's radical? I would think desiring MORE government would be the extremist leaning in America. 

If there were something big worth celebrating out of the Obama White House, why would the Democrats' top echelon of leaders -- for starters, Obama, Reid and Pelosi -- be tossing around half-arguments, practice in so much schoolyard name-calling and peddle in such outright untruthful propaganda about Obamacare, the shutdown and the fiscal realities of today?

Name-calling, you ask? Yes, name-calling. How about the terms "anarchists" and "extremists", and the phrases "taking hostages" and "gun to the head"? It that meant literally? Of course not. Is it still absurd to use? Yes, it is. Apparently, Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (of "just die, and die quickly" ObamaCare rhetorical infamy from his first Congressional term) has opened a school for crazy-talk. Or is it Ed Schultz? Maybe Reverend Wright?

If you don't think that these fringe-worthy phrases from the heart of the Democrats are desperation, then you should just return to your previous state of apathy, distraction and unawareness, because you're just not paying attention. How about "Jihad"? A Democratic congressman (who I won't name because I never heard of him before and hope I don't hear of him again) called Tea Party Republican actions to fight stubborn Obama with equal stubbornness a jihad against ObamaCare. At least he said  an intangible not that it was a jihad against people -- the congressman was more civil than Obama, Reid and Pelosi, as a result.

People elected Obama because they wanted change. But it seems they didn't want healthy change, just more of the nanny state, irresponsible spending, un-American (as Obama himself put it years ago) deficit spending that will turn America into the next has-been world power in another generation or two.

Let Obama be the one to blink for a change. Force him to bend for a change. Instead of claiming he's trying to compromise in silly, baseless sound bites, actually have Obama sit at the table to really, truly compromise, in the spirit of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and other less rabid political dogs. Obama's easily agitated ego won't allow him to do this without a full-force, duck-and-cover excuse to cover him, but that will at least be fun to watch.

Seeing Obama be a tad fiscally conservative will be a lot more fun than seeing the political orphans in the House GOP get beat up and kicked to the street by their less principled party members and Democrats.

Let the insanity continue, and pray that each sides relents a bit so our fiscal mess won't become even worse. Go on, play chicken with the debt limit, use fiscal conservatism to push some of the left's buttons. Let Obama think about being the president under whom America failed to pay its bills, if he so chooses. Because it won't matter who we blame today. He'll be remembered for it. Let the most stubborn one, Obama, be forced to bend to some of what the political minority in the federal government wants. Other, less cynical and shrill presidents have done so. No reason to Obama should win every time in his chosen game of highly cynical political tactics where tax dollars are concerned.

This country was designed the way it was so that a simple majority rule is weakened by the lesser force of minority opinions. That's part of how the Founders assured that a monarchy would never take hold so long as we didn't reject the essence of the Constitution. America is not designed from a true majority rule concept -- which is often, in effect, mob rule -- as partisan Democrats so often insist. This is a checks and balances design with an ear for the minority, no matter who's in charge.

Like it or not, the POLITICAL MINORITY in this country's federal government isn't the black president, but the Republicans. The GOP ought to get the same regard of any minority. Funny how all the liberals' talk of pandering to minorities disappears when it comes to political choices while they are the majority. Suddenly, the minority is petulant, radical, extreme and threatening to the country. 

A small group of Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, are trying to make the proven self-absorbed, egotistical cynic in the White House blink. If it doesn't actually reach the point of being honestly dangerous to the country (read: legitimately extremist, not bullshit political name-calling extremist), it isn't to destroy the country, it's trying to make a principled, reasonable minority voice heard amidst a din of pro-government misdirection and hysterical rhetoric.

That is very American.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

ObamaCare: best of intentions, awful law, let's make that awfully clear

Patience is a virtue. For government, patients would be a gold mine. 

Via someone I follow on Twitter (and stupidly forgot who it was), I found this essential guide to the health care law.

(Revised Sep 26, 2013) What else do you need to know but how many initial claims about ObamaCare have been proven WRONG? With the best of intentions (or not, if you're totally skeptical about them), Democrats took a terrible approach to reform the United States' health system, in the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Intentions aren't worth a damn if you ignore everyone affected by a law. The supporters of ACA all but ignored whole groups of people affected by the law, including: independent professionals, medical professionals and other small business owners, and many employees. It's one thing to try and help the needy, or to try and give the poor better health care, but it's another to spit in the face of those who would, effectively, pay for it. It is not good to effectively hurt employees through the resulting cuts in hours. ACA, like other government medical reimbursement plans, ignores the legitimate work of medical professionals, who will do the services, as they would get bargain basement returns from government plans that appear to be not at all interested in reasonable compensation for services rendered. 

ObamaCare is not a bible for a health care cure, it is a bible for centralized medical decision-making, whether by intent or not. Solzhenitsyn wrote of the failures of large-scale centralized health care in the former superpower, the Soviet Union, and while ACA is only a step in the same direction, Obama is on record as supporting a "one-payer" health care system (which means government health care for all). 

The U.S. government started out in the spirit of doing exactly the opposite of what ObamaCare wants. The American Experiment is going in reverse, thanks to ObamaCare (it is in addition to the impacts of Homeland Security measures and other big government expansions of recent years). 

The Democrats appear to have been quite wrong about ObamaCare. Or, cynically, they were intentionally misleading us about what was in it. Yet they are still convinced, or at least trying to convince us, that this gigantic addition to the cost of government and health care is a good thing for the country. How? I don't know. I can't see anything that's good about it any longer. The good intention to fix the system no longer exists in the enforcement. It is not fixing the system, it is making it worse, it seems to me. 

I applauded Obama for bringing health reform to the forefront of national discussion in 2008-09. To broach the subject was laudable, but it was only a start. Yes, the intent to fix health care was noble. But the approach? It was not just bad, but to me it was, and is, disturbing. It is the way Democrats handled it from the beginning, all but cutting out Republicans and others (maybe they included socialists and the Green Party), and the resulting law, that has been calamitous. Three years later it is being trashed by some once-convinced Democrats, leaders of unions and businesses. 

In light of national spending negotiations (Sept. 2013), ObamaCare is being defended, breathlessly, by Obama and some other Democratic politicians and sycophantic pundits, as if it's the only thing that'll assure a decent life for millions. Alternately, they claim that the (pick your cowardly labels given by leftists:) racist, poor-hating, greedy, selfish, angry, ignorant, dumb redneck conservatives are trying to destroy the country by way of refusing to fund ObamaCare. 

Democrats are accusing GOP House of trying to close government, of ruining the country out of political greed, by defunding the Affordable (not) Care Act. The House is not preventing the funding of anything else, really, but yet the supposedly (self-appointed) "more reasonable" White House and Democrats are accusing House Republicans of horrible political maneuverings. The political selfishness seems truly to be driven, hard, from the left. The far left. The few remaining supporters of ObamaCare on the left. 

Meanwhile, even some union leaders, and many employers, rail about how it'll hurt families, because it'll hurt jobs. That, because it will force companies to make cuts to retain their profitability (which doesn't matter to liberals, because many are too dumb to realize that profits should even matter at all to regular Americans). 

The briefly all-controlling Democrats -- in early 2010 having the WH, Senate and House they barely passed ACA -- cannot today force us all to follow their bidding. So, the most power-drunk among the Democrats still turn to absurd, desperate rhetoric defending a tragically, pro-socialist, anti-liberty law that would force most employers and employees and the medical industries into a corner, in the long run. They fight for ACA out of ego, not leadership: it is they who will lose if ACA loses funding, therefore loses its place in government. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and more, will all be seen, by more people, as failed leaders when it fails. So as Obama said recently, the argument isn't about the American people. He's leaving one of his biggest concerns out of his discussion of the matter, though. Who's name is on the bill, and who is okay with that? Obama. He is desperate to have a legacy, and Obamacare may be his only big domestic "success." The argument from his side is about retaining greater government control over health care, not about saving the middle class, as he claims it is. His goals may seem to be about American people, but if so, it is a very different America where the government rules with a bureaucratic supremacy. Some citizens foolishly support that. But with such a foolishness, the American Experiment is dying. Liberty is fading. The control of government over greater parts of everyone's lives is succeeding. That's not the America that a freedom pursuing populating wants. So I have to conclude that too many Americans have been lulled into believing government is the solution to their problems. Which, of course, is a pathetic fantasy. But when such fantasies are believed, even partially, we see government expanding its control. People are dreaming that government is a caretaker. I am not asleep with that dream, nor are many others. It's a tough effort to wake others to it. Gotta keep at it.

What else do you need to know but how many initial claims have been proven WRONG? There were the best of intentions, but a terrible approach, in ObamaCare. And the promises have been proven to be a lie. I don't see why it should be funded, and I don't see a reason to even recognize the ridiculous language from the chief architects (and posers) behind ObamaCare. They've lost the war of reason, because all their claims are shown to be lies. Don't fund the damned thing!


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Guns vs. severe mental problems: Ideologies don't make people right, and guns don't make them killers

From "Gun Ban Won't Stop Another Sandy Hook Massacre: Let's Have the Hard Conversation":

Does anybody really think the guns Nancy Lanza kept in their Newtown, Conn., house all on their own attracted her son to launch a murderous rampage that claimed the lives of 20 small children and seven adults? Such simplistic nonsense.
What if the answers aren't that simple?
Consider that last year in Norway, a nation with a tight gun-control and licensing program, Anders Breivik methodically gunned down 69 people, mostly teenagers, on the island of Utoya. Again, this didn't happen in the United States of America, where 311 million people own an estimated 200 million guns. It happened in orderly, gun-sparse Norway, where living by the rules is the modern-day path to Valhalla.
What if gun control is the wrong conversation for us to be having?
What if we dealt instead with the harder-to-comprehend realities that affected Adam Lanza's life -- the fact that he lived virtually locked up in a basement room playing violent video games over and over, hypnotized by war. Or that he kept to himself, couldn't look others in the eye, reacted without emotion. Or that he had cut his father out of his life, refused to see him after his parents divorced, when his father began dating another woman. Or that he was consumed with anger because his mother was going to have him committed for treatment.
Instead of more gun control, shouldn't we be talking about where to set the bar when it comes to forcing an individual into treatment –- and whether those caring for people with mental-health issues have enough resources available to head off potential crises? The state of Connecticut didn't do much to help Nancy Lanza. It's a state that makes involuntary treatment difficult because it leans strongly toward supporting the civil liberties of individuals. Let's talk a little more about that.
In his address in Newtown [the Sunday after,] President Obama promised a grieving community "meaningful action ... regardless of the politics."But if enacting more restrictive gun laws is the action he has in mind, it leaves a mountain to climb in light of the Second Amendment and its principle. And more important than that, more gun laws aren't going to prevent another Sandy Hook massacre.

That is from "Gun Ban Won't Stop Another Sandy Hook Massacre: Let's Have the Hard Conversation," by Nancy Smith. See more at: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/gun-ban-wont-stop-another-sandy-hook-m...? Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859. via sunshinestatenews.com

The problem is not guns, while there are some things to be addressed where guns are concerned. There are too many guns too easily available to the dangerous, it could be argued. But worse are such things as loopholes in the ability to sell and buy guns between private individuals with pretty much no oversight or checking. That is unseemly, but also quite easy to fix (does not require a gun control act, for goodness sake).
No, the problem is not one that requires further gun legislation. We can see from such despicable efforts like the government's own Fast and Furious disaster that regulations are only so good as the people we have enforcing them. And fools who are encouraging such a route as Fast and Furious gunrunning program included the President of the United States. Shameful.
It's proof that he may be the victor in a popular vote, but is far from being a man above a most unattractive, elitist deception that guns are a threat, not sick or criminal people. The last thing elitists who desire power want are an armed population. No matter how comfortable and apathetic citizens are, we should not let anyone forget that tyranny is potentially never more than a generation away.
I don't want to be a part of the generation who lays the carpet out for tyranny here in America by moving farther toward a no-guns population. Stiff gun controls work in comparably powerless and rather homogenous and passive Sweden, Finland and elsewhere. It won't work for us.
The problem is, as Nancy Smith argues, and I've felt and argued for some time: some people are very, very broken, as Adam Lanza was, as best as can be seen, and cannot be allowed around guns. The problem, too, those who are too preoccupied to face those things that afflict broken people, including the current "false prophet" of the downtrodden, the President of the United States with his anti-gun rhetoric that completely avoids the issue of severe mental illness. In my view that is crass, cynical political gamesmanship and nothing about the rights or benefits of men. Until those with the second problem can be adult enough to address the first problem, this will be a discussion that will give me deep, deep dismay at the ignorance and shallowness of the many.

- jR
(revised for clarity, Oct 6, 2013)

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Go on! Tell the world just how clueless you are! Fwd: I like Obamacare

Do you like Obamacare? Do you know what it is? How has it affected your healthcare costs? 

The Obama campaign says it is just peachy. But only in an email to those signed up as supporters. 

What should that tell you?

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jim Messina, BarackObama.com" <info@barackobama.com>
Date: March 23, 2012
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: I like Obamacare
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Today is the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
Since then, the law that almost everyone calls Obamacare has been doing exactly what the other side has hoped it wouldn't do: It's been working.
It's about time we give it the love it deserves.
Let everyone know: "I like Obamacare."
Every single one of the other side's candidates for president has made overturning this law the central part of their campaign.

Did they bother to mention that barely a thing from it is kicked into gear yet? No. 

Bait. For the misinformed. And for those whose goals are irresponsibility for themselves. 

This is a very joyfully cynical campaign. I hope Obama fails. Come November, Americans have a lot to explain if they choose this ineffective bureaucrat a second time. 

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

A Killer's Obsession: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot

The "Tucson shooter," Jared Loughner, is not alone in thinking that rules of grammar are part of a ploy to push us around, I learned from a NY Times blog post. Many of his (Loughner's) online rants were quoted, the Saturday afternoon he'd tried to kill a Congresswoman and did kill six others, by at least one news channel -- Fox News. The readings were an effort to try to gain some insight into the mind of the killer in the hours just after his horrific assault.

There was broad acknowledgement a few weeks after the shootings that Loughner was a deeply troubled person for some time. The day of the shootings, though, I found his complaints about grammar to be writings coming from an obviously disturbed mind. He was struggling with much in life, and somehow, grammar rules were an assault on his freedom. 

While some tried to connect far-right influences, radio and TV show hosts, and other people to this lone wolf with a gun, listening to the guy's rants about (among other subjects) grammar offered a glimpse into a very disjointed thinking process, and a poor writer. He was not obsessed with writing well, however, only with grammar as a control mechanism.

The NEW YORK TIMES piece reflects on the wider idea of grammar as a means of social control. The related links below include a few pieces on the troubled killer's obsessions. 

NYC: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot
(The New York Times)

"Even before the Tucson shootings, Jared L. Loughner acted weirdly and darkly in many ways. Nonetheless, for bizarreness, his rants about grammar stand out": http://nyti.ms/hhyNu5

- jR

Related articles

• Why Is Jared Loughner Obsessed With Grammar? [Video] (gawker.com)
• Occult Altar Found in Tucson Shooter's Backyard (womenofgrace.com)
• Loughner's ties to conspiracy theory (politico.com)
• MSNBC: Jared Loughner Wrote A "Threatening" Note To Gabrielle Giffords (mediaite.com)
• Accused Tucson Shooter Asked Fellow Gamers If They Had 'Aggression 24/7' [Video] (kotaku.com)

Obama is JUST a narcissist. Like Hitler was JUST a Nazi.

Barack Obama - Image via Wikipedia

I don't care what your politics: if you think Obama is brilliant, humble, sincere, honest, appreciative of his office, deserving of a Nobel and songs sung to him by schoolchildren, and that he is not a pure political operator bent on turning America in a hard left direction... you JUST DON'T GET IT. 


He is unquestionably a narcissist. He adores himself, and there were people in Chicago politics who loved him for it. They, in their own words, "protected" him from risky issues, on his way to the Senate, and to the White House. Protected. 


His narcissism is immediately evident in his lack of conventional humility in his speeches: "I" "I" and "I" everywhere with this president. It is also evident in his 


While Obama was not raised in a wealthy family, he sure seems to have ... a golden stick in his butt. (Excuse the imagery.) I have not seen such infantile attacks on news media, or opposition -- EVER -- from a top leader, certainly not another president. (You understand that unless, like Sean Penn and plenty of others who've enjoyed USA liberties yet understand few of them, you count Castro and his kind as respectable.) It would be less disturbing if this behavior was not calculated, but these verbal attacks are part of a plan, not mood-driven one-offs. It is a part of radical activism, and he's invited it into the White House. (Almost as much as the former president of the SEIU, Andy Stern.)


With the divisiveness in our politics knocked up to a whole new level with him and Mme. Speaker Pelosi leading the spurning of clarity for ideology, ticked off that everyone won't simply let him (and Pelosi and that ilk) run us like some elected monarchy, I stand back and think that God's grace will be the only thing to spare us from the twaddle and naivete. Just gone from irritating, to mystifying, to amusing. Not a happy amusing, mind you, a shameful one. It would be funny, were it not a real life story, and were it not my president swaggering about so proud of himself, compelled to realize the unproven idea of the America he wants me to live in. 

I applaud him (I do!) for bringing issues, including healthcare and the external reputation of American arrogance, to the forefront. It is how he's handling those and other issues, which is clumsy, that sets me off. His rhetoric is good, his actions aren't. The actions count more. 


So I am counting on people acting to limit the power held by him and his fellow far-leftists, come the elections of November 2010. This country deserves hot debate, but not to be a high-tax, big government, welfare-heavy, centralized nation. It is the United States, after all, not the State, of America. 




- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Krauthammer: I believe Obama may be a tad narcissistic (hotair.com)
• The Year of Magical Political Thinking (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Obama's Strike Three (beliefnet.com)
• Sherrod Gaffe Shows Obama Team Is Inept on Race, Media Criticism (politics.usnews.com)

Alan Grayson in 2010: will his House career 'die quickly'?

Alan Grayson, Democrat congressman from Central Florida's District 8, seems to be facing some hurdles toward reelection in 2010. The infamously ridiculous congressman who announced the GOP wants all sick people to "die quickly," is continually embarrassing himself. Or, he isn't. I think he is.

He gave himself a website denoting his "bravery",  http://thecongressmanwithguts.com. Then, in a similarly obnoxious manner, he asked the Attorney General of the United States to go after a woman who created a rather contrary website, http://mycongressmanisnuts.com. 

He is up for reelection in November, and for the past several months was abnormally quiet. Until recently, when he stated that anyone who said "Drill, baby, drill" should be arrested, in a typically bonkers tirade, in this case, in reaction to the Gulf oil well disaster. 

His words are like Nerf balls, hitting their targets and getting funny looks a giggles in reaction. He's now understood to be a wacky dude who somehow got elected. The problem is, he spent $1,000,000 of his own money to help him push his way in. 

I hope his political career gets what it deserves. I want to see his political career DIE QUICKLY. As in, by the vote in November 2010. But he still has money, somehow. 

He needs to go away. I am very grateful he is not mu rep, but no one deserves him, except maybe that wacky Pelosi gal. 

Do a search for those trying to put down his mangey stint as an Orlando area rep. And share it with ANYONE you think could help turn the vote against Grayskull. Er, Grayson.

Alan Grayson's foes in 2010: the Ask.com search

- J Ruse (aka AirFarceOne, on Twitter)

Ding dong, Statists' Union calling... 'Health reform - right the wrongs!'

Insurance companies that seem to serve almost singly as investment companies rather than a health care coverage company certainly tick me off. But what's better is what I would like to see, not what's easily likely to be MUCH WORSE. 


Name one operation of the government that saves any money for anyone, except in the coffers of those earning money from the operation. We taxpayers bought GM: what did you get out of that? I got nothing, thanks.


Government, as I've heard said quite a few times recently, is not in the business of giving up money: it is in the business of taking it. Medicare is struggling, the Post Office is struggling, Democrats can't even get along with themselves, the CRA program killed the fair market in real estate -- fair to people who actually could pay a mortgage, I mean! -- crooked dealings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac embarrassed even legitimate criminals, but we should count on government to do right by us in health care? 


Judging from the email (far below), Consumers Union does trust government above the free markets, to not just control markets reasonably through regulation, but to snarl the health industries in their greedy, poorly budgeting, non-consumer-oriented grip. Or so it would appear. You be the judge.


I, for one, was a bit ticked off about this group's eager part in pushing omnivorous governmental "regulation" (read: effective taking-over) of health care in the States. This, just below, is the reply I gave to the Consumers Union "alert" email, farther below, regarding health reform.


My Rant to CU's Kathy Mitchell

Dear Kathy Mitchell:

For goodness and good sense sake, how is government blatantly maneuvering to control the free market going to help us? We need regulatory reform, control, YES, CONTROL, of these big insurance companies, but not a statist approach to controlling huge chunk of the economy. This message sends another message -- that you are eager to head down the path of government control of a major portion of our economy. That is, it is far to say, not what this country's wealth is built on. Without needing to point out to me that it is also built on the backs of poorly paid workers, and slaves, etc., give me a current reason for why the free market will fail us, but the government will not?

Why do YOU trust government in this broad matter (not merely health cost coverage), but not markets? Of all the interest groups in this fight, I would have thought you'd have had an issue with vigorous state-run economic efforts that are being brazenly shoved at us, only slowed by those you badge as the enemy of progress. It is not the free market that brings all types of innovation, including to medicine? How is this bill upholding that hope for the future?

WE NEED CHANGE. I AGREE. Not whatever change suits the characters in support of big-government, let-the-state-solve-all-our-problems, ideas. We need changes that affect how the market and regulation affects our health industries -- insurance, medical tech, hospitals, doctors, drugs, etc. -- not the unions of government workers and such getting all that they want at the cost of those of us who are not in unions, or interested in government abusing us over the free market abusing us. Neither is appealing. We need the government to do their REAL job -- regulating, supporting advances (with our tax dollars going to innovative businesses) in the best interest of the PEOPLE, and the markets to do their jobs -- innovating, creating jobs, paying taxes (which are costs handed to consumers: so, allowing employees and consumers to afford to live and pay their taxes).

This bill, if anyone has actually managed to read it in its most recent morphing to allay legitimate concerns, is not right. They wanted to cram it in our faces in August, you'll remember, and resistance, if nothing else, has forced those not intrinsically meant to benefit through money or power to actually have to address REAL concerns.

If this is the best that Consumers Union can do for the public, then you are suspected of an embarrassingly non-consumer-oriented statist leaning, by me, and likely an awful lot of other folks, who once held up the group as an apolitical consumer group, generally reliable and unbiased. Not so much, anymore.

[Salutations....]

The CU Action Fund email

On Dec 15, 2009, Consumers Union Action Fund wrote:

650,000 could lose coverage so Aetna investors can enjoy higher returns. That's not how it should work. Help us end the stalemate and get a bill out of the Senate. Give just $5 right now--for a holiday victory that can improve our lives forever. Dear Xxxxxx, You can't put a price on good health. But one of the nation's largest health insurance companies just did. Aetna – which is on track to make $1 billion this year – says it will raise customers' premiums in order to make even more profit. The company expects the price hike to force as many as 650,000 people to lose their insurance – the equivalent of the residents of cities like Denver, Boston, Seattle or Baltimore losing their coverage at once. Meanwhile, health reform opponents say our insurance markets are 'working' just great, and they're doing everything they can to kill prospects for real change this week. But when an insurance CEO is willing to cut hundreds of thousands of Americans' health coverage to make even more profit, is our health insurance market really working for us? We don't have a billion dollars, but we have hundreds of thousands of people like you. Your $5 contributions in the fall got a TV ad on the air in key states--one that put Consumer Reports' trusted name behind the effort to finally pass reform now. The ad is still running, and we want to keep it running. We're joining forces with the American Cancer Society, AARP and other consumer groups to focus the media on the real story: Americans are losing coverage and facing huge rate increases while the industry lobbies against the changes that will help the most. Consumers Union is also knocking on doors in holdout Senators' states to generate calls and letters from constituents demanding they stand up for American families and take on the insurance giants. All these things cost money. We're asking people in every state to pitch in so we can open minds and hearts in the states where lawmakers are on the fence. While the Senate bill isn't perfect, it rights a lot of wrongs. Companies would have to spend the bulk of your insurance premium on your health care -- or else rebate you the difference. They could no longer deny you coverage, drop you if you get sick, or charge you ridiculous out-of-pocket costs for treatment. After a Senate bill passes, we're going to push to get the best of both Senate and House measures into a final reform package. Whatever you can give will help us fight for you.  We are the closest we've been in history to getting all Americans affordable, reliable health care. Take reform across the finish line! Sincerely, Kathy Mitchell Consumers Union Action Fund, Inc. 506 W. 14th Street, Suite A Austin, TX 78701

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (twitter)

McCain's health plan is now that of some Democrats, sorta

Tennessee's Cooper and Oregon's Wyden are leading an effort to remove employers from the health coverage process.

Two Dems Want to Scrap Employer-Based Health Care - TIME

...though during the election campaign Obama criticized John McCain for proposing a plan that, like Wyden's, would make employer-provided health benefits taxable, the Administration has suggested in recent weeks that it is open to such an approach.

Still, Wyden and Cooper's plan is considered a long shot. The political wisdom in Washington suggests that for any proposal to actually stand a chance, it would have to build on the existing employer-based system.

One can whine about the hypocrisy of it, but I would rather see something CONCRETE done about the cost, burden and economic division of modern health care.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.