Best Evidence of Progressive/Liberal Expert Deceit - Professor Jonathon Gruber of MIT

It seems everyone wants/needs to trust experts, tenured professors and professionals to determine what is best for them. We also have a tendency to believe our elected representatives.  But it seems they cannot be trusted. That trust had little to do with the passage of the ACA (ObamaCare).  When it passed, the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency -  with 60 votes in the US Senate, the GOP could not stop the disastrous ACA from passing. At that time, the only people who needed convincing were the Democrats is the US Congress.  (By the way, those Democrats were already convinced, they just needed to work out the details of who gets paid what amount in exchange for voting for this albatross)

The American people aren't "stupid".  We knew as much about ACA as President Obama and Rep. Nancy "we have to pass it to know what's in it" Pelosi, which is - to be gentle - not much.

So now we have Professor Gruber happily telling folks that American voters are too stupid to understand the economics of ObamaCare.  Of course, again, we know as much or more about economics as President Obama, so I wonder if there isn't some underlying thought process going with Mr. Gruber that makes him direct his insults at the voters?  Of course, he does not have to get voters to like or support him, he just needs the politically powerful to pay him - and to heck with the rest.

But Mr. Gruber has done the country an invaluable service - He has outed the political elites with his too stupid message.  The voters needed to know that our beloved politicians are much more concerned with obtaining, expanding and retaining power, than they are with the concerns of the American population.  They will tell us anything - any lie - and tell it with conviction, just to keep their power.  Here is all the evidence you need to know that politicians lie, they do it deliberately - make no mistake, ObamaCare is about power and control.

From one of the "architects" of ObamaCare, Professor Jonathan Gruber.

"Democrats Who Once Praised ObamaCare Architect Gruber Now Can’t Run Away From Him Far or Fast Enough" - ijreview.com, 11/18/14 w/video mash-up from the Washington Free Beacon

GRUBER: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." Jonathan Gruber, October 17, 2013, video posted by AmericanCommitment Published on Nov 7, 2014

Legislators Amused at Vermonters' Concerns Uploaded on Feb 20, 2011 by TrueNorthReports 

"Dr. William Hsaio and his team testify at House Health Care Committee hearing on February 18, 2011. Chairman Mark Larson (D-Burlington) reads a letter from a Vermont constituent concerned about a single-payer system."  Description by TrueNorthReports (Prof. Gruber mocks a Vermonter's question)

Obamacare Architect: No State Exchange = No Subsidies; Blatant Enough- Jonathan Gruber, January 18, 2012, video posted by AmericanCommitment

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this." - Prof. Gruber

What else do we need to know that the political and academic elite in this country think the rest of us are stupid and need their wise counsel to live our lves because, you know, we are too stupid in their eyes.

28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Why Not

There is and email making the rounds calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require any legislation that congress makes or modifies would apply fully to them as it would apply to anyone else. As circulated, it reads:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

I believe this is a great idea and would be happy to give credit to the author, if that person were known. On the other hand, Snopes.com is dismissive of the idea"grading it "Mostly False", citing extraneous issues that have been lumped into the equal application of the law amendment.

Obama - Lazy Americans

Obama said. "We've kind of taken for granted -- 'Well, people would want to come here' -- and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America." Story at ABC News

Dear Mr. President. Foreign businesses are not flooding the gates because someone continually demonizes successful businesses, won't lower the highest corporate taxes in the world, and keeps adding red tape and regulation to stifle the job creators.

Mr. President, I'm afraid the problem is not laziness. The problem is you, your ideology and the mindset of your political party.

Thank you for your support.

There psychological terms to describe this president, and they would not enhance his public image.

Defining a Successful Presidency

After the presidential elections back in 2008, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail.  Of course this brought lots of negative comments that the legacy and new age media were happy to replay, reprint, misstate and all with their own special brand of opinion attached.  Mr. Limbaugh's comments were in response to President-elect Obama's promise to "fundamentally change America".

OK, so what would exemplify a successful or a failed administration?  It depends on your political or ideological reference. Let's look


Conservative on what a successful or failed presidency would entail

If you are a rank and file conservative, you would define a 'failed presidency' as one where ...
- we created more enemies around the world while giving them the impression that we can't or won't defend ourselves
- many Americans can no longer find gainful employment
- government must step in and "care" for more and more Americans
- government treats people unequally under the law
- illegal aliens are given a free pass with benefits
- our people are murdered in foreign countries with no subsequent response from us
- we go out of our way to illegally return 5 terrorists in leadership positions to fight against us
-  religion is removed from the public arena
- the Federal Reserve does not hand over hundreds of billions of unfunded taxpayer dollars to large, too big to fail, financial institutions and tacking the amounts to the national debt

While a successful presidency might be one where ...
- other nations and groups respected the USA, or at least were hesitant to launch attacks against us
- the leader of the free world built confidence among the people and gave them high hopes for the future.
- one where the proven strategies, traditions and common sense ruled over change for the sake of change and political expediency.
- people and groups were not persecuted for having opposing views.
- the economy didn't suffer due to ever more regulations and higher taxes.
-  the people didn't suffer because we were not being treated equally under the law.
-  government stayed out of individual lives as much as possible.
- and the church and private charities, rather than the government, were the charitable organization.


Progressive on what a successful or failed presidency would entail

A progressive might believe that the administration had failed if ...
- there are more wealthy Americans, an expanding middle class, and higher wages
- there are fewer countries appeared to be friendly towards us and our allies were unsure that we had their back
- there will be no universal healthcare
- he did not stop the use of fossil fuels
- we had to spend money on our military
- he did not make conservatives and religion irrelevant
- and if he does not turn all unused land and temporary bodies of water (puddles and ditches) into environmentally protected zones

On the other hand they might conclude that the presidency was successful if the president's administration ...
- did reduce the number of "rich" people and increase the number of governmentally dependent
- enacted a "living wage" requirement
- spend much more money on the "poor" and poor illegal aliens
- drastically reduced the size and budget of the military
- where more countries pretended to like us
- removed personal responsibility from everyone and made life one happy day after another with the benevolent government taking care of everything.

My Rating of the Obama administration's 6 years in office

I would grade the Obama administration as a failure due to their record of...
- the slowest job growth in the history of the country
- for encouraging twelve million adult Americans to give up on finding a job
- for touting millions of jobs created where almost half are part time jobs and many being entry level wage jobs with no benefits
- for leading from behind
- for constantly blaming others for the problems they cannot solve
- for losing the peace in the Middle East
- for bowing to foreign heads of state
- for adding more to the national debt than all the other 43 preceding presidents combined
- for increasing by half the number of families on government assistance
- for transferring trillions of dollars directly to the banks that caused the economic strife in 2008 while leaving the middle class hanging with lot jobs, homes and savings/equity - giving that to the banks as well (we wouldn't Wall Street to lose their bonuses)
- and for believing that they have to lie and hide what they are doing from the American people.

The Daily Kos - Hyper-liberal

The Daily Kos has decided what is real and what isn't.  They will claim that the President never lied about ACA (ObamaCare) and Benghazi and that he and his cabinet and appointees are only trying to help Americans.  To further this meme the Kos is laced with mischaracterizations, lies, fabrications and fairy tales - all sprinkled with a generous amount of name-calling, stereotyping and hate speech.  And yet, they are the open minded ones.

Maybe not so much. Look at this.

"The conservative movement has spent years designing an alternate reality for its membership. It's a universe in which climate change isn't real, but the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a full-blown cover-up. In this universe, Mitt Romney had the 2012 presidential election in the bag, the Affordable Care Act is still a massive failure, and every single conspiracy theory about the left isn't just a theory: it is simply known, with no citations necessary. As Paul Harris wrote after his encounter with the 2013 edition of CPAC:" - Daily Kos - Dante Atkins

Let's see - Alternate reality - It seems to me that this is exactly what the left does in order to maintain their belief system and their support among voters. Further, from my perspective it looks as though they project their own mindset and activities onto those who they oppose.  They labeled themselves as liberals - an Orwellian term when applied to their political ideology as liberals are the least open minded Americans that can be found.  If you try to talk to them about any topic that they oppose they will do whatever they can to shut you up.  They will expel you from commenting on their forums if you point out any facts that contradict what they are posting and they will try to marginalize you with slurs including racism, homophobia and even deride you if you are religious.

"a universe in which climate change isn't real"

 That is the standard line from progressives whenever the topic comes up. I know of no Republican or conservative who does not believe the climate is changing.  I believe the climate is changing.  I believe it is always changing.  To be clear, the problem is not believing it's changing, the problem is that progressives do not mind bankrupting this country, using apocalyptic scare tactics with no regard to the safety and security of everyone in the country and including those in foreign countries as well, to move forward with their expensive self-serving climate change agenda.

"the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a full-blown cover-up."

The fact is it was a cover up. Highly placed Whitehouse staff, and including State Department staff, deliberately scrubbed the narrative for Benghazi and then send Ms. Rice out to the Sunday news programs, instead of the scheduled appearance by the Secretary of State - Hilary Clinton, and sold a fabrication about some video that no one ever heard of - certainly no one in Benghazi, Libya - because there was an election coming up.  A terrorist attack would destroy the administration's "Al Quaida is decimated and on the run" narrative.

"Mitt Romney had the 2012 presidential election in the bag"

With President Obama's record Romney should have - and his campaign was keeping their spirits up until election day. But again, I know of no one who was betting that he 'had it in the bag' before election day.  That is a narrative created by the left for the express purpose of discounting and deriding - just as is being done at the Kos now.

"the Affordable Care Act is still a massive failure"

It is a failure if its actual intent was to save medical dollars and make it affordable for everyone.  Here is what it was said and what happened.
- It will lower insurance premiums - Premiums increased by 30% for those who were able to sign up and could afford the payments.
- More people will ave access to healthcare - there are no more people having access to healthcare than there was before.  The Whitehouse estimate of 12 million new ACA enrollees reflects the number of people who lost their insurance plan because of ACA rules.  In fact because of the extraordinarily high deductibles and limited doctor/hospital pool the plans allow, fewer people are likely to have access to healthcare providers.

lies:
- ACA will reduce premiums $2500 per average family - Oops, it went up by that much.
- Keep your doctor - Nope.
- Keep your insurance plan - Not so much.
- Won't increase  the national debt- Sorry, the mechanism that makes it affordable is supplementing the premiums with tax dollars. And they still cannot afford it.

"every single conspiracy theory about the left isn't just a theory: it is simply known, with no citations necessary."

Hmmm.  Does Mr. Atkins  realize that he has posted his conspiracy without any citations?  BTW: using the writings of other progressives, who themselves do not demonstrate any relation to facts or reality, are not qualifiable as legitimate sources.

As for his source, Paul Harris

"This is a world where it is seriously believed that the United Nations is trying to take over the US, and Obama is a Kenyan socialist, an Islamist, a Marxist or the biological son of communist-sympathiser Frank Marshall Davis. This is a world where Obama wants to take away all guns, where he has dictatorial powers worthy of an emperor and where the US media is a liberal conspiracy pushing abortions and being gay. This is the world where Glenn Beck, former Fox TV host turned popular publisher of The Blaze website, is hugely powerful and shock jock Rush Limbaugh is king. "

 Conservatives don't believe the UN is trying to take over the US, they are trying to drain us of as much of our value as they can.  Former General Secretary Kofi Atta Annan got away with Billions (Iraqi Oil for Food program embezzling by his son, Kojo) - all sent to the UN to help manage the world.  If the UN had a take-over plan, it would be for the entire world.  They are never described as leading a country, they are described as "The World Body".

We do not believe Obama is a born Kenyan, he is a Kenyan-American, born in Hawaii.  And there is much disagreement over describing Obama's political leanings (socialist, communist, Marxist, totalitarian, etc.).  Personally, I believe he is under someone's thumb who is trying to turn this country into a totalitarian utopia where government controls every aspect of human life, where the in-crowd lives high on the hog and the rest support their comfort.

Recall President Obama saying is the congress doesn't do something he would use his pen and his phone?  What do you think that means? I do not believe President Obama has actual "dictatorial" powers.  I do believe that he believes he has such power and the authority to use it.

These are M. Harris' beliefs, but they are simply wrong, but he and they don't care.  They have their narrative and they are sticking to it. They need to demonize their opposition in order to get any support at all.  If liberal politicians weren't distracting and blaming others, their own failures would be front page news.

Oh wait - the US media, Mr. Harris rightly states, pushes abortion and homosexuality instead of reporting the deconstruction of the country's heart and purpose by self-serving Democrats and compliant Republicans.  I call them the legacy media as they have become relics of the past who no longer live up to their charter, but instead, support politics that they agree with by their silence on issues that matter and their front-paging of issues and politicians they oppose.

Oh and by the way, Rush Limbaugh is the king of talk radio and nothing else.  If he were king of the Republicans, they wouldn't be compromising with mushbrained leftists for fear of being demonized in the press.

Leftist Juveniles: This Is What Passes for Progressive Political Speech

I inadvertently came across a blog entitled "Nameless GenX Blog" with a post titled "The Republican Party Platform for 2012 in One Tidy PDF"*. It is interesting in its complete lack of adult intellect and factual information. Closer to a juvenile rant against all things misunderstood and regurgitated with all the honesty that can be mustered by someone who is not only a propagandist and Cool Aid swiller, but has become the Cool Aid pitcher containing all of the available pseudo-juice.

I was filled such memorable lines as, "In Republican ‘merka, freedom applies only to white, male, Fundamentalist Christians and/or Fortune 500 Corporations to whom The Bush Supreme Court® has granted human status.

This sentence holds many misconceptions and revelations. 'Merka" leads by indicating a hatred for this country (America). When people use the letter "k" in place of the "c" in America I see their attempt to marginalize this country. These folks do not like what they see here, but become tongue tied when asked to show a better model (because there is none).

He then mistakenly claims that the GOP will deny freedom to anyone who is not a Caucasian Republican like them and their rich friends. Never mind that there are more wealthy Democratic Party Congresspersons than GOP has and the GOP is the majority in the US House. Additionally, he leaves out the fact that President Obama, has rich CEO's on his list of "czars" whose corporations pay very little in taxes (GE).

The reality is the GOP and the Democratic Party both take contributions from wealthy sponsors, lobbyists and PAC's. The history is that the party in power gets the most money and this, I suspect, is why there is such warlike partisan battles going on for every elected office.

He envisions as country where everyone other than Republicans will be denied rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Of course, there is about zero evidence to prove that idea and he doesn't even know how to describe socialist government programs. His examples of socialist government programs include...

"(roads, bridges, tunnels, military to invade sovereign countries so as to confiscate their oil, police and fire protection for their walled estates, trash removal, snow removal, food tasting, etc.)"

If he should read this I would like to point out to him that roads, bridges, tunnels (infrastructure) and the military are not socialist programs, but are specifically listed as the responsibility of the federal government in the US Constitution.

The police, fire fighters and trash removal are not listed in the US Constitution but are left to the responsibility of local governments (state, county and city).

And we as taxpayers pay for all of it.

*The Nameless GenX Blog seems to have been changed since finding the linked story.

Rights vs. Power

Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows the difference between the terms rights and power as it is used when discussing the people's relationship to government these days.  Do you?  I think I know the difference and I'd like to share.

People and groups who want more from society and feel they need leverage always use the term "rights" when describing their issue, and always using it incorrectly.  This misuse of terminology confuses the issues and allows what would otherwise be dismissed out of hand, now are considered for action by serious minded scholars, political leaders, activists, and judges, along with all of their sycophants falling in line.

In this country people do have rights - protected rights.  We Americans revel in our personal freedoms and the exercise our constitutionally protected rights daily and without fear of reprisal.  But that is changing.  Special interest groups are defining their issues as rights when there is little proof that anyone's rights are involved. We want our rights to protect us, not to be bastardized and abused by special interest groups.

What groups?  Unions for starters, who claim the "right" to hold corporations hostage for personal profit and demand government support them.

I suppose I should define what a right is and how it should been seen and used.  If you read the US Declaration of Independence it says, in part,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:"

What this says to me is that the protected rights, as defined in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, do not emanate from the government.  The rights are with us long before government gets involved. and their involvement is limited to protecting those rights and sometimes, under certain conditions, place limits on the exercise of those rights.

The conditions? When people violate the rights of others.  This is what "protected" means.  Government did not create rights.  Government was created to protect rights.

Some argue that groups of people have rights, but until recently there was no law, no state or US Code that specifies any group should be afforded some right due to their group membership.  Politicians have been giving certain groups power, but not rights.  For instance, the government affords special protection to unions to ensure that businesses don't remove their power to organize. The legacy media will broadcast stories about labor union rights.  But I would submit that the labor unions and such rights as they may claim only apply as written in their contracts between the union members and the company where they are employed.  That makes it less of a right and merely a contractual relationship.

Gay groups claim a right to marry.  This is profound because no one possesses a government sponsored or protected "right to marry".  Individuals in the USA are free to pursue whatever pleases them with the government staying out of the way to "insure domestic Tranquility" (US Constitution preamble) as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals. Government's involvement in marriage is pretty much limited to contract and common law that ensures family property considerations and settling disputes (such as property division during a divorce and inheriting (along with taxing) property).  There are no protected marriage rights except when settling disputes in a court of law or through arbitration. I discuss the Gay marriage case, Proposition 8, in another post *.

Government agencies have power, but no rights.  None, nix, nada, zero.  Government, although comprised of people who do have rights, does not have a right to anything. No property rights, no religious rights, no 5th amendment rights, etc. It has "just power". That  power is temporarily borrowed from the people for the express purpose to...

"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

They can only exercise the power loaned to them by the people. When considering or election system, that power is only temporary for those in office. The same must be true of groups, such as unions and PAC's.  Though courts have assigned rights to a type of 'group' (corporations), but those are very limited. For instance, corporations have the right no right to vote, but they do have the rights listed in Amendments 4 through 8.

A quick search will reveal the misuse of the term "rights" has been deeply ingrained in our news and educational institutions. There are examples of this maddening trend everywhere.

ABC news asks, "How Does the President Have the Right to Target for Killing a US Citizen?" It goes on to say that the ACLU "sought to challenge the White House assertion that it had the constitutional right to kill Awlaki.

 Uh, no he does not.  He may have the "power" to target American born terrorists (another argument), but the president does not have the right to use his powers.  He has the power to use his powers..

Even PBS confuses the term with this, "Though the Constitution gave the president the right to veto bills from Congress," in a discussion of the history of the veto power of the president. (The power of the Presidency, The Veto).  Again, it's not his right, but it is within his specific constitutional powers - They even say it's a power - hello.

Anyone watching National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis' testimony on O'Reilly, along with Megyn Kelly's assessment of his testimony a short time ago (National Park Service under fire for helping 'Occupy', Jan 26, 2012), witnessed yet another mischaracterization of rights vs. power. I was surprised that Ms. Kelly, a lawyer, has fallen into the trap of using the word rights when she should use the word power. He is using the power afforded him by his job.

People have rights. Government has power. People who work for the government exercise that power in the performance of their lawful duties. Protected individual rights have nothing to do with it.

So why is it important to use the correct term?  The answer lies in the political nature of this country's bumper sticker politics and the sound bite news . The politicians may support some group, such as gays, and using the term "gay rights" carries much more weight among the voting public than it would by trying to sell "gay power".

Please use the proper terminology.  it will move this country a long way towards the freedom loving and prosperous country that we always have been.

A discussion of rights is located (here)


* CA Proposition 8 Declared Unconstitutional by Gay Judge.

African Americans Getting it Right - Democrats Have Never Worked For Your Success

I heard a political advertisement featuring an African-American telling like it is - and has been.  Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican", was very uplifting and more importantly - sites the honest and true history for the Democratic Party and the seemingly high minded goals that have done nothing but depress personal freedom in the Black community and the country in general.




There have been more African Americans revealing the truth of the Democratic Party's machinations just before this year's election day. Here is a story about the realization that Democrats and many African-American politicians are not looking out for you and your family. "Chicago Activists Unchained, Destroy Black Leadership" - Rebel Pundit - Direct link to video on You Tube.

There needs to be more people spreading the truth of failed policies that are sold as "help" for the people, but really only becomes help for politicians and bureaucrats.