February 10, 2012

On Pending Obama Contraception Coverage Announcement, USAT Is Clearly Scrambling

A “breaking” email I received from USA Today this morning is a definite sign of establishment press scrambling to give deceptive cover to an Obama administration mandate whose unpopularity continues to grow as more people become aware of it. It also shows the lengths to which the press will go to keep the relatively disengaged, which would include those who only primarily informed via email and other brief alerts without digging further, from encountering basic facts.

The email (also seen at this web link) pretends that the president is about to announce a “decision” (as opposed to changing one), and refers to a “rule” without saying where the rule came from, or why:



  • This isn’t about “birth control,” it’s about “contraception” (abstinence has been known to be a pretty effective form of “birth control”).
  • The “rule” is an ObamaCare-driven regulation which is a by-product of Nancy Pelosi’s “we’ll have to pass it before you seen what’s in it” legislative subterfuge.
  • The claim that the rule only applies to “women” is in one important sense not true. The families of employed men who would have contraceptives of their covered spouses covered would be the “beneficiaries” of the “rule,” not just “women.” And that’s before digging into whether any forms of male contraception which may exist or may be developed in the future might be covered.

Shoot, some disengaged readers who only look at the email’s subject line headline may think it’s tabloid trash about what form of future pregnancy prevention Barack and Michelle have decided to use themselves.

When clicking through to the link in the email at 9:15 a.m., we see that headline isn’t about a “decision,” it’s about a “change”:


“Free of charge”? What an interesting phrase, given that going with “no-cost contraceptive coverage” was a more succinct available option. The undercurrent is that Obama is being forced by a bunch of meanie zealots to take away a freebie.

Expect the scrambling to continue as the administration appears to be in backtrack mode. By the time it’s all over, it could turn into a “Gosh, he listened. Isn’t our Dear Leader wonderful?” exercise.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.


BizzyBlog Update: Has anyone seen the word “polarizing,” a term employed ad nauseam in regards to collective-bargaining reform legislation in several states, associated with the Obama contraception coverage mandate? The mandate is arguably far more polarizing.

Friday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (021012)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:00 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder follows. Other topics are also fair game.


¢hange:Obama Bundler Earmarked Stimulus Money for Donors” (HT Instapundit)


Great Question, Obvious Answer: “Rand Paul To Obama: ‘Do You Hate Rich People Or Just Rich People Who Don’t Contribute To Your Campaign?’” Answer: The latter, with a supplement — Those who contribute to a “Super-PAC,” one of those once presumptively evil entities, are okay too, as long as it’s the Obama reelection Super-PAC.


“Arab Spring” Update at PJ Media: “Hazim Abu Ismail, a candidate for Egypt’s presidency with affiliations to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, made clear that the hijab, or veil for women, would be enforced under his leadership. More importantly, along the way he exposed his general views—that there is little freedom under Islam.”


The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that only one of five potential contenders against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in an expected recall election will definitely sign on to vetoing any state budget which does not repeal the state’s collective-bargaining reforms (“Four other Democrats, including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, said they wouldn’t commit to any one strategy to accomplish that”). This has led “Best of the Web” writer Jim Taranto at the Wall Street Journal to describe the entire recall effort as a “Recall Without a Cause.”


Speaking of Taranto, here’s an Interesting point made in his Wednesday column:

With his narrow victory in Iowa, Santorum has now won three out of the four caucuses so far; Romney’s sole victory was in Nevada. Romney has had a big fund-raising edge over all his GOP rivals, but it now seems that isn’t translating into an advantage in his favor in on-the-ground organizing.

In other words, Romney should have the caucus situation under control, and clearly doesn’t.

One Decent Jobs Report Doesn’t ‘Fix’ Things

In Obamaland, failure to fix it no longer creates a “one-term proposition.”


Note: This column went up at PJ Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Wednesday.


There are two reasons why President Obama rushed to the microphone on Friday shortly after the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released relatively good news (by recent standards) that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3% in January, while the economy added 243,000 seasonally adjusted jobs.

The first was to beat up on “Congress” for not yet extending to December 31 the payroll tax cut currently set to expire at the end of this month. He won’t say so, but Obama’s complaint with “Congress” is really with Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate. The place where congresspersons work, i.e., the House of Representatives led by Speaker John Boehner, passed a 12-month extension in mid-December, but backed down after Reid insisted on the Senate’s two-month version.

Obama’s second motivation was to try to make the country forget his February 2009 promise that “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” ABC’s pathetic “Fact Check” is trying to claim that Obama was only referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the nation’s housing situation, but not to the economy as whole.

Nice try, guys. Not even Obama believes that. Last week, the Republican National Committee distracted itself from what it seems to believe is its primary mission, i.e., sealing the GOP nomination for Mitt Romney (never mind that the only candidate polling ahead of Obama in the general election when this column was prepared was Rick Santorum), long enough to remind everyone of Obama’s promise. In reaction, the President’s people surely put that 2009 statement on the agenda for his Super Bowl Sunday interview with Matt Lauer, who recalled it in the context of the economy as a whole (take that, Fact Check). Obama, as expected, told Lauer that “I deserve a second term, but we’re not done.” We sure aren’t.

Positivity: DART officer says crucifix saved her life during shooting

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 7:54 am

From Richardson, Texas:

Posted: Feb 08, 2012 5:28 PM EST
Updated: Feb 08, 2012 5:48 PM EST

An officer with Dallas Area Rapid Transit is crediting a crucifix with saving her life, after a Tuesday afternoon shooting at a rail station that left two people dead, including the suspect. The incident happened at about 3:40 p.m. at the Arapaho Center Station in Richardson.

According to DART spokesman Mark Ball, a bus driver had a confrontation with a passenger who was trying to board a DART bus. The driver exited the bus when he saw the officer, and told her about the situation. The passenger then walked away toward a train platform, Ball said. As the officer approached, the passenger turned and opened fire. The female officer was hit in her protective vest and shoulder.

… After the shooting, the suspect fled the scene. The DART officer was able to relay information to the police, who followed the suspect to a nearby Vent-a-Hood warehouse, located about 200 yards from the train platform. Authorities entered the business and there was an exchange of gunfire, Perlich said. It was originally reported that the suspect took his own life but, Perlich later said, it was not clear whether the fatal wound came from the suspect or the police.

The victims were all taken to Medical Center of Plano, Ball said, and Perlich later confirmed that one of the civilians died. None of the victims nor the suspect have been identified. Late on Tuesday night, the shot officer returned to the train platform to help investigators canvas the area and clear up the circumstances of what took place.

The officer declined an interview, but said that a crucifix kept underneath her protective vest saved her life. A bullet hit the cross, she said.

Go here for the full story.