The Obamacare Woes

The Obamacare website failure is probably one of the biggest government fiascos of all time, and that’s saying a lot if you know about the fiascos of the past, primarily on the progressive/liberal side of politics. Those who are on the president’s side, and who never seem to think he should be held accountable for anything, are having a tough time navigating through this current trouble. Maybe you’ve noticed how cranky some of them have become:


One way around this may be to spin it as a positive:

It's a Feature

That should remind us that the poorly constructed website is only the surface problem. The real problems with Obamacare go much deeper. Those of us who don’t want it ever to see the light of day shouldn’t focus entirely on the technical glitches, but continue to educate the public on how many people are losing their current healthcare plans and how they will be paying far more on those Obamacare exchanges.

Woman Faints

This joke of a website can help by delaying Obamacare’s implementation. Perhaps we should applaud the team that created it:

Website Contractors

As always, the president is not to blame for any of this—just like he has no blame for the moribund economy, the Benghazi coverup, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the selling of guns to Mexican drug lords, the Justice Department’s bugging of reporters, or the massive NSA intelligence-gathering on American citizens.

Buck Stops Here

Obamacare may be on life support. This is one time I would approve pulling the plug:

Losing Him

There still may be hope that this monster will expire.

Our Foreign Foreign Policy

For most of the Obama tenure, the focus of critics has been on his domestic policies primarily, although The Great American Apology Tour was noted and decried from the start. From his abysmal attempts to jumpstart the economy to the imposition of the bureaucratic nightmare of Obamacare, this president has demonstrated his ideological blindness and his incomparable incompetence. Both of those features have now come to the forefront in his foreign policies as well. Which is worse? They appear to be about equally awful:


The Syrian crisis has garnered most of the headlines recently. From that foolish “red line” statement that he had no intention of enforcing, to the bluster of threatened air strikes, to the ignominy of congressional disapproval of his proposed actions, to the Russian brokering of the Syrian promise to turn over their chemical weapons, this whole episode has been embarrassing for what once was the world’s superpower. Who really believes this crisis has been solved? Well, maybe he does:


And with the truly unique talents of John Kerry as our Secretary of State, why should we ever worry?

What Could Go Wrong

When Vladimir Putin took to the op-ed pages of the New York Times to thumb his nose at Obama and America in general, we may have hit a new low. Yet when Putin challenged the concept of American exceptionalism, he wasn’t the first to critique that notion; he had an excellent example to follow:


I want to be sure, though, that we never forget one of the most reprehensible actions of this administration. The media tries to pretend it’s a non-story, but it needs to stay in our consciousness until it is resolved:

One Year Later

At least there is one consistent theme throughout the Obama years—one thing we can always count on:

 Engulfed in Scandals

But that’s not the kind of consistency we need.

Unbelievably Small Leaders

President Obama spoke to the nation last night about the Syrian crisis. It wasn’t the speech that was anticipated earlier in the week. Russia threw him a lifeline by saying Syria is open to the idea of turning over its chemical weapons to the UN. This will now lead us . . . where? Promises, delays, more promises, more delays, weapons inspections that go nowhere, etc., etc., etc. Haven’t we seen all this before?

So after more than a week of sabre-rattling, our leader says he doesn’t want Congress to vote on whether to strike Syria. Of course, it was increasingly clear, even to the most obtuse of administrations, that Congress was not going to go along with his wishes. Even the Democrat-controlled Senate was iffy for him. The whole enterprise of trying to get Americans on board with his haphazard, make-it-up-as-you-go policy was almost comical:

Community Organizer

The speech last night was supposed to set a clear direction and make everyone feel good. Did it?

Allayed Your Concerns

How did some commentators view the effort? I have some rather stark reactions to relay. Brit Hume, an experienced and balanced journalist who actually supported the call for a military strike, called it “a speech in search of a purpose.” Charles Krauthammer, who is so often insightful in his analyses, said the address was “one of the most odd presidential speeches ever delivered.” Stephen Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, described it as “a bizarre, meandering, unpersuasive speech. In that sense, a perfect distillation of Obama policy on Syria.”

In other words, the speech was the fitting end of a weird week of accidental, unintentional policy shifts and misstatements. One of the strangest was Secretary of State Kerry’s assurance that any strike would be unbelievably small. Really? Then why do it at all?

Unbelievably Small

What would any such strike have accomplished? We’re told it would have made it harder for Assad to use chemical weapons in the future. How do we know that for sure? And how does a statement like Kerry’s mesh with the bold image Obama is trying to project?

Brave Leader

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad action has been delayed. I didn’t favor getting involved militarily in the first place. I have a feeling that, deep down, Obama is relieved as well; he painted himself in a corner with all that “red line” talk that he never imagined he’d have to fulfill. What a leadership team!

Just the Guys

The president’s speech took center stage at a time when our focus should instead be on the commemoration of the evil attack of September 11, 2001. I would also add the attack of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi. Yet what do we hear from the administration on those? Perhaps there will be a perfunctory mention of 2001. Nothing at all will be said about 2012, a day this administration continues to stonewall.

This nation needs real leadership, but these are the people we have chosen to place in power. We should be ashamed.

One Clinton Was Bad Enough

Congress is in recess, so there have been no hearings recently on the multitude of scandals that have become the hallmark of the Obama administration. That will change. The question is whether most people will be aware of the renewed scrutiny; there is a concerted effort by the Democrat/media machine to keep these all-too-real scandals muted:

No Scandal

They are particularly eager to put Benghazi to rest; if the whole truth comes to light on that one, it could derail a certain presidential coronation. They will say there’s nothing there to see; after all, an accountability review board within the State Dept. has already cleared the previous secretary of state of any wrongdoing. Except, of course, that board was appointed by her and never interviewed her or others primarily responsible for the failed policy and the loss of life. Rather than accountability, it provided political protection:


We’ve been told the government is actively pursuing those who carried out that terrorist attack. Forgive me if this sounds somewhat familiar:

Real Killers

Questions need to be answered, and Congress is right to stay the course, no matter what the consequences. No one running for president, especially with the last name of Clinton, should be trusted to tell the truth. In the case of Hillary Clinton, that scrutiny should be doubled:


The first Clinton was damaging enough to the country. We don’t need another one.

Real Scandals, Legitimate Investigations

Economic SpeechThe Obama administration has found its latest theme. We’re hearing it from spokesperson Jay Carney and the president himself. Carney dismisses all questions about the plethora of scandals plaguing the administration, saying they are “fake” and “phony” scandals generated by the Republicans. President Obama yesterday, in what he billed as a major economic speech, but which most viewed as his typical campaign speech, belittled Republicans for standing in the way of economic progress and wasting the country’s time with all the attention on make-believe scandals. His exact words were “With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing, and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball.”

Well, first of all, Mr. President, you are Washington. You have been the chief executive for nearly five years; for the first two years of your presidency, you had control of both houses of Congress. What did you do with that advantage? Obamacare, which is a wholesale disaster, and a massive stimulus bill that only stimulated government spending. The American workforce, during your tenure, has lost 7.8 million people (those are the ones who couldn’t find jobs and gave up); new workforce dropouts have outnumbered new employees by 237 to 1. Most of the new jobs added have been part-time, not full-time.

And you blame the Republicans?

About those “phony” scandals: let’s look at the facts.


It’s been nearly a year since that horrible event. Testimony has shown massive incompetence and an equally massive coverup connected with that incident. We now also know that survivors of the attack have been coerced into signing nondisclosure agreements and bullied into not testifying before Congress. What is the administration trying to hide? Calls for a special committee to deal with it exclusively are rising, and justly so.


Evidence is now overwhelming that the intensive investigation of conservative groups and stalling on their tax-exempt statuses was politically motivated. No longer is there any credibility that this was the work of a few rogue agents in Cincinnati. Testimony has established that it was directed from the top of the IRS in Washington, and that a political appointee, William Wilkins, who is chief counsel for the agency, was intimately involved. This same man met with the president on April 23, 2012; his boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, met with administration officials on April 24. The next day, April 25, Wilkins sent out more guidelines for how to handle tax-exempt applications from conservative groups. While this is still not absolute proof of collusion with the Oval Office, it comes awfully close. It’s hardly a “phony” investigation, particularly since it affected the operation of these groups in the 2012 campaign and provided a boost to Obama’s reelection bid.

There’s also the absurd waste of money on parties, etc. It’s a culture of corruption.

This Just In


Where to start? Fast and Furious? Failure to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated voters at a polling place? Confiscation of reporters’ phone records? Accusing James Rosen of Fox of being a criminal co-conspirator for asking questions? Funding protests against George Zimmerman? Overall racial bias in its operations? Eric Holder should be terminated as attorney general.


This one’s a little more nuanced. We do need, in my opinion, a capability to track terrorists that includes spying on their phone calls. However, what we don’t need is a blanket coverage of all American citizens, even if it’s only storage of records and nobody sees them right now. The potential for tyranny is blatant. This can become a mechanism for unprincipled politicians to get back at those who disagree with them. The NSA’s program must be limited to finding genuine threats against the nation. The House yesterday considered a bill that would have guaranteed those limits; it just barely failed to pass, and may be revisited in the near future. Above all, we must be sure our rights, as enunciated in the Bill of Rights, are not abridged.


So, in summary, these are not “fake” or “phony” scandals pursued for purely partisan purposes. The investigations are legitimate. The administration knows they are legitimate; they are the ones creating the distractions they so piously bemoan. They know where these investigations will lead, and they fear the backlash. As they should.

Racism vs. Truth-Telling

I guess he can’t help himself. He’s driven ideologically. He seeks to continue to make a point that is no point at all. Yes, I’m talking about Barack Obama. Now it’s not just “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin,” but “Trayvon Martin could have been me thirty-five years ago.” Even though there’s no evidence of racial bias in the Zimmerman-Martin incident, the president refuses to let the matter drop. Tenaciously, he clings to the fiction that this was all about race.

As do Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their devotees. For them, nothing is outside the racial zone; race is the explanation for everything. The big protest day on Saturday that was supposed to overwhelm the nation was something less. Even in the largest cities, the number of protesters was in the hundreds, not the many thousands they hoped for. Newport News, Virginia, had a grand total of twenty-five show up.

Take one isolated personal conflict between two individuals and make it into a national race issue—that’s the media’s goal. But what about the fact that 93% of all black homicides are committed by blacks? What is the media doing to highlight this problem?

Never Mind

And of course there’s the prime example of this in the city of Chicago, Obama’s latest hometown, and the one run by Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, an Obama acolyte.


It’s not racism to point out these problems. It’s truth-telling.

There’s another possible reason why Obama wants to keep the focus on George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. It’s a wonderful diversion from genuine problems he would rather people forget: the scandalous behavior of Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, and the DOJ. One humorous picture making the rounds currently does a good job of pointing out this possibility:

Zimmerman-Ben Ghazi

Journalists, for the sake of your profession, it’s time to turn back to real news that affects everyone—news based on facts, not fiction—events that will have a lasting impact on the future of this nation.

Needed: An American Spring

Anyone remember something called the Arab Spring? That was as inaccurate a name as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China. There was no voluntary union of Russia and the nations it subjugated, and they certainly weren’t republics—representation and the rule of law were both negated. In China, the people aren’t really running anything, but it sounds nice to call it the People’s Republic. And again, it’s not really a republic. Neither was the Arab Spring some kind of awakening of liberty. All it gave rise to was militant radicalism.

Let’s look briefly at some of the developments.

In Iran, early in Obama’s first term, the people were out in the streets protesting a rigged election. The falseness of the vote was obvious, and here was a real opportunity for the United States to stand against tyranny. Yet President Obama was silent, giving his assent to the phony election. Now a new election has taken place; the media would have you believe the new leader is less militant, but that’s far from the truth:


How about Libya? Yes, Qaddafi needed to go, but what has replaced him? A shaky government is trying to rein in adherents of jihad. That didn’t go so well in Benghazi. This revolution Obama belatedly supported, but what did it achieve? Prediction: a takeover by the extremists.

Syria? Thousands have been killed in the uprisings there. Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad is a monster, it’s true. Yet key elements of the uprising are connected to Al Qaeda and are slaughtering Christians in that country while they attempt to topple the regime. If they win, that’s not really a triumph of liberty. Obama has again decided to take sides, again belatedly, and with those who are opposed to Assad. Is that really wise? Doing so will mean arming those who want to destroy us.

And of course there is Egypt. Everyone’s paying attention to what’s going on there. When Mubarak was overthrown, Obama was definitely in favor of that removal, despite the probability that the Muslim Brotherhood might dominate the new government. That’s exactly what happened, and even though that organization is devoted to the destruction of Israel and genocide against all Jews, the United States has supported it, sending even more military hardware and funds—all of which could be used against Israel eventually. Morsi, the new leader, sanctioned attacks against the Coptic Christians and tried to move the nation fully under the umbrella of radicalism. It’s as if he had a model he could follow:

American Style Democracy

Now that Morsi has been deposed by the military, our president has spoken out against the removal. He actually seems to favor the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt, exposing once again his own radicalism:

The Difference

No, the Arab Spring was an illusion. It would be nice, though, to experience an American Spring. We need it badly.