Category Archives: Townhall.com

#Obamacare is making us a “part-time” nation

Did you hear about the new Obamacare Video contest being sponsored by the HHS? It’s the Federal Government’s newest plan to reach “…younger Americans who are skeptical of the need for health coverage…“.

If I had a vote, I’d declare Lisa Benson at Townhall.com the winner right now:

Obamacare - Part time workers 3

And if you had ANY doubts, Ms. Benson is right on the money here:

Continue reading

Obama, Horses, Delusions, and other debate-related items

Gonna do a column/post/article/op-ed round-up today, ’cause there’s several good ones out there and it’s highly unlikely too many of you will have a chance to get to ALL of them.

I mean, let’s face it: that’s why you have us.

First up is Newt Gingrich writing on the debate performances for Obama and Romney. From Human Events:

After a disastrous performance in the first debate — the worst by an incumbent president in the 62 year history of presidential debates — Obama shifted to a much more aggressive and energetic style for the second and third debates.

Americans have been trained by American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and other TV shows to judge performances. They have also learned to distinguish important nuances.

In both the second and third debate Americans said Obama was a better ‘performer’. Yet in both debates people said they were more likely to vote for Romney as a result of the debate.

—–

Next is Allahpundit over at HotAir.com, who fired off this post late Tuesday night. It follows the most recent news on Benghazi and begins to tighten the snare around this Administration, as well as the consistent inconsistencies with which they’re trying to distract us:

If I understand the White House’s Benghazi narrative in its current form, it boils down to this. There was no protest, but the attack was still kinda sorta spontaneous insofar as it was inspired by what was happening at the embassy in Cairo. And it wasn’t an official Al Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia operationeven though members of AQIM and Ansar al-Sharia — including the founder of the latter group — were on the scene and/or participating.

Essentially, the White House wants you to believe that members of two prominent jihadist paramilitary groups were kicking around on September 11 when one of them turned on the TV, heard about the Mohammed movie from coverage of the Egyptian embassy assault, and decided to quickly pull together a complex, heavily-armed attack on the local U.S. consulate involving 20 or so people. Never mind that there had been harassment of, and attacks on, western interests in the city for months; these guys apparently had no serious designs on Chris Stevens or his compatriots until they heard about the YouTube video and hulked-out in the form of an organized armed raid.

The only thing that makes this story plausible is that security for Stevens at the compound was so disgracefully poor that hardened jihadis probably could have drawn up a play in the dirt outside the building and gotten to the ambassador.

That’s Obama’s defense here, essentially — that the consulate was so easily breached thanks to threadbare protection for Stevens that it’s quite possible the whole thing was put together by amateurs, without planning.

—–

Bob Gorrell, a political cartoonist, had this over at Townhall.com. I, along with quite a few others, was happily sending it around the Twittersphere last night, since it is such an accurate portrayal:

—–

There was an excellent blog post on Obama’s “Horses and Bayonets” debate wisecrack that pretty much destroys any-and-all credence to which he was clinging. Written by retired US Naval intelligence officer J. E. Dyer, on her theoptimisticconservative blog:

The key question implied in all this is what kind of operation you envision, as you consider which military forces to develop and buy. (In August 2001, no one envisioned the US military needing horses for special operations in Afghanistan.)

The president’s statements about our inventory of naval combat ships imply much the same question.  Obama’s statement suggests that aircraft carriers and submarines (“ships that go underwater”) have made the surface combatant – the cruiser, destroyer, and frigate – less necessary.  If we have only as many of them as we had in 1916, that’s not a problem, in Obama’s formulation, because technology changes.

If you want to control the seas, you still need surface combatants.  And since the seas are the pathway to most of what we do outside our borders, there is no such situation as one in which we will only need to do what aircraft carriers do, or only what submarines do, or only what minesweepers or oilers or merchant ships do.  If we do not control the seas, we do not control our security conditions or our strategic options.

—–

Our fourth and final post concerns perhaps the most important choice we’re making this year: the choice between the ever-growing State and the individual. We’ve covered much of the same ground last week here, but leave it to John Hayward (aka ‘Doctor Zero’) to bring his inimitable flair to the topic:

But none of that “free market” stuff for America!  On the really important issues – health care, energy production, televising billion-dollar puppet shows – only the judgment of the State can be trusted

Obama sees the marketplace as a barren tundra prowled by predators, and equates freedom with abandonment.  The public can only be allowed to frolic within carefully controlled spaces, where failure is not an option, and excessive success will be punished.  Obama’s faith in the wisdom and intelligence of free people to increase the general wealth of the nation, by discovering and exploring opportunity on their own, is virtually undetectable. 

To him, ensuring “access” to something means forcing other people to pay for it.

—–

Be sure to check out the entire posts with these, if you can. There’s obviously a lot more there than just what we included.

Looking for Change?

I was trying to get away from the “all-Trayvon-Martin, all-the-time” coverage for an evening, but I came across an article from Thomas Sowell that made perfect sense, as usual.

From Townhall.com:

Author Harry Stein………asks a very fundamental question: “Why, even after the Duke University rape fiasco, does the media continue to give credence to every charge of racism?

Let us talk sense, like adults. Nothing that is done to George Zimmerman — justly or unjustly — will unlynch a single black man who was tortured and killed in the Jim Crow South for a crime he didn’t commit.

There is no question that we are living in a society today that is conflicted on race. On one side, you have the folks that truly are following what they’ve been taught since birth: to judge someone by the “content of their character, not the color of their skin” (sound familiar??). On the other side, there are those who are seemingly consumed with race, and manage to inject it into every topic, every issue, even ones that have nothing to do with race.

These people will insist that the United States is “racist”, even after a horrific Civil War, 50 years of the Civil Rights movement, Affirmative Action, and on and on, …ALL of which ultimately led to the election of Barack Obama. To still portray our nation as inherently racist is ridiculous. In fact, we’re the least racist country in the world.

From Dennis Prager:

And when any of these people come here, they are accepted as Americans the moment they identify as such. If someone — from anywhere, speaking any language, looking like a member of any race — becomes an American, he or she will be regarded as fully American.

This is not true elsewhere.

A third-generation Turkish-German, whose German is indistinguishable from the German spoken by an indigenous German, will still be regarded by most Germans as a Turk. The same holds true elsewhere in Europe.

—–

Most Americans were hopeful that the election of a black president — thereby making America the first white society in history to choose a black leader — would finally put to rest the myth of a racist America. More than three years later it seems not to have accomplished a thing. I now suspect that if the president, the vice-president, the entire cabinet, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all nine justices on the Supreme Court were black, it would have no impact on blacks who believe America is a racist society — or on the left-wing depiction of America as racist.

Quite so. You have the usual Race Industry hacks, all jockeying for position to exploit Trayvon for their own gain. Worse than that, because of the sensationalism and hype in the Martin case, we have “get-even” crimes occurring now, and they aren’t even getting mentioned in the news.

At all.

Walter Williams highlighted this problem recently, as well:

Let’s look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, “You get what you deserve, white boy.” Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks. The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend’s rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered. Before disposing of her body, the three men and one woman poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. A jury found the four guilty, and they were sentenced, but because of the judge’s drug use, a retrial is being considered.

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news that the Trayvon Martin case made, and it’s deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to “guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.”

Williams’ conclusion? Cases like this will continue to be ignored in the media:

….. because black-on-black crime, like black-on-white crime, does not fit the liberal narrative of the continuing problem of white racism.

And now, on top of all this, another race meme has begun to appear recently: “If we don’t re-elect Obama, it’s only because we’re racist“.

Obviously….

—————————————–

Let’s show the race-hustlers the door, folks. Don’t give the race-obsessed media so much as the time of day. And maybe, just maybe, someday we’ll be able to have a decent discussion on race that doesn’t include the term “racist”.

Now THAT would be change to believe in.