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)

Elite-led media resents a hero they don't understand: Ben Carson and the real world

Dr. Ben Carson dared to suggest that gay couples deserve to be treated equally, but to stop short of giving that the word "marriage." He mentioned NAMBLA and beastiality in the same sentence as gays, upsetting some folks. He apologized and clarified what he meant. More than once. On televison. But that's not good enough for the bigotos of the left, in this drippy, no-detractors echo chamber pep rally that is most of the mainstream media.

From the article, NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White', on Breitbart.com:

Carson ... said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage. 

NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.

This is all par for the course at NBC News.

Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" --  which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.

NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud

Indeed.

While it's easy to pass it off as a given that media is left-leaning, that's not enough to indict the media. And it doesn't have to be. 

The leaders of our media are part of the most insular, closed-quarter, often the most highfalutin, parts of this country and the world. If they aren't humble enough to recognize that, and if they don't instill such humility in writers (not opinion writers, journalists!) and demand that they work against their own biases, then these media leaders and their writers are part of the problem. As it happens, these leaders are dragging newbies panting and eager to please, every year, into that same highrise with a limited perspective. Arrogance begets arrogance. 
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up. 

There's NBC, The Washington Post (often, not decisively), TIME, Huffinton Post (madhouse filled with nut-job leftist commenters, to boot), GQ, CBS, CNN, etc., etc., all seeming to be trying to be the big man on the left. It's a tone deafness of those who live in certain quarters believing they have the answers for the whole. 

And they will treat those who aren't on their side not with curiosity or even cynicism, but snide disregard and putrid insults, like MSNBC treats Dr. Carson.  

They need some humility. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne

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

Abortion 'pride' is encouraged by professional student

Opposing Views: OPINION: It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement - Jacob Appel

Everybody is proud these days. While “pride” as a collective concept may have originated with the Gay Rights movement of the 1970s, now marchers in the St. Patrick’s Day parade are as likely to sport pins boasting “Proud to be Irish” and my Jewish friends are as proud to be Jewish as my Muslim friends are proud to be Muslim—although I always wonder if they wouldn’t be equally proud if they had been born into the opposite faiths.

...

The anti-abortion movement already has its own pride movement. If one reads about reproductive issues in the conservative media—which I often do—one is bombarded with tales of mothers who have sacrificed personal and professional opportunities to bring fetuses to term.

Because, you know, sex as the right of every horny kid and adult on the planet, with no consequences deserved for the realities of the act, is paramount. There is no reason for facing the consequences of being a loose-legged bimbo, being an oppressively horny and emotionally selfish boyfriend, getting sloppy about birth control, or no reason for taking responsibility for being otherwise stupid. That is not the easiest option, after all. Getting rid of the problem is the solution. No matter what that means. Reminds me of liberal concepts for everything. Insincerity, and personal rights -- those to the level of a vicious selfishness -- above logic, responsibility and everything else.

Oh, I see! Judging from the volumes of degrees Mr. Appel has, this author is a professional student. That must be a nice life.

Out here in the real world we see people ruined by decisions that they think will make the "pain" go away, only to be haunted by it their wholes lives. Pride, indeed.

I guess studying ethics and having a sense of them are two vastly different things, in looking at this guy's thinking. Abortion pride and bestiality acceptable, I've seen all I need to. This guy takes mindless, academic openness to a new high. Or, low.

Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies.

Furthering being the creepiest "ethicist" I have ever read, he goes to the extraordinary level of proclaiming -- without actually saying it, but effectively admitting -- his deep desire for a utopian world where guilt does not exist. I assume this author figures the whole world thinks as he does, that a baby out of the womb is a baby out of mind:

I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

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.