Thursday, November 27

NAACP prez says

How delusional are the grievance-mongers?  Consider the following exchange:

A day after the announcement that the grand jury had declined to indict the Ferguson cop, Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, was caught on video yelling to a crowd of protestors to “burn this bitch down!”
On Tuesday, a CNN reporter interviewed Cornell Brooks, president of the NAACP, about Brown's death.  One of the reporter's questions was whether Brooks agreed with Head's clearly angry demand that rioters to "burn this bitch down."

The president of the NAACP replied “I don’t think that was a call for violence or it caused violence.”

Well there ya go, citizen!  You just thought the dude was serious when he yelled "Burn this bitch down" but it was really just satire.  Or something.  But definitely not a call for violence.

Who wrote this?

Who said this:
...many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before...
How about this:
The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.  [This] threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.
Why, that's then-senator Barack Obama in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope.”

So, do ya think he was just bullshitting you to get elected to the nation's highest office?  Or do you think he was just bullshitting you because he thinks you wouldn't be smart enough to compare what he wrote in 2006 with his amnesty-by-decree eight years later?

But you can trust the Mainstream Media and the Democratic party, because they were the folks who vouched for Obama, and refused to vet him, and pushed his candidacy at every turn.  And ridiculed anyone who uttered a critical word about him.  And agreed with him and Jonathan ("Americans are stupid") Gruber about the fabulousness of Obamacare.

Because they're reeally smaaht.  

And they'll do the same in 2016 for Hillary.  And you can trust 'em then too.

Why is gasoline under $2.50 a gallon?

A month ago the BBC reported that the Russian central bank--which had been propping up the ruble by buying billions of them per week--would no longer do so.  Not exactly an oh-wow story and you probably didn't hear it, but...

Anyway, the story went on to note that the ruble was falling because a high percentage of Russian export earnings is from selling oil--and the price of oil has been slowly but steadily falling.

Wait--the price of everything else in the world is constantly rising.  Why would the price of oil fall?  World demand hasn't dropped, so that's not it.  Instead, for the last five years or so oil production--particularly in North America--has been increasing.

And why has oil production in North America been rising?  Because two American-developed technological innovations--horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing have made it possible to produce oil that otherwise wouldn't have been economically viable.

These two breakthroughs, in turn, were invented and developed by the federal government.  So the next time, I can't finish that line with a straight face.  Cuz the federal government neither invented the technologies nor spent a nickel developing, testing and commercializing 'em.  Instead all the risk and investment was done by companies, using the profits from normal business.

Of course Democrats and Obama are happy to take credit for current low gas prices.  But an hour later they're back to demonizing any company that produces carbon-based energy.  For example, they've gone to great lengths to kill the use of coal to make electricity in the U.S.  Is there anyone who doesn't think they'd do the same to oil in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it?

In the meantime, enjoy being able to find gas for under $2.50 a gallon.  That's especially nice if you're on the road for Thanksgiving. 

And you might keep in mind how that gas price fell.  No thanks to government.

Wednesday, November 26

More on amnesty by decree

Many commenters have speculated that the emperor's amnesty-by-decree will backfire when blacks realize that the huge influx of new jobseekers will be competing with them for scarce jobs.

Very reassuring, but utter horseshit.  Reason is that everyone on welfare, and all government employees, are insulated from any negative effects of the new wave of amnestied illegals.  So they couldn't care less about competition.

The Democrats have mastered the message: "vote for us and your magic check will continue to arrive."  As a result, 40%+ of the people will ignore ANY unconstitutional act by the Democrats, up to and including property confiscation and murder.  The emperor's amnesty decree barely registers.

Not one EBT card will fail to work. Not one farm subsidy or grant to study cisgender patriarchal oppression will be interrupted.  Not one public employee will lose his or her job.  In fact, the amnesty will result in hiring MORE government employees  The publicly funded will allow the government to do far worse than this--as long as the Democrats keep promising that nobody will touch their magic checks. History allows no other logical conclusion.

Why didn't a single U.S. network carry the emperor's amnesty speech live?

A few of you may have noticed that when the emperor made his announcement of amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens, not a single U.S. network carried the emperor's speech.  But why would every U.S. network have declined?  I mean, the new decree not only announced a huge change in U.S. policy, but also represented a huge challenge to the Constitutional separation of powers.  How could the U.S. networks decide not to broadcast it live?

The official excuse was that the nets didn't want to delay their precious evening shows.  Of course no one with an IQ over room temperature believes that.  Instead the likely reason is that broadcasting the emperor's amnesty decree live would have infuriated even more Americans than it did.

Whoa, can't have that!

I mean, us media editors and producers wouldn't want the American people to actually hear the amnesty decree right from the mouth of The One.  Far better to summarize, maybe with five seconds of video.  That way you'll never know exactly what he said in the rest of the speech.  So if we say he was explaining how Republican policies were "ripping families apart" you'll pretty much have to believe us.

Cuz, like, the Republicans forced him to rewrite the law, by not acting when he order 'em to pass a new "reform" law.

Yeh, dat's it.  It's all the Rethuglicans' fault!  Long live the emperor!

Tuesday, November 25

How to make embarrassing news disappear--if you're Team Obama

Wanna see how Team Obama buries news that would put them in a bad light?  Katherine Miller at Buzzfeed caught the following sequence showing how Team-O timed a presidential announcement to bury news that their year-long "negotiations" with Iran about the latter's nuclear program had failed:

Last Sunday reports began to emerge that after months of negotiations with Iran, no agreement had been reached by the agreed deadline.  Instead the talks would be "extended"--for the second time. Given the huge emphasis by both Obama and the media on the unequaled diplomatic and negotiating skills attributed to the former community organizer, it wasn't hard to see this as bad news.

At 8a.m. Monday morning, the failure and extension was confirmed. 

8:53 a.m: an administration official announced that Secretary of State Kerry would speak around 10 a.m.--barely an hour later--presumably about the failure of the Iranian talks.  Team-O swung into damage-control mode.

Barely ten minutes later the NY Times announces the resignation of Secretary of Defense Hagel.

9:28: The White House announces that Obama will announce Hagel's departure in a live speech at 11:10--just over 90 minutes later.

10:14  "An administration official" announces that Kerry is now expected to speak "around 11 a.m." ET instead of 10.

11:10 Obama and Hagel announce the latter's departure.

11:30 Kerry announces events in Iran.  His speech--and the Iran story--are totally swamped by the stories about Hagel's firing.

One wonders how well the media would have cooperated if the Bush administration had tried such an obvious maneuver.

Two women suicide bombers kill 30 in Nigeria. Govt assures you it has nothing at all to do with Islam.

in a crowded market in Nigeria's northeastern city of Maiduguri, killing at least 30 people.

The bomber were two females--dressed in full hijabs.  The first set off her explosives and killed about three women.  About ten minutes later, after a crowd had gathered to help the injured, the second bomber screamed and detonated a second bomb, killing about 30.

The Islamic group Boko Haram is suspected of carrying out the bombings.  So far this year attacks by that group have killed 1,500 people in Nigeria, according to Amnesty International.

But don't worry, citizen.  Your government assures you that Islam is "the religion of peace."  Just as Team Obama assured you that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi just before the 2012 presidential election was not a terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate but merely a "spontaneous demonstration" triggered by a video posted on the internet that depicted Islam in an unflattering way.

You DO believe Team Obama, right?  Because they would never lie to you, such as by solemnly promising that under the so-called Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) if you liked your doctor or your then-existing health insurance you could keep both.  That would be wrong--like telling you the ACA "would the average family $2,500 per year."  They simply would not do something like that.

And if you thought you heard something like that, you're wrong.  Got it?  Even now websites--both government and media--are being carefully scrutinized for any indication that such things were said, and we haven't found a single frame that suggests any such statements were ever made.  By anyone.

On the other hand we've found a couple of sites run by right-wing-extremist-TEA PARTY-types that *claim* Democrats said such things, so we're pretty sure this is all a plot by TEA PARTY extremists to impugn the president's integrity.  Because they're all raaacists, you know.

Some sites even claim the President (pbuh) surrendered his license to practice law because he make false statements to a state bar association.  Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in your life?  How could he make laws without a law license?  Stupid Tea Partiers!

Now if you'll excuse us, we have an empire to run.  Kindly step aside.

Sunday, November 23

Team Obama claims adding lots of new workers will make wages rise for NON-immigrant workers??

Earlier I noted that very few low-information Americans actually understand the twin laws of supply and demand--which is how Team Obozo can get away with issuing "fact sheets" claiming that among all the many, many fabulous benefits of his decree legalizing 5 to 6 million illegals is this:
Average wages for all workers, both U.S.-born and immigrant, will increase.  Increases in productivity and innovation caused by the President’s actions will translate into higher wages for all types of workers.  [The president’s Council of Economic Advisers] estimates that by 2024 annual wages for native workers will rise 0.3 percent, or approximately $170 in today’s dollars. CEA also estimates that the President’s actions would neither increase nor decrease the likelihood of employment for native workers.
Let me see if I understand what Team Obama is claiming.  That his decree giving millions of illegals green cards--enabling them to work here legally--will increase average wages for everyone?   Seems to violate the laws of supply and demand.  But of course, low-info Americans wouldn't catch that.

Wait, I forgot:  You don't believe statutory laws apply to you, so why would we expect you to think your policies would be bound by any other laws?  Ah, now we understand.

Oh, and you claim that "by 2024 annual wages for native workers will rise 0.3 percent, or approximately $170 in today's dollars..." (so no boost from inflation.) 

I'm just one of Gruber's "stupid Americans" but in order for that to be true, the average native worker today would have to be making $56,666 a year!  I wonder if you could get your "Council of Economic Advisors" to give us a cite for where they found that number.

Probably got it the same place you got that Gruber about "Under the ACA the average family will save $2,500 per year on health insurance."  That is to say, you pulled it out of your ass.  But of course if one looks at the average salary of D.C. consultants and bureaucrats, maybe $56,666 is right.  Just thought I'd ask.

Pardon me for being suspicious of your truthfulness, mister resident, but after your team's disabling of the identifying code to track the national source of donations that enabled you to win in 2008, and your administration's unconstitutional violation of bankruptcy law in buying GM stock and giving control to the auto unions and illegally shutting out GM bond-holders, and in your lavish endorsement of giving half-billion-dollar taxpayer-guaranteed loans to the bankrupt "green energy" company called Solyndra (run by a big Dem donor) and others, and your asserting executive privilege for your lying former Attorney-General after he claimed he hadn't spoken with you about the gun-running operation to Mexican drug gangs, and your claim that the attack on our people in Benghazi "was because of an anti-Muslim video on the internet," and your "If you like your doctor you can..." and your unconstitutional decrees delaying the crucial, costly start dates of several "mandates" in Obamacare to push the penalties past the presidential election of 2012, and your administration handing out thousands of "exemptions" to that law to unions and corporations that supported you, and your claim that there wasn't even "a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS, and your recent amnesty-by-decree after repeatedly telling Americans--22 times at least--that you didn't have the power to do that, and...this sentence is already far too long but the point is you no longer have any credibility.


And I suspect most Americans--at least those who don't share your tribal affiliation--would agree.

Dems keep wailing about "our broken immigration system" How was it broken?

In reading the policy statements handed to the press just after Obozo's imperial decree I was struck by two things:  First, every one of the printed statements I've seen listed as the first objective some variation of "Strengthen border security."  This, of course, was not remotely one of Obama's objectives in decreeing amnesty.  Nevertheless, it's at the top of the list of media talking points.

Immediately after that is the phrase "We need to fix our broken immigration system."

Anyone heard that phrase before?  Like, a million times?  It's a constant drumbeat by the Democrats and Obozo.  For example, exactly one day after Obama's decree, the WH issued a "fact sheet" titled "The economic benefits of fixing our broken immigration system."  Here's the first sentence:
The President’s...Executive actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.  Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system.
Of course everything in red is a brazen lie, but right now I want to focus on the "our broken immigration system" bullshit.

Question for you lying sacks of Gruber:  In what respect, exactly, do you claim our immigration system was "broken"? 

C'mon, Gruberheads, tell us.  Exactly how you claim it was "broken." 

Because of course it wasn't broken.

What Dems and liberals characterize as "broken" is that the system had the legal authority to deport those in the U.S. illegally.  Two years ago Obama issued an executive order allowing these former children to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, but the decree only applied to the former children.  So in theory their parents could still be deported.  Which would--to use the exact quote by Dems--"rip families apart."

See how neatly they did that?  Parents sneak into the U.S. illegally, and then if the U.S. were to deport one of those parents--even for the most serious crime--we would be guilty of "ripping families apart."

Not a whit of attention paid to the fact that said parent entered the U.S. illegally.  Not a moment of attention to the fact that the parents were free to take their "children" back home with them.  Because that would be taking the poor innocent kids away from their friends and schools and the place they'd grown up.  Can't have that.

So decree by decree, the Left set up the alleged "broken" aspect.  But the real "broken" part was that the system wasn't legalizing the flood of new Democrat voters that the Left wanted to cement their political lock on the presidency.

Of course they won't admit that because it alienate a big chunk of hard-working, taxpaying Dem voters.  Can't have that.  So...

We're waiting.  Tell us exactly how you think the system was broken.

Really, we're all quite curious to find what you consider was the "broken" part you keep wailing about.

Obama's amnesty decree is win-win for him

Historically, when an election results in a thorough defeat for the president's political party, the president realizes The People have spoken.  He then typically changes political course, dropping policies that irritate most voters.

The president does this because normal logic says that continuing on the prior course will cost his party even more seats in the next election.  A rational president doesn't want that to happen.

One of the many things that's unsettling about Obama's unilateral decree legalizing over 5 million illegal aliens is that he issued this huge "fuck you" to Americans barely two weeks after Democrats suffered historic electoral losses.

I think most Americans would agree that this is not the behavior of a rational man--unless the guy's goal is more important than improving his party's prospects in the next election.

Considering that Obama's pattern for the past six years has been to threaten and confront, and use his race to intimidate his opponents into caving in, I suspect this amnesty move is just one of many equally outrageous ones we'll be seeing for the next two years--because it's a win-win strategy for him.

Not for the country, of course, but that doesn't matter to him.

He's confident Mitch McConnell--a man whose entire career screams "surrender to Democrats"--won't try to impeach him, regardless of any outrageous rape of the Constitution.  Indeed, the incoming senate majority leader announced even before Obama's executive order of amnesty that congress wouldn't take any budget action to oppose the move.

Republicans correctly see this as a betrayal, as proof that voting Republican accomplishes nothing.  Thus acts by Obama that *should* increase GOP support actually have the opposite effect: Every time Obama gets away with another outrage, more Republicans stop supporting the GOP.  Thus more executive orders that infuriate conservatives will actually cost the GOP votes and support, instead of winning it support.

Further, if Obozo does finally goad Republican members of congress into impeaching him, Obama wins more support from previously luke-warm Democrats by claiming the action is entirely because conservatives hate the idea of a black president.  Again, a good result for the Democrats.

Finally, one would be hard-pressed to find a single rational adult who doesn't believe that the 5 or 6 million illegals Obama just gave de-facto amnesty to won't start pushing to be able to vote within the next year.  And of course even if this doesn't happen for another 4 years or so, they'll be able to vote illegally in states without voter photo-ID, or in states that allow voting by mail without verifying US. citizenship.


You gotta give the guy credit:  He wanted to destroy the U.S.--made no secret of it--and the Democrats voted him president.  And now that he's doing what he promised to do, Democrats are not just totally fine with it, they're positively thrilled to have 5 million new Dem voters.

Just as they'll be thrilled if Obozo uses an executive order to outlaw gun ownership by private citizens.  It'll happen in stages, of course:  First he'll ban so-called "assault weapons."  Then semi-automatics (which are unfortunately incorrectly called just "automatic weapons.")  Then guns that can hold more than 4 rounds of ammo.  Then guns that can aren't purely for hunting--you get the drift.

This is what he did with his executive order allowing "Dreamers"--foreign kids who were brought into the U.S. illegally while young--to stay here indefinitely despite their illegal entry.  "It wasn't their doing," wailed the Left.  "We shouldn't punish them by deportation when they had no choice in coming here in the first place," they wailed.  Then after that was accepted the chant instantly changed to "Republicans who want to deport the parents of these poor kids are destroying families, ripping them apart!  Which shows that all that Republican talk about being 'pro-family' is just hypocrisy!"

Now, remember the 80,000-odd "unaccompanied minor children" who sneaked into the U.S. this past summer?  The Left is already demanding that we allow their parents to enter the U.S. "without fear of being deported," because if we don't do that, again we're destroying families.  No mention made of the fact that the parents were the ones who told their kids to go north in the first place!

You gotta hand it to the communists:  They know incrementalism and guilt are tremendously effective against well-meaning, short-sighted, naive, stupid people.  And they eagerly, energetically used those tools to destroy the U.S.

Oh, I hear you, liberals: "What a nutcase, to think that this li'l executive order destroyed the U.S!"  That's because most of you only look at the immediate victory and don't see the long-term effects.  Because if you agree with Obozo's premise that being poor and figuring out how to enter the U.S. illegally qualifies you to stay in the U.S. legally, what logical basis is there to refuse to extend the same privilege to *any* similar crasher in the future? 

What's that you say?  There isn't one?  Bingo.

Also, I hear some Republicans saying that blacks and young people of all races are beginning to realize they've been screwed by this amnesty, since 5 or 6 million more people will be competing with them for entry-level jobs.  First, I highly doubt anyone in the black community will *ever* link low wages or black unemployment to the amnesty, because of racial loyalty. 

Second, research has shown that most unskilled people have virtually the same disposable income from welfare as they would by working, meaning unemployment is no great loss.  Indeed,  unemployed people have sometimes admitted that they enjoy not having to work, and being able to spend their time as they wish.  And frankly, as long as you can live about the same way, that's pretty rational.

Finally, making the connection between increased unemployment to issuing "work permits" (a.k.a. green cards) to 5 or 6 million amnestied illegals requires the listener to have a solid understanding of the laws of supply and demand--concepts that leftists and low-information Americans seem not to believe.  The chances of this link getting across to the average low-info American are very, very low.

Saturday, November 22

AP: Hillary Clinton backs Obama immigration farce

AP via ABC News: "Hillary Clinton backs Obama immigration move."
Speaking at a swanky event in New York Friday night, Hillary Clinton endorsed President Obama’s recent move to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The Associates Press quoted Clinton as saying “I think the president took an historic step and I support it.”
You know the difference between Obama and Hillary?

I don't either.  So by all means, let's have four more years of Democrat rule beginning in 2016.

Armed men hijack bus, separate non-Muslims and shoot 28 dead. WH says "Probably Lutherans"

NAIROBI, Kenya — Suspected Islamic extremists from Somalia hijacked a bus in Kenya’s north and killed 28 non-Muslims on board after they had been singled out from the rest of the passengers, police officials said Saturday.

The bus traveling to the capital Nairobi with 60 passengers was hijacked at dawn Saturday about 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the town Mandera near Kenya’s border with Somalia, said two police officers.

About 20 gunmen ordered all the passengers out of the bus and separated those who appeared to be non-Muslims from the rest before shooting them at close range, officers said.
Message from Barack Obama:

1.  This regrettable act was not carried out by Muslims.  The fact that the attackers separated Muslims from non-Muslims is merely a coincidence.  My national security advisor, Susan Rice, informs me that the misunderstood attackers were actually Guatamalans who were trying to get to the U.S. in time to get green cards under my new executive order.  They were simply trying to get seats on the bus but because of a poor translation all the Christians on the bus incorrectly thought they were being ordered off the bus.  Then a dangerous automatic weapon somehow fired and struck 28 of the unfortunate passengers.

2.  Christians have nothing to fear from Muslims.  Because

3.  Americans have nothing to fear from Guatamalans, since they are Americans just like I am and would never harm a fellow American.

4.  This unfortunate incident shows yet again how dangerous guns are.  Accordingly, I am issuing an executive order banning the private ownership of guns by U.S. citizens.

5.  There is no point in calling or writing your congressional representatives because they can do nothing after the landslide win by my party in the recent election.  Rumors that Republicans won control of the senate and additional seats in the House must be false because if they were true the Republicans would have moved to impeach me after my last executive order.  Since they did no such thing you may be sure the rumors are false.

6.  When the president does something, that makes it legal.  This is a principle relied on by numerous presidents of both parties, going back to FDR and later made explicit by Richard Nixon.  So shut the fuck up or you'll be sorry.

Friday, November 21

Imperial decree shreds whatever remained of Constitution

Last night the marxist Muslim announced his decree giving amnesty to another 5 million illegal aliens--foreigners in the U.S. illegally.  

All an illegal alien needed to win this prize was to have a child who was either a U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident, and to have lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Predictably, the lying sack of Gruber looked right into the camera and denied this was amnesty. 

Of course you think I'm kidding, because no rational person can imagine such a breathtaking lie from a president of this country.  Well, except for "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."  And "If you like your health insurance policy you can keep it."

Well, here's the quote, directly from the Gruber-stain's mouth:
"I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty," Obama said. "Well, it’s not.
"Progressive" mouthpieces instantly defended the decree, arguing that the president's hand was forced by the refusal by House Republicans to pass an amnesty bill passed by the then-Democrat-controlled senate.

The imperial decree also gave amnesty to another million or so illegals who were brought to the U.S. as children, by broadening the time window of eligibility for a previous imperial decree back in June of 2012.  To get amnesty under the old terms, a minor had to arrive in the U.S. before 2007.  The emperor has now decreed that any young illegal immigrant who arrived in the country before 2007 now qualified.  No one knows how many more that adds.

The Emperor described his act as simply exercising "prosecutorial discretion."

"The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every... president for the past half-century," he said. "And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

He then cited his experience as a constitutional law professor, saying "Article seven, Section 8 gives the president the power to take any action he feels is helpful if congress doesn't pass laws he wants passed.  I warned my opponents in congress that if they didn't pass amnesty by election day I would use that power, so they knew what they had to do.  If you have a problem with this order, blame the Republicans.  This is entirely constitutional, because I know the Constitution better than the people who wrote it, and certainly better than any judge.  There's only one guy who runs this country, and that's me.  And if you don't like it you can fucking well wait for 2016 and if I may allow another election.  Unless you piss me off."

Hmm...a few sentences in that last 'graf may have been garbled in transmission.  I'll get right on that to clear it up.  I'll have it done just before the Injustice Department announces the results of its investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative political groups.

Wednesday, November 19

Muslims kill 4 jews in a synagogue--CNN graphic on story reads "attack on *mosque*

The Grubering mainstream media frequently express their sense of superiority by saying they have "layers and layers of fact-checkers and editors" who ensure they don't make mistakes. 

Really?  Yesterday two Muslim males entered a synagogue in Jerusalem and killed four jews.  CNN ran a brief video clip of an interview with a witness, with a large graphic saying
Ah yes.  What would CNN and the rest do without all those fact-checkers.

Tuesday, November 18

Gruber compilation vid

I've posted several quotes and video clips by the lying sack of Gruber known as Jonathan Gruber, but the clip below takes the prize for most damning summary.  I especially recommend the part where Obozo says "completely transparent" and the vid cuts immediately to Gruber saying "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage."

Liberals, this is your proudest achievement?  Kindly eat shit and die, you lying sacks of Gruber.

Team Obama scurrying to deny Gruber had any input whatsoever to Obamacare

As Team Obama scurries to try to distance their leader from the contemptuous statements by the amazing sack of Gruber, the defense is shaping up:  1) the president never knew Gruber before the man's statements hit the internet; 2) Gruber "never worked on our staff;" and 3) he had nothing to do with the bill's provisions or wording.

Roll tape from 2006:

Asked about the discrepancy between his comments on the tape--crediting Gruber--and his current position, the president said "You mean the guy in the internet clips is JON Gruber?  See, in the articles about the current internet flap he's always called 'Jonathan,' but he was introduced to me as 'Jon', so that's why I never made the connection.  I mean, it's such a common name that I naturally assumed it wasn't the same guy."

Just kidding.

Now about the claim that Gruber "never worked on our staff:"  The press secretary said "That's absolutely true--the White House itself never cut a check to Gruber.  And of course Obama had absolutely no way of knowing if some small, hidden government agency might have been paying Gruber.  I mean, how can anyone know what some small, distant, unsupervised bureau in some distant, unknown, invisible corner of the country is doing with the president's money?"
"Finally, we can tell you this Gruber person--who the president didn't know and didn't pay--had nothing whatsoever to do with the language of the bill.  And as for claims by evil Republicans that until recently there was a press release on quoting some guy allegedly named 'Gruber' saying he had a great deal to do with the bill since he was the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that the ACA is just a larger verson of that state's health care system, we can tell you the website doesn't not have such a post, and as far as we know never did.  And you can see for yourself that it's not there.  Because we're the most transparent administration in history, that's why!

And you can't prove it was ever there.  Stupid Rethuglicans!"

Just kidding.  There's a thing called the "Wayback machine" that saves pages from the internet, so if you remove something the proof remains.  And the press release was on until "the most transparent administration in history" pulled it a few days ago.  (At the link, search for "Gruber")  Gee, wonder why they would have done that?

Well, we asked 'em.  And they said it "mysteriously vanished" and they have no idea why.  It's a mystery.  They suggested right-wing hackers may have been responsible.

Yeh, Tea-Party hackers!  Dat's da ticket!

Sunday, November 16

Obamacare promises, 2009, vs. reality today: quite a difference!

Five years ago, as part of the huge propaganda blitz to generate support for Obamacare before the bill was rammed through congress, Team Obama claimed the ACA would have many specific and marvelous effects.  Among these was to:
Protect Access to Care in Rural Communities:
  • [the act will ensure] that hospitals and other providers in rural and remote communities receive the reimbursement they need to offer quality care to patients and keep their doors open.
  • [tbe act will ensure] that rural health care providers receive appropriate Medicare reimbursements to address longstanding inequities that exist among providers from different geographic regions. 
  • [the act will help] the many small and rural communities where patients must travel long distances between health care providers to receive medical care.
Fast-forward to three days ago: USA Today tells us what actually happened:
Since the beginning of 2010, 43 rural hospitals — with a total of more than 1,500 beds — have closed, according to data from the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program. The pace of closures has quickened: from 3 in 2010 to 13 in 2013, and 12 already this year. Georgia alone has lost five rural hospitals since 2012, and at least six more are teetering on the brink of collapse. Each of the state's closed hospitals served about 10,000 people.
Rural hospitals are closing because Team Obama took a roughly $500 billion dollars out of Medicare and used it to partially fund Obamacare.  The de-funding deprived hospitals of cash they desperately needed to keep operating.

But no big deal.  What difference does it make if stupid rural voters have to drive an extra hundred miles or so to reach treatment for a stroke or heart attack?  It's not like they're important people, like economists from a prestigious university (that would be Jonathan Gruber, who gave Team Obama the blueprint for how to game the scoring to make Obamacare look economically feasible.)

Besides, rural folks--especially in "flyover country"--typically vote Republican anyway, so closing their hospitals is simply payback.  Sort of like "reparations."

Yeh, dat's it.  Next time they'll think twice before voting Republican if they know what's good for 'em, eh?

Saturday, November 15

More on Gruber and Obamacare

I've put up several posts about the lying sack of shit named Jonathan Gruber, who conspired with Team Obama to lie to you in every possible way about the workings of that sack of shit called Obamacare.  Now evidence has emerged that Gruber was deliberately hired by Team Obama because he'd developed a cost model that mimicked the methods of the Congressional Budget Office--the govt agency that "scores" proposed laws to see what they're likely to cost.

Specifically: in 2009--just a month after President Obama took office--the Department of Health and Human Services put out a sole-source solicitation titled "Technical Assistance in Evaluating Options for Health Reform." The contract would be with Gruber, who the document said was the only person "reasonably available to satisfy agency requirements."

"Sole-source" contracts are a giant red flag:  They mean the government agency has *directed* that one and only one entity will get the contract.  They suggest a fix is in, that the government wants a specific outcome and know who to hire to get it.

Team Obama knew that Gruber knew how to game the CBO's scoring system to make a proposal look less costly than it really was.

And it turns out Obamacare made Gruber a multimillionaire, at taxpayers' expense.

At the University of Pennsylvania last year Gruber was caught on video saying that the details of Obamacare were hidden until Team Obama was able to ram the bill through the Democrat-controlled congress without giving anyone a chance to actually read the whole bill. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” said Gruber. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever. But basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Now it has emerged that Gruber has gotten quite rich courtesy of those “stupid” American voters.  First there's the $297,600 that the Department of Health and Human Services paid him to sing the praises of the health care scheme.  Officially, he was paid only to “analyze various health care reform proposals and identify cost and coverage implications.”

Predictably, after the bill was nefariously rammed into law, several states began throwing huge amounts of taxpayer money at Mr. Gruber in return for cookie-cutter reports describing the likely impact of Obamacare on each contracting state.

Minnesota, for example, used federal Obamacare grants to pay the lying sack of Gruber $329,000 to attend one meeting, participate in a biweekly email list and print a copy of the report.

Wisconsin paid him $400,000 for the same material, requested by the office of then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat.  Vermont is paying him another $400,000. Such a deal!

West Virginia, Maine, Colorado and Oregon have also paid Gruber for the same service. The money bought lies and deception. That’s Mr. Gruber’s characterization, not ours. “If you had a law which made it explicit that healthy people are going to pay in and sick people get money,” said Mr. Gruber, “it would not have passed.”

Let's play that again:  The language of the bill that became Obamacare carefully--deliberately-- avoided explaining what should have been obvious to everyone:  That the proposed law would take money from healthy middle-class taxpayers to pay the medical bills of sick people who previously wouldn't have been able to afford health insurance.  And to add insult to injury, those who would benefit from the deal would pay nothing for their insurance, which would be paid for by taxpayers.

Socialism, pure and simple.  Such a deal!

Of course *all* insurance is based on the principle of collecting premiums from healthy policy-holders to pay the costs of people who get sick.  This is not a revelation.  The twist was forcing taxpayers to pay for the insurance of people who don't make any money.

Now if Democrats can manage to convince a majority of voters that this is a great idea, fine.  But the notion of lying to make it appear as though the bill wouldn't do what it clearly would do strikes me as fraud, pure and simple.

This strikes me as impeachable.  But then I'm just an average poor, hard-working taxpayer.  I have no voice in government, since my vote is rendered useless by lies from people like Gruber.  Lies uttered to advance a so-called "greater good" perhaps, but lies nevertheless.

Finally, a compilation of Gruber lying, lying, lying.

This lying sack of shit is what inflicted Obamacare on you.  Well, this and Democrat majorities in both houses of congress. 

Friday, November 14

Suicide bomber at Nigerian school kills 47

Terrorists bomb school in Nigeria. 
At least 47 people were killed and 79 were wounded Monday by a suicide bombing at a school in the town of Potiskum in northern Nigeria.  The attacker was disguised as a student.
The bomb was detonated outside the principal's office, where students had gathered for a daily speech.

Officials suspect the Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram was responsible.  The group has carried out a large number of deadly attacks on government schools.  In February Boko Haram gunmen killed at least 40 students when they opened fire and threw explosives in student hostels in a government boarding school in the town of Buni Yadi, and last year 42 students were killed when Boko Haram gunmen attacked dormitories with guns and explosives in another school near Potiskum.
Tell me, "progressives" and Democrats: What kind of savage ghouls bomb schoolkids?  Such an act has no military purpose, but is purely intended to inflict terror on non-Muslims.

And why would Boko Haram want to do that?  Why, to win control over territory, by either killing non-Muslims or forcing them to flee.  And to get the government to turn "education" over to Muslim imams.

Tell us, "progressives":  Do you believe setting off bombs in schools will be confined to Africa?  If so, can you state a rational basis for that conclusion?

Oh, but by all means let's keep our borders wide open.  Because Obama.

Of course my liberal friends will squeal that this story is from the horrible, unreliable Faux News.  Well it's from a sketchy, largely unreliable source all right:  CNN.

Monday, November 10

Architect of Obamacare says American voters are stupid. Astonishing.

I've written before about the arrogant socialist con-man Jonathan Gruber--generally acknowledged as the architect of the ghastly piece of shit law called Obamacare.

Gruber doesn't even try to conceal his contempt for the American voter.  He laughs about "the stupidity of the American voter."  That's a literal quote.  This guy is a contemptuous asshole.

In October of 2013 the University of Pennsylvania held a discussion on Obamacare featuring Gruber.  Here's the crux:
GRUBER: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay. So it was written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law that said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in sick people get money it would not have passed. Okay.

Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting the thing to pass, and, you know, it's the second best argument. And I wish Mark was right, we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not.
Now I have to say, no one but a dedicated communist could possibly believe this guy would be fuckin' BRAZEN enough to say this.  Well, roll the fuckin' TAPE:

Interestingly, after this vid was discovered by conservatives a few weeks ago and posted on the Net, U Penn removed it from their site.  Gee, wonder why?  But of course by the time they did so copies were already all over the Net.  Sorry, fascist fraudsters, you were too late!

If the vid says "This video has been removed" I guess Penn decided to take it down again.

So do you think this guy--and the regime he works for--have your best interests at heart?  Well, if you're a member of the favored Democrat constituency, I guess maybe so.  But if you're a hard-working taxpayer, then no way.  An honest, "transparent" regime would have been...well, honest about the bill and its costs and effects.  These thugs weren't--because they knew they could fool stupid voters into seeing it as "something for nothing."

This guy hates you, and holds you in utter contempt.  He thinks you're stupid, which is pretty standard for people who want to dismantle America as we've known it.

And of course, considering the electorate as a whole he's got a point:  a majority of the votes cast in 2008 and 2012--whether legally or not--resulted in the current piece of marxist shit occupying the White House.

Okay, you really need to click here.   The link is to a *really* damning piece on Gruber, showing him on two separate occasions saying the bill means two totally opposite things.

This Gruber piece of shit is a total snake--a total liar.  A con man.  He's totally untrustworthy.