Health and Human Services Secretary found a new culprit to blame for the Titanic-like launch of the Obamacare website: Congressional Republicans. So how could it be the fault of the people who were shut out of helping create it, voted solidly against it, and had nothing whatsoever to do with building it? Well, they weren't able to test the website because of the government shutdown.

One problem with that argument: both the government shutdown and the Obamacare website launch happened the first week of October. Who waits to test a massive web project until the day it's launched? It should've been tested for months before then, but the contractors testified last week that that was impossible because they got an order from the White House to change the programming for political purposes, and that change was one of the major problems that causes the crashes. It's become the hallmark of this Administration that nobody's ever responsible for anything: Not Benghanzi, the IRS scandal, the NSA, Fast and Furious, and now, even their own website. They may eventually need Obamacare themselves after their wear out their fingers from pointing them at other people.

Sec. Sebelius also brushed off the rising calls for President Obama to demand her resignation, and insisted that nobody would be fire. She said she doesn't work for the people who want her to resign. Funny, I thought she worked for the taxpayers, and I bet a lot of them wouldn't mind seeing some heads roll about now. Still, when someone screws up that badly and isn't fired, it tells me that she was following orders from the White House. You fire people when they embarrass you through their own mistakes. But if they were carrying out your orders, you can't fire them, because then, they'll tell the world they were only doing what they were told. The formula in this Administration, like in much of Washington, has been "Screw up, cover up, move up." Protect the guy upstairs, and you'll get promoted, no matter how bad a job you've done. In this case, though, the screw-up is so public, so obvious, and affects so many Americans, that maybe at long last, the buck might stop at the White House.

Comments 1-5 of 10

  • Pramod

    11/14/2013 08:42 PM

    The problem, AAP, is that pecsierly what has been happening in our culture will continue to happen. Marriage, sex, and babies are supposed to go together. When on a grand-scale, you separate one of those things from the other two, you have something that harms our culture. Children have been born out of wedlock from time immemorial, but it was always looked at as a negative thing. Now it's just an alternative family and is, in many sectors is viewed as normal. Same-sex marriage is problematic for the same reason. You say that same sex partners deserve all the same rights as a man and a woman in marriage. Why? What benefit can a same sex marriage give to our society that warrants special benefits? Why should same sex couple get benefits but best friends for life don't, roomates don't, siblings don't, cousins don't? There is no compelling reason for government to be involved in granting special rights to a same sex couple.For a marriage between a man and a woman, however, there is a compelling reason. Families are the bedrock of our society. When families suffer, our whole society suffers. Marriage between a man and a woman grants children the best opportunity to be raised in a healthy, stable environment. A child has the best chance to be raised healthy and happy when raised by his/her biological parents, both of them. A child is more likely to be abused when being raised by a step-parent or when one of the parents has a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend. Adoption is a great option when it is necessary but it is still unfortunate that it is ever necessary. That's why there isn't a positive reason, and now the negative reason. Couples normally want to have a child/children with the person they love. That is a very human reaction. For most heterosexual couples, that happens in the natural way. For same sex couples, there is no natural way for them to conceive a child between them. So what do they do? Some will adopt a child who could not be raised by their parents. Controversial, but I won't comment since there is a lot of debate about how that works out for the child. But it doesn't stop there. Now, it is becoming more and more normal for the couple to seek out a way to create a child of their very own. In this case, they are INTENDING to bring a child into this world who will not be raised by one of his/her biological children. It's become so normal that two shows on major networks (that I know of) have raised the issue. Modern Family had an episode about it last season. The New Normal is based completely around this concept. By the way, this isn't just a same sex couple thing. Surrogate motherhood, sperm donation, all of those things fall on the same lines and all of them should be condemned. Children have the right to be raised by their biological parents; it doesn't always happen, unfortunately, but we need to remove all things that intentionally cause it. We need to find ways to bring down the divorce rate for the same reason. I might, for example, be in favor of laws not recognizing a second marriage (for the purpose of benefits) between a couple if one or both of them have a child unless there was some compelling reason for the divorce (like abuse). All of this is because recognizing marriage is NOT ABOUT THE ADULTS. It's about WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN. That's the part that we have forgotten. Children need to be protected by their adult guardians but we have made relationships and our laws regarding marriage about the adults involved and their feelings. It's time to wake up, grow up, and act like adults. P.S. Notice that I said nothing about religion in this entire post.

  • Joyce house

    11/02/2013 08:37 PM

    Gov. Huckabee...Our country needs a smart man like you... please consider running for President!!

  • kimberly page

    10/31/2013 10:20 PM


  • Stephen Halter

    10/31/2013 05:32 PM

    Was wondering if anyone could clue me in to where Obama's #s might have come from when he stated that 14% of Arkansans have signed up for one of the health insurance policies in his speech yesterday, 10/30/13. I'm sure I am misquoting him? I read today that less than 200 Arkansans had done so using the state exchange. I'm thinking the # came from ARKids rolls?

  • Bob Putzell

    10/30/2013 05:43 PM

    I never could understand why people are so shocked when President Obama does things that go against the Constitution. When he was running for the Presidency he said time and again that he wanted to FUDAMENTALY change this country.
    Webster's Dictionary gives the definition of the word "Fundamental" as "A leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part".
    The primary rule of law this country follows is the United States Constitution. He told the public that he wanted to change the Constitution, now he's doing just that and we're forced to live with it. Next time pay very close attention to what he says.

Stay Connected