ObamaCare: Success Beyond Their Wildest Dreams

I keep seeing reports and comments that ObamaCare has failed. It has not failed. It is succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. The only people who believe it has failed are the people who believe ObamaCare was intended to make health care more affordable. That was never the goal. The objective was Cloward-Piven.

The only risk now is that ObamaCare succeeds so effectively that it causes blow-back to the extent that Democrats are adversely affected in the next election.

It looks like some Democrat politicians have too little faith in their Messiah, or place their own selfish job security above the objective of the collective.

Efficient Gun Control That Makes Sense

This is adapted from an email that is circulating on the Interweb, that my dad forwarded to me.

---

Efficient Gun Control that makes sense. 

• In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States. 

• In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound. 

• In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. 

• In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States. 

• In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States. 

• In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant. 

• In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office. 

• In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office. 

• In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria. 

• In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory. 

• In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service. 

• In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US . 

• In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant. 

• In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech. 

• In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. 

• In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people. 

• In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .   

• In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school. 

• The Latest... An angry Democrat shoots 12 at a Navy ship yard.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.  Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved. 

Solution: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

---

Note: I did not Snopes this. Maybe some of the claims are false. But like Dan Rather at CBS, the claims may be false, but the narrative is true so it's fair game, right? Oh, who cares? Under Alinsky rules, all's fair.

But here's the deal: 'progressives' seem to judge others by themselves, i.e., "We can't be trusted with guns, so we have to ban guns. They're not safe for anyone." There are two problems with that.

1. Lots of people can be trusted with guns, and they can do a lot of good in society, especially during the crucial average 20 minutes it takes for a 911 response ("You better not rape me! I called 911!"). Guns prevent a lot of crime just by the perps not knowing who's carrying and who isn't. Violence is prevented with nary a shot being fired. 
2. Banning guns will not eliminate guns from society. It's 300 year-old technology. That genie is so out of the bottle, and has been for centuries. Best to get a grip, and get real. The world's a dangerous place, and while guns can be dangerous, in responsible hands, guns can actually make the world safer.

I keep a loaded fire extinguisher under my kitchen sink, and a first-aid kit in my medicine cabinet for the same reason I keep a loaded pistol in my (none of your business). Because when seconds count, help can arrive in minutes. 

Check One: Self-Serving Bald-Faced Liar, or Clueless, Pathetic Tool?

This morning, Dillon Honcoop asked the question on the KGMI Morning Show, "Barack Obama, apology accepted?"

Let's see... the serial lie that we could keep our health care or our doctor if we like... period - has turned out to be patently false for literally millions of Americans. Barack Obama forcefully repeated that lie throughout his campaign. I see only two possibilities:

1. he's a self-serving bald-faced liar or 
2. he's a clueless, pathetic tool. 

Either way, it got him re-elected, and his signature legislation passed.

Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, and people are discovering their loss of liberty, financial security and prosperity, he thinks he can make it right by saying, "Oops! Sorry, my bad!" Apology accepted? Not bloody likely!

The only way for him to make us whole would be for him to resign the presidency that he retained under false pretenses, and for congress to repeal ObamaCare, and start all over with the truth this time. That's also not bloody likely.

BOHICA Folks, You've Earned It!

Q: Can this problem be solved with more freedom, instead of less? ~ Penn Jillette

A: HELL NO! It cannot! Our problems can only be solved with fewer choices and dictatorial 'solutions' handed down by people who 'know better' than we do! ~ Whatcom County Voters

I think about half of the voters in yesterday's election have never known what it was like to live in a free country. It was a wonderful place! Sure, we had our problems, but we were at liberty to work them out for ourselves, make our own choices in life, and adjust our own behavior if we guessed wrong. Live and let live, we didn't try to force anyone else to do what WE thought was right.

Well, you have made your choice, and you deserve to get what you voted for, good and hard. BOHICA, folks, you've earned it!

ObamaCare: Define Success!

Local morning talk show host Dillon Honcoop noted that people focusing on the failure of the HealthCare.gov website were missing the big picture, namely that millions of people are losing their health insurance due to ObamaCare.

While I believe Dillon was correct as far he went, I think he is missing an even bigger picture: ObamaCare was never intended to succeed in the way you or I, or dozens of Democrats in the US legislature who voted for it, would define success.

The progenitors of ObamaCare measure success by the degree of chaos that it can cause in the health insurance and health care provider market. Because the ultimate goal is single payer, which will be much easier to implement when people are demanding relief from the bomb that is ObamaCare. Who knew?

I think Obama knew, Pelosi knew, probably Harry Reid, and a handful of other Democrats in the legislature knew. The rest of them were hornswoggled into believing that ObamaCare was this benevolent thing that would bring affordable health care to the masses. They were the useful idiots.

They were the useful idiots who didn't read the bill, because the bill was designed to be unreadable. Most of the text simply modifies arcane elements of other laws. It would take a team of lawyers months of research to make sense of it. The rest of them simply read the executive summary, assumed it was an honest representation of the bill's intent and scope, and voted on that basis.

President Obama famously said (numerous times), "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period". That is now obviously false. Since I believe Obama knew, I'm calling this a lie. So, why would Obama lie? He had to lie, in order to make ObamaCare succeed in the way he wants it to succeed. You might say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but a week ago, you would have called me that for saying millions would lose their health care coverage. There's a big difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact.

Grammar and Cultural Chauvinism

Supposably, for all intensive purposes, irregardless of the fact that I could care less, I'd buy an expresso, excetera, pacifically for anyone who realized that it is of upmost importance that we use proper spelling and grammar. Otherwise, we'll look dull and uneducated, and no one will read our resume'.

Does anybody else think our preoccupation with spelling and grammar is a trifle arbitrary? I have always been a stickler for good spelling and grammar, but seriously, it is arbitrary, right? It has to be. English grew out of a need to communicate, long before we had any concept of English grammar. The English language is an ad-hoc hodgepodge of other languages and dialects. 

Shakespeare liked to toy with the language, and he frequently invented new words. He had the liberty of defining the part of speech and the spelling. Why did that spelling have to be locked in place for ever after? Spelling wasn't actually "standardized" until the first dictionaries began to capture the current (local) spellings, or assigned spellings based on the current (local) pronunciation. That was arbitrary. 

I think the current preoccupation with spelling and grammar actually stems from a need for educated people to be able to draw a line between themselves and other, uneducated people. I honestly do believe that. The same goes for the disdain for "Ebonics", various southern dialects, the use of "ain't", and so on. 

When we say, "nice day, eh", we're either mocking or identifying with Canadians, eh? When we say, "We be racis'", we're either mocking or identifying with the black culture. When we say, "Oh my God! Gag me with a spoon!", we're mocking the Valley Girl culture. And it works both ways: When a Negro uses "good" grammar, s/he is said to be "acting white". 

I think we humans engage in cultural chauvinism without realizing it, even at the very same time we denounce it. We want to be accepted by our culture and by our peers, and language is just as much a badge or uniform as skin color or clothing. "Good" spelling and grammar are just other ways to impose uniformity. It doesn't bother me, but I think this observation will irritate 'progressives' who pride themselves on their expensive liberal arts education and impeccable spelling and grammar. 

Obama Death Star

I saw this over at Common Sense with Paul Jacob, and I liked it so much that I stole it:

It accompanies his article, Affordable [sic] Healthcare [sick].