Category Archives: Politicking

The Papal Presidential Predicament

Our President is in the midst of a week-long European tour to try to drum up support for sanctions against Russia to dissuade them from their invasion the Crimean Peninsula. Although he is pretty busy, the Prez was still able to take some time from his Putin wrist-slapping schedule to go and have a chat with the Pope. In case you’re wondering, he didn’t go for spiritual advice.

If you listen to Obama’s comments about the meeting, he went to visit the pope to discuss his new talking point, income inequality. Pope Francis has been outspoken when it comes to poverty issues, and Obama, seeing what he thought was a surefire endorsement of his political agenda, went to get a moral stamp of approval. Obama stated that he was moved by the Pope “not simply thinking in terms of our own narrow self-interests,” and that “social schisms” were “not a topic of conversation. [1]

But according to the Vatican’s statement about the meeting, the two leaders talked about issues of concern for the Church in the US, namely “rights to religious freedom, life, and conscientious objection [2],” which is basically what you’d think the Pope would want to bring up with our pro-abortion, pro-birth control mandate, anti-conscientious objection President. According to the Vatican, they also discussed immigration reform and the need to eradicate human trafficking.

You might be asking yourself, why is there such a discrepancy in the description of the focus of the meeting? Why would one side say that they talked about moral issues, and the other side say that it never came up? Could it be that President Obama, who has caused a fair amount of discord between himself and Catholic leaders in the US, wants to distance himself from any moral disagreements so he can point to a papal endorsement of his wealth redistribution plans?

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 27, 2014 in Politicking


Tags: , , , , ,

S is for Sabotage

The Affordable Care Act hinges on having large numbers of young and healthy people sign up for the government’s insurance. Their money and lack of health issues are needed to subsidize the care for older or unhealthy customers. Without the contribution from the young and healthy, there simply won’t be enough money to pay for everyone else, much like how Social Security currently works.

But who could have predicted that scores of healthy and vibrant young people wouldn’t flock to sign up for overpriced insurance plans that they can survive without at this point in their lives? The Republicans, that’s who. Before its implementation, Republicans warned that the ACA was unfeasible and were dismissed with accusations of racism, hatred, and only being motivated by politics. And now that it turns out they were right, they’re being accused of fear mongering and sabotage.

One of the political reporters at the Washington Post seems to think that if only those pesky Republicans would stop accurately identifying the glaring flaws in the ACA, young insurance buyers wouldn’t be scared away from signing up [1]. Evidently people are being turned off by the millions of cancelation notices, the rising premiums, the broken promises, and the threat of identity theft while using the government’s website, and it’s all the Republican’s fault because they pointed it out.

This is somewhat like blaming the weatherman when a tornado destroys your house because he predicted and reported it, but why use logic and common sense when you can use misdirection, blame and emotional outbursts instead? After all, it’s a lot harder to distract people from your mistakes when you only rely on thoughtful and reasonable discourse. Perhaps the Washington Post was inspired to play the blame game by The New York Times who recently blamed Republicans for JFK’s assassination…. by Lee Harvey Oswald….the communist [2].

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 22, 2013 in Politicking, Social Programs



Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire – Part 2

Does anyone remember when back in August of 2012, the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, deliberately misquoted the LA Times to support a lie about Republicans in a fund-raising letter? When called out about her dishonesty by Anderson Cooper, her response to him was to declare “it doesn’t matter. [1]

Fast forward to the present day, and she’s back to her old tricks. By now, everyone must be familiar with Obama’s spectacularly failed promise that everyone who wanted to keep their existing health plan would be able to do so. So what’s an administration with such a problem to do? Call the liar-in-chief, of course.

And call her they did. Out trotted Ms. Wasserman Shultz on MSNBC, like the dutiful trained pony that she is, where she claimed, “There was nothing about what President Obama or that I or any other Democrat supporting the Affordable Care Act said that was not true. [2]” Really, Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Really?

Perhaps her goal with such a statement was to shock her opponents into a stunned silence with sheer brazen dishonesty. I’m at a loss as to what else could have prompted such an announcement, because she surely knows that the President’s own rule-writers estimated that huge percentages of people would lose their grandfathered plans at the time he made his famous “You Can Keep It” speech [3].

She also stated that only 3% of Americans would lose their existing health plans, when the real experts think that the number will be closer to 68% by the end of 2014 [4]. But not to worry, because according to her, “At the end of the day, most of those people who are having their plans transitioned will have better benefits for lower costs [2].” I guess what was implied was, “Don’t worry about all those families whose premiums and deductibles have gone up as their coverage has gone down [5].”

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2013 in Corruption, Entitlement, Politicking


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make

Back at the end of January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her way into the history books by asking the now famous question, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” [1] when she was questioned about the initial claims that the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi sprang from a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video. As more hearings are now taking place about what really happened that night, the question has come back up. What difference, at this point, does it make about what really happened at Benghazi.

If you listen to left-leaning sources, you will hear that it makes no difference whatsoever, and that we should all move on with our lives. Several sources refer to it as a GOP witch-hunt, with the sole purpose of sullying the good name of Secretary Clinton before she runs for president in 2016 [2]. The Washington Post claims that inaccurate “media accounts” are to blame for the infamous Susan Rice talking points [3]. And Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is on the oversight committee, commented that “death is a part of life,” as if the murder of an ambassador is a part of the natural order of things and should be accepted [4].

However, there are plenty of other sources who are firm in their belief that the deaths of four Americans and an attack on a US embassy should be thoroughly investigated. An attack on an embassy is equivalent to an attack on the country itself, and for that reason alone, the Benghazi terrorist attack clearly deserves an exhaustive investigation. Whether or not there was a mishandling of the situation, and by whom, needs to be discovered. It is also clear that the American people have already been fed false information, and the question of whether it was due to incompetence or deliberate deception needs to be answered once and for all.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2013 in Left vs. Right, Politicking


Tags: , ,

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

            Several months after the attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans, including a US ambassador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was finally called before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to answer questions about the event and how the current administration handled it. Sadly, we’re still no closer to the truth than we were before her testimony.

            In her emotional prepared statement, she said, “I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters,” [1] and according to the father of slain Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, she also told them that the U.S. would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” [2] However, when questioned by Senator Ron Johnson about whether or not the American people were misled about the cause of the attack, all she could say was, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” and tried to say that they still don’t really know what happened [3].

When asked about watching the attacks at Benghazi in real time on a monitor, she said, “There was no monitor. There was no real time,” and that they only saw videos of the event “weeks later,” despite the testimony from her assistant secretary Lamb and Admiral Mullen that said that, in fact, that there was video available immediately [3]. And when she was questioned by Senator Rand Paul about the transfer of weapons from Libya to Turkey, she put on her surprised face and said she knew nothing about it, even to the point that she’s never heard of it before [3].

While she is still saying that she accepts full responsibility for the events in Benghazi, it appears that full responsibility doesn’t carry with it the responsibility to tell the truth.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 4, 2013 in Government, Politicking


Tags: , , ,