I’m so excited!
Picture from the awesome Hey Girl tumblr, which you should totally peruse if you haven’t yet.
Iowahawk: (Via Instapundit) “Paul Ryan represent Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: math.”
How so? You may ask.
Let’s start with the title.
Even though I have no actual experience with the 1950s, my first thought is: would that be bad?
Let’s assume that Obama is not claiming Romney would outlaw all medical breakthroughs discovered since 1959. To assume otherwise wouldn’t be reasonable. (Or would it?)
Also, to be fair, I am ignorant of the Bad Stuff (other than the Korean War) that happened in the 1950s. So I may not be a good judge. If, for example, the President had said, “Romney would take energy back to the 1970s,” well if taken at face value I would say, yikes. That Romney fellow is no good!
But the 1950s? Weren’t those the post-WWII boom years? What’s wrong with going back to that? In the ideal world, maybe we could go back to the pre-WWII era of health insurance. (P.S. I can’t believe I just linked to an article co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel.)
Let’s move on from the title, and look at the first sentence of this article. “. . . Republicans would seek to strip away health care benefits for [women] and cut funding for contraceptive services.”
Surely this sentence suffers from a typo. In order to be accurate, it should read like this: “Republicans would seek to strip away health care benefits for [women] by cutting funding for contraceptive services.”
Ah, those slippery collectivists nowadays feel no embarrassment when their one concrete–albeit ridiculous–example is the only evidence available of a long list of alleged wrongdoing. By the way, who is supposed to fund the contraceptives, and thus be responsible cutting the funding? I thought those evil Catholic churches were supposed to do it. How would Romney be in control of them in this wonderful nation which separates Church and State?
Nevermind. On to sentence number two: “Obama sought to draw a stark contrast with presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, saying his rival intended to take his health care law and ‘kill it dead’ on the first day of his presidency and ‘get rid’ of Planned Parenthood.”
Ooh, looks like a case of projection here. Perhaps the Left’s feelings on unborn children (“kill it dead,” “get rid”) are to blame?
Sentence number three is a doozy: “‘They want to take us back to the policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century,’ Obama said, arguing that the decisions affecting a woman’s health are ‘not up to politicians, they’re not up to insurance companies, they’re up to you.’“
Ugh. I’m sorry. Did Mr. Single-Payer-Universal-Healthcare-Coverage just try to say that a woman’s healthcare decision is up to her? And not up to the provider? Because when a government-mandated monopoly provides the service, well it won’t have any opinion on what must be provided . . . will it?
Okay, at this point I have to skip a few sentences so fluffy and boring that they don’t even warrant fisking.
Here’s the next quote screaming for clarification: “Obama said women’s issues resonated with him because of his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, and his late mother. The president said he wanted to ensure that Mrs. Obama ‘has control over her health care choices’ and noted that his mother would have been 70 this year had she not died from cancer nearly two decades ago.”
Clearly his wife and mother make women’s issues “resonate” with Obama. Because his wife and mother are women.
How exactly does empathy with females make you a better candidate?
(P.S. Debunked = Fail.)
Now we get to the really meaty part of the article’s failure: “The president was introduced by Sandra Fluke . . . . Fluke gained notoriety after conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her a slut because she supports the Obama health care law’s requirement that insurance companies cover contraception.”
I love this particular bit of journalistic fail because it admits the larger failure of the leftist powers-that-be: without conservative attention, darlings of the left like Fluke would remain unnoticed.
Seriously. Look at the quote. The article is AP, and it plainly doesn’t state that Fluke gained notoriety by being an advocate of reproductive justice. Or that she gained notoriety by speaking in Congress. She gained notoriety by getting called a slut by Rush Limbaugh. Still, the dunces of the left actually thought this transgression would shut Limbaugh down.
Whew. No more fisking. The hour has grown late. Here’s the article if you’d like to deconstruct the rest. Greg Gutfeld artfully concludes this post, by juxtapositioning Sandra Fluke with Rachel of the viral Chick-fil-A video featuring that chucklehead who got himself fired.
Totally worth your precious viewing minutes. And if that’s not enough Leftist Failure to satisfy your appetite, try the offerings at Twitchy: #Obedience!
“Joining Forces is a national initiative that mobilizes all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned.”
Now, about those cushy low Tricare fees . . . we haven’t earned those, I reckon:
“Once again, we see that Obama’s supposed devotion to military families–a cause purportedly dear to the First Lady’s heart–does not extend beyond using military families as political props . . . .”
Sigh. I hate complaining when the particular federal teat from which my family happens to feed threatens to dry up a bit. I understand that our paycheck is dependent upon the earnings of hard-working American taxpayers.
But I’ve also heard what it’s like when those that gave their all come home to nationalized healthcare. And then I learn that “The Obama administration ostensibly wants to help the Pentagon save money; the real motive is to make TRICARE less attractive than costlier Obamacare exchanges.”
It makes perfect sense, really. As things stand now, there are concrete benefits to traditional civilian healthcare insurance: choice of doctors (particularly when compared to Tricare Prime), continuity of care, and competitive market forces. The only thing that makes Tricare Prime attractive? Oh yeah, the low fees and copays.
So . . . if the Obama Administration doesn’t want anyone to have those traditional, concrete benefits of choice, continuity, and competitive market forces . . . what’s the point of giving those pesky military members a lower price than the rest of the peasants?
And really, if the whole nation must suffer the consequences of IPAB and the rest of Obamacare, why shouldn’t the military do the same?
I’m not surprised. Shoot, I thought President Obama would gut military services a lot quicker than he has.
Um, guys? Could you do a military wife a favor?
Could you vote this jerk out of office before he does any more damage to the country?
Rhetorical question, of course.
UPDATE: Here’s a better explanation of the situation:
“Essentially, Barack Hussein Obama would rather force military families to partake in Obamacare welfare-backed programs rather than using Tricare, and he had hoped to do this by tripling their premiums in just 5 years.
All the while, the report states that Obama leaves his true friends, the ‘unionized civilian defense workers’, unscathed by tax and premium hikes. . . .”
As a former student of law, it sure blows mine.
What, you ask?
President Obama’s claim that if the United States Supreme Court judicially strikes down Obamacare, this would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step.”
Since 1803, the United States Supreme Court’s main job is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Oh, but this case would be unprecedented and extraordinary. /please read italicized words in the most sarcastic manner possible/
This is what happens when we keep ceding public opinion to the so-called experts.
How about a second opinion? How about another expert’s opinion?
Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Hoo, boy, that just happened.
If the typical uninformed voter doesn’t understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional, we can understand why. The Constitution has been creatively interpreted to accommodate federal programs for a very long time, after all.
But that’s what makes the President’s statements so shameful. As a former student of law, he should know better than to stretch beyond the bounds of judicial interpretation.
If he does know better, then he is not upholding the document he swore to uphold. Do you know what that means? “Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.”
So . . . with a hot mic, the President accidentally proves how comfortable he is with the idea of telling the voters he’ll do one thing, when he really intends to do something else.
In a sane world, this revelation would create more of an uproar than that Casey Anthony acquittal did.
Alas, we don’t live in a sane world. Outside the conservative blogosphere, mostly we just hear crickets chirping and frogs croaking.
Speaking of frogs, I recently checked out a collection of Aesop fables. One of the fables is called The Frogs Who Desired A King. Are you familiar with that one?
Here is Caxton’s original translation, circa 1484. It’s my favorite version, but man oh man that’s some crazy Olde Englishe. Let me rephrase:
There were once some frogs who lived in liberty, but they wanted a king. They asked Jupiter to give them a king. They asked in one voice–no dissent, so it was all democratic and everything. Now, Jupiter knew these frogs weren’t the smartest bunch. So to placate them, he sent a piece of wood which splashed loudly in the pond.
This commotion scared the frogs at first. They approached their king cautiously, to make obeisance to him. When they realized their new ruler was just an ineffective lump of wood, they weren’t happy. They went back to Jupiter and asked for a better king. Jupiter was like, fine. And he sent a Heron to be their king.
The Heron flew down and began to eat the frogs, one after another. The frogs began to cry, and they begged Jupiter to deliver them from the throat of this tyrant. Jupiter replied, tough. The king which you demanded shall be your master.
Today, I was over at Disrupt the Narrative, watching footage of demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court building. A group of folks were chanting “We . . . love . . . Obamacare” to the beat of a tambourine, and boy. They sure sounded like Aesop’s frogs. I just hope that Jupiter does not give them what they are asking for.
Caxton’s version is my favorite because of the way he phrased the moral of the story. I don’t think the Olde Englishe needs much updating to be understood:
For when men have that which men oughte to have, they ought to be joyeful and glad. And he that hath lyberte ought to kepe it well. For nothyng is better than lyberte. For lyberte should not be well sold for alle the gold and sylver of all the world.