ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber On Capitol Hill To Testify With Lies

We don’t think this is a good idea. What To Do About Jonathan Gruber ObamaCare Lies?:

Congress should hold hearings early next year, (not earlier, not during Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season when no one will pay attention, but before the Supreme Court arguments in March are heard on ObamaCare) – which feature Jonathan Gruber. If necessary the rules of the hearings must be changed to allow the videotapes of Gruber to be played over and over and over again.

Senate hearings across various committees will force Big Media to cover and broadcast Jonathan Gruber’s remarks. Senate hearings across various committees will force ObamaCare supporters to confront the reality of Jonathan Gruber’s “stupid” remarks.

Most importantly Senate (and House) hearings before March of next year will prepare the political landscape for a Supreme Court rejection of ObamaCare subsidies contrary to the letter of the law.

Senate (and House) hearings will also prepare the post Supreme Court ObamaCare decision battlefield landscape. Be assured that after the Supreme Court restores the law as written, ObamaCare scam flim-flam artists will then try to force the states to impose exchanges on their citizens. Senate (and House) hearings will prepare the battlefield and put steel into the spine of the many states which have thus far refused to join in the ObamaCare scam.

Unfortunately Chairman Issa in his last hog the limelight appearance as Chairman of the Government Reform Committee could not resist the call of the spotlight and will hold hearings today.

Today should have been about the CIA report. Today should have been about the Nor’ easter weather (or the North California “storm of the decade“). But Issa is a showboat and wanted this hearing today instead of when it was smart. Hopefully Jason Chafetz will be smarter than Issa when Chafetz helms the committee.

All today’s hearing will likely accomplish is provide Gruber with an opportunity to walk his comments back. We hope that is not the case and that all Issa does is play Gruber videos all day – over and over and over again. Then, ask Gruber if he that was himself on the video saying (play the video again) what he said.

Big Media is all out to protect Jonathan Gruber. Politico published a long article that attempts to explain away Gruber’s truthful videos about ObamaCare. Politico in that article also instructs Gruber and Obama Dimocrats on how to lie about Gruber truths:

Will Jonathan Gruber Topple Obamacare? [snip]

Why the hell did Jonathan Gruber say that? And that? And that? And (sigh) the other thing? Those are the questions on the minds of virtually everyone in the health care world—especially the people who worked the hardest on Obamacare. Ever since the videos started popping up, one after another, America has come to know Gruber—the MIT economist who worked closely on both Obamacare and Romneycare—as the guy who thinks voters are “stupid.” And the guy who thinks Obamacare was passed because of trickery. And who says, ha-ha, voters don’t understand economics. For a while, Fox News didn’t have to bother running anything else.

Now America is about to see Gruber in a new role: congressional witness. He’s going to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to testify before Darrell Issa’s committee, where he’ll be forced to answer a ton of questions, if he can, about all those things he said. For some Republicans, Gruber is a dream witness: All they have to do is play the videos that confirm their worst suspicions about President Barack Obama’s signature health care law—especially the one where Gruber boasts that “lack of transparency [about the law] is a huge political advantage”—and watch him squirm. Better yet, they can ask him about the video that presents the biggest danger of all to the White House: the one where he undermines the Obama administration’s case in the upcoming Supreme Court lawsuit that could bring a screeching halt to subsidies for millions of Obamacare customers.

For just about everyone else who has dealt with Gruber, though—Democrats, academics, policy wonks, and the health care reporters who used to call him regularly for catchy quotes about what the latest Obamacare development really means—the videos are just head-scratchers. He’s a smart guy, everyone says, and he has been a hugely successful economist who clearly knows his health care policy. So they’re all coming back to the same question: Why the hell would he say that? Does he really believe it?

The answer, according to the people who know Gruber best, is that he has always been someone who is two seconds away from putting his foot in his mouth. Yes, he has had an astonishing rise in the world of health care policy—and it’s completely deserved, in their view, because of his groundbreaking work on predicting the cost impact of different kinds of health care legislation. Gruber is the man who developed an economic model that could basically work like a faster Congressional Budget Office—a huge help to congressional staffers as they drafted the Affordable Care Act, as well as the Massachusetts policymakers who wrote Mitt Romney’s health care reform law that preceded it.

But politically savvy? No, no, no. Gruber is a chatty, affable guy, but he’s also a man with no filter—and he knows it. It’s always when he drifts away from economics, and tries to talk about politics, that he gets into trouble, colleagues say. That’s where Gruber stepped on so many land mines in those videos—claiming there was a strategy to hide uncomfortable details from voters, as if he knew the political strategy and not just the economics, and that the “stupidity of the American voter” allowed them to get away with it.

See how Politico handles the truth? Politico prefers to consider ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber’s truth-telling as “head-scratchers”. For Big Media Politico the ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber is just a “chatty” guy.

Politico has lots of excuses for ObamaCare Architext Gruber. Politico states that “ObamaCare Architect” is a recent invention by publications, including Politico, although well before the video’s emerged from their Stygian depths the term “ObamaCare Architect” was associated with Jonathan Gruber (as well as others, such as David Cutler).

Politico also excuses ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber’s searing truths because according to Politico, Gruber was not really in the room writing ObamaCare.

Politico did attempt a pretty good video of ObamaCare Archtect Jonathan Gruber’s many instances of truth-telling. But Politico’s heart was not in it as the video oddly goes dark in the middle and stays in the dark.



The Obama Dimocrats on the committee have already advertised that they will use their time to explain the wonders and marvels of ObamaCare.

We’ll hope that something good will come from today’s hearing. Updates will come in as necessary.

Share

114 thoughts on “ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber On Capitol Hill To Testify With Lies

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/12/08/the-insiders-the-gruberization-of-the-democratic-party/

    Despite what is said tomorrow in the House Oversight Committee hearing, perhaps Gruber has already made a lasting contribution to the political vocabulary. If nothing else, he has helped spawn a new verb. As one gentleman wrote in a letter to the editor in The Leaf-Chronicle, “’gruberize’ will now refer to ‘the art of slicking buyers by using catch phrases and weasel wordsmithing.’”

  2. Racism Isn’t the Reason Southern Whites Have Abandoned Democrats
    Liberal condescension toward southerners is a far greater factor than racism in the Democrats’ decline.

    Much has been written about the Democrats’ drastic decline in the South since Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu was trounced by Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy in their runoff election last Saturday. Most liberal commentators are pointing to a precipitous falling off in support for the party from white voters. Their simpleminded computation: White + Conservative + Southern = Racism. The formula has the advantage of fitting in nicely with the narrative that the left has developed that paints all southerners as goober-chewing, tobacco-spitting, bible-thumping, gun-worshiping yahoos.

    It doesn’t matter if they believe it or not. It’s an easy sell to their coastal strongholds, where they are successful in stoking white guilt and portraying Republicans as a cross between Bull Connor and a rope-toting Kluxer.

    Former U.S. editor of The Guardian Michael Tomasky thinks that Democrats would do well to write off the South entirely. After portraying the hapless Landrieu as a “blind, toothless dog” who needs to be euthanized, Tomasky lets loose a tirade against southerners that’s shocking in its ignorance and brutality:

    A toothless dog is a figure of sympathy. A vet who takes pleasure in gassing it is not.

    And that is what Louisiana, and almost the entire South, has become. The victims of the particular form of euthanasia it enforces with such glee are tolerance, compassion, civic decency, trans-racial community, the crucial secular values on which this country was founded… I could keep this list going. But I think you get the idea. Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.)

    With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.

    Note the not-so-subtle comparison of southerners to Nazis, as in a vet “who takes pleasure in gassing” the helpless dog. Could it be that Tomasky’s attitude toward southerners is Exhibit A in the case against racism being the primary reason Democrats have fallen off a cliff in the Old South?

    The fact is, Tomasky and his fellow liberals advancing this theme rely on the rather ridiculous but widespread belief that the further north you travel, the less racism there is. Since the end of Jim Crow in the South, there has been a chest-thumping sense of superiority on the part of northern whites, suggesting that they’ve outgrown racism, and only ignorant southerners are still afflicted with it. It’s a convenient narrative to advance but totally false. Justice Clarence Thomas caused a firestorm last year when he said in a speech that northern liberals are more racist than southern conservatives:

    “The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites,” he said. “The absolute worst I have ever been treated. The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

    Thomas is not alone among black Americans to believe this. It is difficult to think anyone can quantify the level of racism based on ideology, but it should be clear to all but the most willfully self-deluded that racism knows no geographical or ideological boundary. To posit the notion that one region of the country is more racist than another — or, as Tomasky seems to be saying, that only one region of the country is so racist it should be cast out by Democrats — ignores history and reality. In Chicago, just as there are areas where a white person should never walk, so, too, are there neighborhoods where blacks take their lives into their hands if they enter.

    But Tomasky’s sneering condescension toward southern whites — an attitude that if rarely given voice by Democrats, nevertheless can be sensed in their rhetoric — is only part of the Democrats’ problem in the south. Republicans have successfully tied all Democrats to some of the more odious rhetoric emanating from liberals in recent years.

    1. Elitism. Southerners aren’t necessarily any more plebeian in their attitudes toward others than any other American, but the elitism demonstrated by the eastern urbanites and left-coast intellectuals rubs southerners the wrong way.

    2. Belittling patriotism. The one place where an American can display their patriotic feelings without fear of ridicule or disapprobation is in the south. For liberals to denigrate and even condemn this simple, loyal devotion to country is political suicide.

    3. Mocking religion. Do liberals believe there are no consequences to “Jesusland” jokes and campaigns against supposed homophobia among evangelicals? Some devout Christians may use the Bible to justify their own bigotry, but is that the fault of Christianity or the small-mindedness of human beings?

    4. Big government. Regional differences among Americans have been fading for 60 years, but if there is one trait that a prideful South embraces it is the notion of individual liberty that is sustained best by a small government. It may be too small for liberal tastes, but the wild expansion of government with its multiplying social programs has been directly tied to Democrats. They are the party of big government trying to run in a region that embraces small government. Just what result are liberals expecting?

    5. Aggressive efforts to enact gun control. There’s a lot of sound and fury coming from some gun-rights groups about Democrats wanting to “take away” the guns that Americans are constitutionally allowed to own and carry. It hardly matters whether it’s true or not. The incendiary rhetoric for strict gun control, as well as belittling people who actually like guns and like to hunt, is enough to convince most southern whites that even if Democrats don’t want to disarm them, they definitely don’t share their values and don’t empathize with what’s important to them.

    National Journal‘s Scott Brand writes of the problems with white voters experienced by other southern Democratic Senate candidates:

    It’s part of a regional trend. Though Landrieu was considered a strong candidate with a personal brand that might be able to cut through the partisan trends in Louisiana, her performance in 2014 mirrored B-list Democrats running in noncompetitive races throughout the South. The un-touted Democratic Senate candidates in South Carolina got the same share of the white vote as Landrieu, according to exit polls, while Mississippi Democrat Travis Childers pulled in 16 percent of whites in his blowout loss. Michelle Nunn in Georgia won Democrats’ highest share of white voters in the South: 23 percent, not nearly enough to claim a victory over incoming GOP Sen. David Perdue.

    Meanwhile, those white southern racists elected a black man, Tim Scott, senator in South Carolina. Scott won an astonishing 88% of the white vote. What does that do to the liberal narrative regarding racism? It’s simply a different ballgame when you place an “R” after the candidate’s name on the ballot.

    Racism as an excuse for Democratic defeat in the South is too easy, too pat. But it has the benefit of allowing Democrats the luxury of being able to ignore the real reasons why white Southerners have so completely rejected their candidates. Liberals are apparently incapable of conducting the introspection necessary to arrive at the conclusion that their attitudes toward those they feel superior to contributes far more to their electoral defeats than some kind of nebulous racism that doesn’t exist in any greater proportion in the South than it does anywhere else in the country

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/racism-isnt-the-reason-southern-whites-have-abandoned-democrats/

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tomasky
    ——–
    As I read it bio, I am struck by the fact that he touches all the wrong bases and everything about him is wrong. A native of Morgantowon West Virginia leads me to believe that his scathing depiction of southerners and perhaps his own guilt about where he came from as he moves through the limosine liberal world of his profession is the source of his blatant bias.

    Whatever the cause, this much is clear: condescension works both ways. People like him are a waste of protoplasm. And because black street gangs are keen on killing Bosnians in certain major cities, perhaps he should go there for a first hand look so he can understand the practical implications of the perverse philosophy he and his well heeled fellow travelers embrace with such conviction and such wilful blindness.

  4. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/04/obamacare-king-burwell-supreme-court-repeal-alternative-republicans-column/19922353/

    Randy Barnett: How to finally kill Obamacare

    The Supreme Court is more likely to act if Republicans have an alternative bill ready.

    Thanks to four justices of the Supreme Court, there is now a clear path to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act next year, finally bringing Obamacare to an end.

    But Republicans won’t accomplish this by waiting for the court or just voting to repeal the law one more time. The only way they can succeed is by crafting their own replacement — and they need to start right away.

    Until the Supreme Court agreed to hear King v. Burwell, which challenges the legality of the IRS rule allowing Obamacare subsidies in states that have not built their own insurance exchanges, the conventional wisdom was that Congress would pass a symbolic bill to repeal Obamacare that everyone knows would be vetoed by the president. Then they’d move on. Obamacare would survive at least until 2017.

    But the decision to hear King changes everything. Insiders know that this challenge has a decent chance of success. Rather than asking the court to establish some grand constitutional principle, the justices are merely being asked to hold the IRS to the actual wording of the law, which is not nearly so heavy a lift.

    The eventual outcome of the case doesn’t matter as much as the decision to hear it. With the lawsuit now looming over them, all the “stakeholders” — such as insurance companies and health care providers — know that the subsidies for health insurance in 36 states are in serious jeopardy. And the end of these subsidies means the end of the insurance mandate for businesses in those states, which kicks in only if employees are eligible for subsidies on an exchange.

    There is now a serious financial risk that did not exist before the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.

    Insurance and health care companies need an insurance policy against the collapse of the insurance market. Republicans in Congress need a way to resist the enormous political pressure that will be applied to simply “fix” the health care law by allowing subsidies to flow through the federal exchange. And Democrats need to salvage something from all their efforts to pass the law.

    In short, now everyone needs to invest in devising a replacement for Obamacare. Even better, by developing such an alternative, Republicans can make a favorable ruling more likely.

    As a rule, Supreme Court justices are reluctant to invalidate a law on which many relied. It will be far easier for the justices to enforce the law’s existing language if they know there is a viable alternative that can be enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president within a week of their ruling.

    To devise such a replacement, the Senate and the House must use “regular order” and their committees to do actual legislating with input from the Democratic minority.

    Because everyone will now know that their handiwork may very well become law, everyone has an incentive to take this project seriously.

    The first line of any such bill should be the complete repeal of each and every word of the Affordable Care Act. This monstrosity must not be allowed to survive in any form. In its place, the new Congress should write a replacement bill that would:

    Restore the private insurance market using actuarially based insurance priced according to risk. For example, young people would pay much less than older people.

    Restore consumer choice to buy true private insurance limited to the terms they want to pay for, including policies insuring only against the catastrophic health care costs, and medical savings accounts.

    Increase competition by allowing state-regulated insurance to be sold across state lines so consumers can keep their policies when moving from one state to another.

    Increase equity by extending the tax benefits now available only to employer-based insurance to all health insurance. Like car insurance, you shouldn’t have to change health insurance policies when changing jobs.

    With the Democrats now in the minority, such a bill is very likely to be bipartisan if it contains a “refundable” tax credit for health insurance for all Americans, regardless of income — essentially extending to everyone the very subsidies that the court will strike down. [snip]

    With or without bipartisanship, however, Republicans need to have a well-vetted replacement in the pipeline. To make a favorable ruling in King more likely, the legislative wheels must be visibly in motion by the time of oral arguments in March.

    Before the Supreme Court took this case, Republicans in Congress were limited to symbolic action against Obamacare. Now, thanks to voters in November and the justices who voted to hear the case, beginning in January, Republicans in Congress can craft a bipartisan market-based replacement that the president will be compelled to sign in June when the court announces its decision. Simply by acting as legislators, Republicans in the next Congress can actually repeal and replace Obamacare.

    Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor, directs the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

  5. Here is an interesting issue, which is off topic, but interesting if only as a counterpoint to yet another ineffectual congressional hearing full of speeches, counterspeeches which never move the ball forward.

    A brutal beating by a police officer of a violent minority woman in the back of a squad car in my town and the rush to defend such action should make conservatives concerned. I know one of the assistant chiefs, have the highest regard for our new chief, a female from Boston. This comes on the heels of the killing of an old Indian vagrant who had a knife he used to carve wood, but the officer did not know that. And although I regard the Seattle Police Department as the best in the nation, an attorney I knew was the lead prosecutor in breaking up a corruption ring in that department during the 1950s. And if you go back even further you find that an early King County Prosecutor George Vandveer went after the Police Chief who controlled the rackets who was protected by the Blethan family who still runs the Seattle Times. The nature of police work creates those possibilities.

    The media should be the check and balance against it, as well as the prosecutors office. But when you have corrupt men as prosecutors as you do on the national scale with Eric Holder and corrupt media, as you do with big media corruption will flourish.

    Then, there is the flip side of the coin. To any citizen, it is a humiliating experience to be stopped and arrested by a police officer, especially when you are innocent. You may accept the principle that this should happen to other people for the sake of civilization, etc. But when it happens to you it is different. Thus it is only natural to fight it, rather than simply surrender. And it you have been told by saints like Sharpton that this is racially motivated, you have all the more reason to rebel against this seemingly arbitrary imposition of state power upon you.

    This gets back to a favorite movie of mine and Gozos–The Lawman. The leading character is Sheriff Jarrod Maddox of Bannock Texas. The sheriff tracks down a gang of cowboys who shoot up his town and accidently kill an old man. He hunts them down, demands they surrender and they resist. One by one they challenge him and he guns them down, because that is the existential message of the movie–a pure killing machine and how many lives must be paid for the life of one old man, to which he responds I don’t call the numbers.

    The relevant part of this occurs mid way through the movie, where one of the young cowboys tells him that pride made these men resist his call for them to surrender, and be taken in to stand trial. He tells the sheriff you–who could kill anyone you want to because you are that good a gunfighter, you would not surrender. Whereupon the sheriff cuts him off and says: you’re wrong. I wouldn’t put living down to cheap pride.

    But in a culture where big media and Hollywood glorify the rebel, the young black man in the inner city is likely to have a very different response. And that is part of the problem too.

  6. There is no good reason to have this hearing on Gruber.

    As thing currently stand, he has hung the dims out to dry.

    That is exactly where we want it when the Supreme Court decides the case.

    This kind of a hearing gives the dims a chance to muddy the water.

    And it give Gruber an opportunity to walk back his comments.

    If there were an election in the offing, it might be defensible.

    To remind the public, etc.

    But there is no election now, and not for two years

    And by then, the Supreme Court will have decided the case

    There is no reason to hold the hearing now

    Except for the fact that Issa is stepping down as chairman

    Is that reason enough to muddy the record?

  7. admin
    December 9, 2014 at 11:12 am

    That, is a categorical imperative.

    Unless there is an alternative bill in existence, the Supreme Court will be compelled to choose between enforcing the plain meaning of the law, its legislative history, and the remarks by its architect vs the potential collapse of the health care system.

    We pretty much know what Roberts would do in that situation: cave in.

    So lets make it harder for him to do what he would feel most comfortable doing.

    A Republican bill would give the Court a viable safety net so they can do their job.

  8. Just to be clear: of all the things that have contributed to the demise of the middle class, including outsourcing, etc. the deadliest sins are the two cornerstones of Obama: Obamacare and amnesty. It is not merely hypocritical, it is counterintuitive, and senseless, for a party who advocates those policies, to bloviate about protecting the middle class.

  9. strike 3 in Obamas killing of the American middle class to enrich his wealthy donors will be climate change regulations.

  10. Timing would be important. That republican bill must be known, but not sent up to the president until after the court rules that the federal government cannot pay subsidies to states which have not set up exchanges. If it is submitted prior to that time to Obama and he vetoes it, then the safety net disappears and Roberts caves. Like Tinkers to Everts to Chance.

  11. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/226428-progressive-groups-move-to-draft-warren-for-president

    Progressive groups move to draft Warren

    Two prominent liberal groups are moving to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a liberal alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    On Tuesday, MoveOn.org announced its members would hold a vote on whether to spend $1 million to boost Warren in the Democratic primaries. The vote is expected to pass, with the group already saying it’s poised to throw its “full weight” behind the Massachusetts Democrat.

    Democracy For America, a group founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, announced shortly after it would join MoveOn’s efforts.

    “Washington consultants can spout off a dozen reasons why Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t run, but none of that beltway blather means a thing next to this one, simple truth: The Democratic Party and our country desperately need Warren’s voice in the 2016 presidential debate,” DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said in a statement.

    “Senator Warren has deep grassroots support, an unwavering populist progressive vision, and the fearless fighting spirit needed to win the support of Democrats, Independents and Republicans,” he added.

  12. Well Hillary already being rolled back UNDER the bus and the primary not even started.

    How important is this move on . org I remember the name but not sure

  13. dot48
    December 9, 2014 at 2:26 pm
    Well Hillary already being rolled back UNDER the bus and the primary not even started.

    How important is this move on . org I remember the name but not sure
    ————–
    Interesting. Soros in on the Hillary exploratory committeee, and Soros funds moveon.org. They would not support Warren without his blessing. The real game here, I think, is not so much to defeat Hillary, as it is to control Hillary. To keep her in the progressive Obama worshipping rut she has ventured into against our best advice—not that she listens to us of course. It does them no good to nominate Warren because she cannot win the general election. It does them immense good however, the progs I mean, to control Hillary because she can win. This is either obvious, or else I am missing something.

  14. Well interesting that Soros also controls Move On . org

    So they want another Obama puppet then in the White House and from teh things Hillary being doing it makes me think that is why she is doing what she is doing.

    However, that being said, I don’t want another Obama and if she got elected she could do what she wants BUT does anyone even think she would?

    Different times my friends. Personally I think she should walk away and give the party a big FU with both middle fingers.

  15. Maybe they do want Warren .. and who would have EVER thought Barack Obama would be President?

    Same goes for Warren…with enough money, enough lies being told on the net, enough $$$$$ again … yes she could be President. We don’t think she could be elected but stranger things have happened.

    With this “draft” movement I’m not sure if they want her or like you say want to force Hillary into a different set of ideas.

  16. Well, goddamnit there I go again overlooking the obvious.

    This could be not just an attempt to control Hillary by keeping her on the narrow progressive path.

    But, in addition to that, it could also be an effort to force her to declare sooner rather than later.

    Obviously, big media wants to deflect public attention from the demise of their messiah.

    And to avoid responsibility for their role in helping him destroy the country.

    So that is part of it too.

    In sum, they want to control the timing of Hillary’s announcement and the substance of her candidacy.

    Which is all the more reason to do the Jennie routine and not make up her mind.

    Again, Obama needs to be DOA politically before she jumps in the race.

    Otherwise he and big media will drag him down with him.

    Think about this while and watch the following link, which tends to show why timing may be a big part of it:

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/3929761505001/after-the-buzz-medias-hillary-hunger/#sp=show-clips

  17. jbstonesfan
    December 9, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    ———–
    That would be my advice to her, as a friend.

    But I doubt she will follow it.

  18. The day Warren announces she is running for President, I think I will dig up a feathered headdress, leather fringed dress, put my hair in long braids and walk around smoking a peace pipe.

    One Drop bumper stickers for all the nitwits.

    The Republican’s would have to put up a real loser to not win 2016 with Warren as the primary candidate.

  19. Not impressed with Trey’s cross examination.

    The goal here should have been to tie Grubers comments to the Democrat party officials.

    The goal should have been to show that Grubers comments were an admission that the American People were deceived.

    I do not think there is much advantage to simply pillory Gruber.

    And that is all that Trey’s cross examination accomplished.

  20. The other side scripted Gruber to take all the responsibility for this on himself. Trey allowed them to do that and followed him into the swamp rather than turning around on the people who hired him, showing how they paid him, consulted with him and quoted him. We do not need Trey or any other Republican to defend our honor. We want them to tie Gruber to the dims like stink on shit. That ought to have been the goal, and the line of cross examination he pursued.

  21. Goobers defense that he was just trying to

    – make himself sound smarter and
    – didn’t remember what he said until the videos came out

    and people were up his bum…isn’t sincere and is a canned response, everyone knows that except liars like Cummings and the WhiteHouse boyz.

    Issa is making this little hearing into a small town circus.

  22. Wbb

    Isn’t the point of a hearing to try and gather leads to more information? Just calling him out on his bad behavior is defeating the purpose?

    This makes me skeptical that Trey’s hearings will go far enough.

  23. Gruber the goober was lawyered up real good for the money questions. I would be humble and seeking redemption too if I got paid as much as he has for his garbage. Todays hearing was probably a mistake but another one going over his scam for millions in billing and his contempt for the people who paid taxes to pay him. The taxpayers paid for his lawyer too. It is a great scam and he is afraid of it being exposed and any number of other politically connected academics on the gravy train. The federal government employs specialists who do this work already for most agencies.

  24. “Issa is making this little hearing into a small town circus. “This makes me skeptical that Trey’s hearings will go far enough.”
    *****
    Look at the increase in stock values of the medical “insurance” companies, their political “contributions” and there is no way that even posturing Repubs are going to kill the egg laying goose.

  25. The problem with Issa and the Government Reform Committee is that they ask questions in public. The procedure should be to investigate in private. The committee should, behind the scenes, depose witnesses thoroughly and only until that process is exhausted should there be public hearings.

    We don’t blame Trey Gowdy or anyone but Issa for the bumbling hearings. Good riddance to bad rubbish, redux.

    There is hope:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jason-chaffetz-oversight-staff-113445.html?hp=r3_3

    Jason Chaffetz poised to overhaul Oversight staff

    His plans have irritated rank-and-file Republicans.

    Incoming House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz has invited the entire committee staff to “reapply for their position,” a power move he seeks a clean split from Rep. Darrell Issa’s tenure atop the panel.

    In an interview late Tuesday, Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he wants to put his “stamp on” the committee, and has interviewed people from “off the Hill and over in the Senate and wherever they might come from.”

    “There’s a lot of good talent in oversight, but some people, it was time to go, and others will get more prominent positions,” Chaffetz told POLITICO. “It’s a good, decent large committee, and so there’s quite a bit of turnover.”

    Chaffetz’s move has dominated conversation in the House rank and file, and has ruffled some feathers among long-serving aides who will now be looking for a new job.

    Chaffetz has already announced several of his top aides, including former Judiciary Committee aide and Podesta Group principal Sean McLaughlin and Andrew Dockham, ex-counsel to former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

    Chaffetz expects to unveil his subcommittee chairs in the coming week.

    The Utah Republican beat out Ohio Rep. Mike Turner for the chairmanship. The committee is the top investigatory panel in the House, and has broad oversight over most of the federal government. Chaffetz will be center stage as he probes the Obama administration and the federal bureaucracy during President Barack Obama’s final two years in the White House.

    Clean out the old clumsy staff Issa appointed. Hire investigators and attorneys who know never to ask a question before a jury/public to which you do not know the answer the witness will provide.

    Also, regarding the question of the money Gruber made. Gruber did not fill out the form which asks financial questions the committee needs. Instead Gruber provided his own form. Why did the committee convene without Gruber having filled out the required form? This was pure incompetence and we lay it at the feet of Issa. Issa does not pay attention to details and just likes to showboat.

    Chafetz is a showboat too but he does have interest in details. Also, Chafetz is a frequent guest of Greta Van Susteren and she frequently schools him on how to ask questions and how to proceed. The Government Reform Committee needs a tough lawyer who knows how to conduct and investigation and how to examine financial documents and witnesses. A Greta type lawyer who knows procedures as well as the public communications angle would be ideal.

  26. I do not think MoveOn.org’s promotion of Warren is such a bad thing. They are the same people who brought us Barrack Hussein Obama. That kind of defines who the next “Obama” is going to be. Better Owarren than Oclinton. I hope Hillary tells them to knock themselves out going for it.

    Then the primary campaign slogan can be “Don’t Repeat the Mistake of ’08”

    Stay on that Listening Tour Hillary!!!!!!

  27. Admin

    Committee needs a tough lawyer who knows how to conduct and investigation and how to examine financial documents and witnesses. A Greta type lawyer who knows procedures as well as the public communications angle would be ideal.


    I agree Admin!

    What’s with these people anyway. Most of them went to law school and don’t know Jack about how to question nor investigate. It’s as if they are only playing a lawyer on TV.

  28. Agree wobbei. A wasted opportunity to get to the underlying nexus between the parties involved with the underlying deception strategy employed to roll out, sell and enact the ACA. I think I could have done better and I’m just a lil ‘ ole lawyer from S. Florida.

  29. Voting

    I hope Gruber hears this in his ears 24/7 until he dies.

    ———–

    Wow, the composure of that woman after what happened, blew me away.

    Very sad.

  30. bstonesfan
    December 9, 2014 at 10:02 pm
    ————–
    Spot on. The Democrat strategy was to separate Gruber from Democrats and Obamacare—to paint him out to be some low level functionary whose rogue opinions about deceiving voters were not to be trusted. The Republican strategy out to have been to tie him to the Democrats and Obamacare insofar as they relate to deception, etc. The line of cross examination was more suited to the democrat position than the Republican one.

    In 1870, in the aftermath of the Franco Prussian War, a prominent Prussian publication, i.e. National Zeitung, complained bitterly about the considerate treatment accorded to the defeated French emperor. Whereupon Bismark said THIS:

    “Popular feeling, public opinion always takes the line. People insist that in conflicts between states, the conqueror should sit in judgment upon the conquered, moral code in hand, and inflict punishment upon him for that he has done.

    This is an altogether unreasonable demand. Punishment and revenge have nothing to do with policy. Policy must not meddle in the calling of nemesis or aspire to exercise the judge’s office.

    In such cases the question would be which of the two will be more useful to us— a badly used Napoleon or a well used Napoleon?

    Here the question would be which is more useful to the Republicans seeking to defeat Obamacare (if indeed that is truly their objectives): to help the dims destroy Gruber and thereby erase his prior comments that the dims used deception to get it passed? Or to show that he was a credible witness, albeit an opinionated one, whose comments are worthy of belief.

    Yes, Trey blew it. And, I would be surprised if he does not know this.

  31. I give a couple dollars to the Salvation Army everytime I pass one of their kettles. Every serviceman in every war this nation has fought in since world war II will attest to their honor and generosity, compared to all the other charities who purport to help servicemen and end up helping themselves. The late William Manchester wrote about this in his own biography Goodbye Darkness which recounted his experiences with them as a wounded marine at Guadalcanal and is father’s experiences with them as a wounded marine at one of their three greatest battles, i.e. Belleau Woods, the other two being the battle of Chaputltepec castle which won the Mexican American War, and Iwo Jima against the empire of Japan. My dad said the same thing about the Red Cross and I believe Gonzo’s father felt the same way.

    My days of donating to politicians however are over. Ditto the political action committees. Over the last four days, I have gotten six calls from David Bossee’s organization Citizens United. I gave them money once to help pay for an anti Obama video, and it was not completed in time for the election. Typically, it begins with an ultimatim by either Mike Huckabee or Newt which says if Obama is not defeated the country will be destroyed. Right message–wrong messengers. After he retires Boehner can make those calls and tell us apres moi le deluge.

  32. Red State poll

    Who is your preferred candidate for 2016

    Selection
    Votes

    Jeb Bush 2% 47
    Ben Carson 4% 114
    Chris Christie 1% 31
    Ted Cruz 30% 801
    Mike Huckabee 2% 56
    Bobby Jindal 2% 62
    John Kasich 1% 20
    Rand Paul 32% 842
    Mike Pence 2% 41
    Rick Perry 4% 118
    Marco Rubio 2% 51
    Rick Santorum 2% 54
    Scott Walker 13% 346
    Other 2% 52

    2,635 votes total

    ————–
    I can see Cruz.

    I cannot see the two headed dentist however.

  33. Corredction: My dad said the same thing about the SALVATION ARMY and I believe Gonzo’s father felt the same way. The servicemens opinion of the Red Cross was the diametric opposite. In the late 1920s my grandfather expressed amazement that at that time the head of the Red Cross was making $50,000 per year which was a king’s randsom then. In World Wars I and II, I am told that the Red Cross gave help to a wounded service man they would make him sign a note to pay them back. The Salvation Army was just the opposite, they gave all the help they could afford, their senior people led modest existences and they never asked for anything in return for their charity.

  34. jb: you may know this guy. I consider him a friend and a mentor. He, along with Benjamin Brafman are the two best cross examiners I have come across in my life. I can assure you he would not have been impressed with Trey’s performance today.

  35. Race-baiting still works:

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/prosecutors-will-not-call-obama-friend-eric-whitaker-stand/mon-12082014-831pm

    Federal prosecutors said Tuesday they will not call one of President Barack Obama’s closest friends, Dr. Eric E. Whitaker, before a jury hearing a multimillion-dollar grand-fraud case because of “baseless accusations” they say Whitaker leveled the day before.

    “We are not going to call Dr. Whitaker as a witness,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy A. Bass told Judge Richard Mills, who ruled Monday that Whitaker would have been a “hostile witness” had prosecutors decided to call him . . .

    Whitaker, a 49-year-old African-American physician from Chicago, became combative with Bass at the end of Monday’s hearing, suggesting racial bias was behind the wave of fraud cases brought by the Justice Department in the Central District of Illinois. Nine of the 10 people charged in those cases are black, including Golden and Roxanne B. Jackson, 49, who was Whitaker’s human resources director at the health department. Karin Dingle is the only white defendant.

    “Almost everybody who’s been indicted or scrutinized has been African American,” Whitaker said, also telling Bass he’s against “selective” investigations.

    “Personally, I’m upset about this process and how I’ve been made to look like I’m on trial,” Whitaker later testified.

    Without going into detail, Bass said Tuesday the government would not call Whitaker as a witness because of the “baseless accusations” Whitaker made in his testimony. “I’ll leave it at that,” Bass also said.

    Instead, prosecutors plan to introduce photographs, emails and other evidence involving Whitaker into the trial, which is expected to wrap up this week.

  36. Guilanis comments illustrate the path not taken, and woe betide the Republican Party for settling for cheap theater rather than substantive results. For of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: it might have been.

    Guilani and Jb have both said they would have done a better job etc. and I agree with them.

    Here is why.

    The threshold question in any cross examination is what is it that you seek to prove/disprove through this witness. The thrust of Gowdy’s cross examination was to prove that Gruber was arrogant and he meant it when he said the American People were stupid. In other words, Issa used their best cross examiner to establish a point which has little probative value.

    Furthermore, he could rely on the dimocrats like Cummings to do that, because the goal of his cross examination was consistent with his interests which were to separate Gruber from the Obamacare and the Democrat Party, and collaterally, to show that some people had benefitted from Obamacare.

    But because Gruber’s testimony was useful to Republicans that ought not to have been their goal.

    Which leads to the inevitable question: what should have been the goal of cross examination on the Republican side? The goal which they should have turned Gowdy loose on Gruber with?

    Exactly what Guliani says: to prove that Gruber knew Obamacare was designed, marketed and sold to the American People based on false pretenses. It effect, it was a case of fraud, based on statute, and the five (5) common law elements thereof, i.e.

    i) representation—-that it would save momey, and you could keep your doctor.

    ii) falsity—cost more and lost their doctors

    iii) knowledge of falsity—that rates would go up because people with better plans would be forced to subsidize people who did not have coverage, etc.

    Plus, the finer point illustrated by that congresswoman from Wyoming’s testimony—the mere fact that you have insurance coverage is no guarantee you will have medical coverage when you need it.

    iv) reliance: Obamacare was implemeted with heavy penalties if people do not have insurance, whether or not they need it.

    v) damage: 5 million people lost their coverage, and most people insurance costs went up not down under Obamacare.

    Yes, this was fraud alright. And if a favored business group of the Republican Party had done the same thing, the perpetrators would have been tried in the press based on their usual lies and the truth, prosecuted and sent to jail.

    Question: why is that important?

    Simple–think about it.

    The Republican Party was elected in 2014 on the promise that they would stop amnesty and repeal Obamacare.

    There is a case now pending before the Supreme Court which will defund Obamacare without a government shut down.

    If that case goes their way, then that decision fulfills their political promise to voters without the risk.

    All they needed to do was to establish through Gruber that Obamcare was based on fraud.

    There are two concerns foremost in the mind of a Supreme Court Justice who is inclined to defund Obamacare based on the legislative history, and plain meaning of the governing language.

    The first concern is that defunding Obamacare would crash to system. The suggestion of the Georgetown law professor that Admin posted yesterday, that Republicans have in place an alternative plan answers that concern–if between now and then they have it.

    The second concern is that Obamacare is a statue passed by the people’s representatives, and it ought not to be voided based on ministerial errors. In other words, congress as constiuted at that time, and the American voters at the time of passage favored that idea, even though no one knew what is in it.

    Therefore, the Supreme Court which has neither the power of the purse or of the sword, should be loathe to defeat Congressional intent, by finding that it cannot be adequately funded.

    That second argument collapses however if Trey Gowdy had shown through Gruber that the act was based on fraud writ large. Which he did not. Had he done so, I would have worried less about the cowardly lion, i.e. John Roberts.

  37. To put an even finer point on it: a showing that Obamacare was designed, marketed and sold to the public based on fraud would negate the argument that any statute duly passed by Congress however improvident is entitled to a strong presumption of legitimacy.

  38. My congressman, Jim McDermott aka Bagdad Jim is a complete idiot.

    He says Republicans created the name Obamacare to destroy Obama.

    Oh, if it were only true. . . .

    The problem is, the consultant controlled Republicans ain’t that smart.

  39. The Big Media blockade of Gruber finally collapsed as the broadcast networks finally acknowledged the news they’ve tried so hard to hide from the public:

  40. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2014/12/09/nbc-nightly-news-breaks-silence-jonathan-gruber-32-days-after-first

    NBC Nightly News Breaks Silence on Jonathan Gruber 32 Days After First Video Surfaced

    After a month in which NBC Nightly News gave more prominence to ugly Christmas sweaters, grape salad, Al Roker’s 34-hour weather report, and a live broadcast of Peter Pan starring Brian Williams’ daughter, Allison, the broadcast finally discovered Jonathan Gruber.

    On Tuesday evening, NBC’s evening newscast acknowledged the name Jonathan Gruber for the first time and his insulting comments regarding ObamaCare a full 32 days after the group American Commitment unearthed the first Gruber video on November 7.

  41. Admin: damage control by big media

    No mention that he was the architect.

    No mention that he was cited as such by Pelosi, Obama and others.

    Just a bunch of the Republicans said this, the democrats said that.

    Which blunts the probative value of his testimony.

    I had never seen Scott Pelly before this.

    Previously, I thought Brian Williams was the biggest dullard I have ever seen.

    I now realize he has competition.

    BUT as you say, the hearing forced big media’s hand exactly as you predicted.

    Too bad the timing was dictated by Issa’s departure.

    Far better if this had been done in the spring, while the Supreme Court was deliberating.

    Too bad the attack had not been along the lines of Guilani.

  42. And on these facts, fraud would be the first and last reaction of a former prosecutor with 16 years experience–like Trey. Therefore, the decision to take the line of cross examination he did could not have been his decision. His inclination would have been to haul out the Us Code, and frame his questions around fraud–because those are the elements of the crime–which goes up the chain of command from Gruber. The fact that he did not do so, suggests that the real purpose was to give Issa (whose shortcommings I am only now beginning to realize) one last hurrah. It gave him the opportunity to tell Geta that this was a great day for the American People because their honor was besmirched by Gruber, and vindicated by Jordan, Trey, Chavetz in the style of Don Quixote. And in is coup d gras he could say that it was an honor to lead such an impressive group of great Americans, the likes of whom we have not seen since the founding of the Republic. Truth to tell, while Gruber was sitting there punching himself in the chin, both parties piled on. Great! They vindicated the honor of the American People and proved to a fare thee well that Gruber was stupid to call the American People stupid. You can ring down the curtain on that one–but not on Obamacare.

  43. Think of how it would play out if in these situations Try pulled out the US Code and framed his questions around that. The democrats would cast aspersions on him for doing this–saying the gentleman from south carolina was a fine prosecutor in his day, but most of us would agree that Congress is not a judicial but a legislative body therefore this line of questioning is not called for. The rebuttal would be, if we had an attorney general who was willing to prosecute members and agents of his own party, rather than tabling them, and if we had a president who was willing to be as transparent as he promised rather than drawing down a veil of secrecy through the promiscuous insertion of executive privilege, then the American People could have justice in the courtroom, but as that is not possible now, this is the only forum in which justice can be pursued.

  44. I apologize for being so persistent on this, but these opportunities do not grow on trees. Rather they present themselves only in a blue moon. It is like that line from Julius Caesar about the tide in the affairs of men, etc. Right now, at this moment, unless I am completely full of shit, passion is lord of reason, and politics is lord of strategy.

  45. Admin
    NBC Nightly News Breaks Silence on Jonathan Gruber 32 Days After First Video Surfaced

    —It’s about time!!

  46. Number of states challenging Obama on immigration grows to 24

    [That’s almost half of the 50 states!!! Yea, Baracko thinks we have 57 states.)

    Abbott said after amending his original court complaint to increase the number of states that have signed on to 24.

    In addition to Arizona and Florida, Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma have also joined the coalition objecting to the president’s actions.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-number-of-states-challenging-obama-on-immigration-grows-to-24-20141210-story.html

  47. Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian writer, political activist and founder of the Washington-based Sojourners community, said he saw the president’s actions in religious terms.

    “The reaction to the executive order by President Obama outside Washington is very different than inside,” he said. “Maybe the word that describes the reaction inside is anger. But the joy on the outside is what I feel across the country.

    “The relief to families. The relief to congregants, people in our churches. It’s very simple. We’re going to support those decisions that bring relief to our people. And this executive order brings relief to our people.”

    Wallis called the inability of Congress to pass bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform a “moral failure” and challenged the incoming Republican-led leadership to seek legislative relief.

    Wallis that went on to quote Scripture.

    “What does it mean to welcome a stranger?” he said, referring to Matthew 25. “And what Jesus says there is how we treat the stranger is how we treat Christ himself. So legislators now, in the new Congress, have to understand whether they pass immigration reform or not is how they will treat the stranger.

    “And for us that means how they treat Christ himself.”

    ————-
    Since this fucking sky pilot is big on scriptures, perhaps he should consider the first duty of every Christian which is to render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, because Christ said that too. The other thing he needs to think about is whether under his expansive interpretation, and pretensions of moral superiority, there is any limiting principle on the sovereignty of this nation which he is willing to give away, and any moral basis to say no to anyone of the six billion people who inhabit this earth, particularly if two billion of them are in need of help. He has a congregation, they want amnesty, but as the saying goes hard cases make bad law. If they came here illegally, regardless of the circumstances, then they have violated our law, and granting them amnesty is a terrible precedent to set. It will force us to adopt police state methods to prevent being swamped. As Jonathan Gruber would say, it is stupid.

  48. What Christian fundmentalists like this joker want is more Christians just as what Immelt wants is to sell more GE refrigerators. The policy question has nothing to do with the self interest of these businesses and quasi business actors. The policy question asks do we need more unskilled immigrants and do we need more GE refrigerators? And then it asks if we give them what they want, what opportunity costs do we assume, and what precedent do we set for the future.

  49. “Immelt wants is to sell more GE refrigerators.”
    ****
    Jeff, the former “Job Czar”, sold the GE appliance division to the Swedes last year.

  50. SHV
    December 10, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    “Immelt wants is to sell more GE refrigerators.”
    ****
    Jeff, the former “Job Czar”, sold the GE appliance division to the Swedes last year.

    Immelt has spent the last 2-3 years buying up oil well equipment manufacturers to get in on the fracking boom. With the price of oil hitting lows the drilling and production will taper off fast as will the need for equipment. Bad decision to buy up that much that fast in such a volatile commodity. So sad.

  51. A little giggle:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/dscc-debt-2014-elections-113453.html?hp=b2_c1

    The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is stuck with $20.4 million in post-election debt, more than twice the debt owed by its Republican counterpart and a challenge for the party as it heads into the next cycle.

    The atypically high figure helps explain why the DSCC spent no money on advertisements for Sen. Mary Landrieu during the Louisiana runoff, though few expected the Democratic incumbent to be able to overcome her deficit in the polls.

    The DSCC publicly disclosed in October that it had taken a $10 million loan to try salvaging Democrats’ Senate majority in the midterms. But fresh filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the committee took out another, previously unreported $5 million loan in the final days of the election.

    The DSCC outraised and outspent the National Republican Senatorial Committee by tens of millions of dollars in the 2014 cycle, although the GOP nonetheless recaptured the Senate. [snip]

    “The DSCC outraised the NRSC last cycle by $41 million, bringing in $166.7 million for the cycle,” spokesman Justin Barasky said Tuesday. “We begin the cycle with $15 million in operations debt, $1 million less than we started the 2014 cycle with, and will have the resources we need to take back the majority in 2016.”

    The NRSC reported that it had $9 million in debt and $3 million cash on hand as of Nov. 24. The DSCC had $2.2 million cash on hand as of Nov. 24.

    On the Republican side, the NRSC ended the 2012 cycle with $8.5 million in debt – comparable to what it has now. In 2010, it had $6 million in debt. In 2008, it was $3.5 million. In 2006, the year the Republicans lost their Senate majority, it was only $196,000.

  52. Shadowfax, notice how the articles written by Big Media about the illegal immigration lawsuit are written. The article you posted provides few details but lots of sad violins on illegal immigration especially that quote from Wallis.

    We searched for an informative article and found this one which includes this whopper of a distortion:

    The president and his staff have long argued that Obama has the legal right to take action, saying he only acted because Congress failed to pass immigration reform.

    Of course, the contrary is true as Obama long argued the opposite.

    We are not surprised by the bias. We are surprised by the relative lack of articles on this lawsuit. Big Pink is one of the few websites that has provided the kind of attention this lawsuit merits.

  53. Boehner and McConnell, traitors to the American people. 1.1 trillion,hundreds of millions for illegals. Not only will taxpayers lose jobs, we get to pay for the privilege. ..
    Yeah, disappointed in Trey…really

  54. admin-

    We are not surprised by the bias. We are surprised by the relative lack of articles on this lawsuit. Big Pink is one of the few websites that has provided the kind of attention this lawsuit merits.

    —-

    Many of us would still be in the dark on many issues if we didn’t have you Admin, and Big Pinksers to compare notes with.

  55. So I do not understand any of this. The Republicans are not defunding the Immigration EO that Obola has not issued and the States are filing a lawsuit against Obola for his immigration policies?

  56. gonzotx
    December 10, 2014 at 7:20 pm
    Trey on Greta now
    ————–
    His cross examination yesterday was worthless.

    Where does he stand on amnesty?

    I got a call from the Tea Party patriots.

    They are fighting this thing.

    Somebody should ask Boeher what does he say to the 92 million Americans of working age who are not working?

    We know what his donors want.

    Does he have any idea what the American People want?

    Does he care what the American People want?

    Does he realize that if he does his usual cave in on this issue, it is the end of the Republican Party?

    Does he care about the survival of the American People?

    Does he understand that he is engaging in fraud on this issue, no different from the fraud Obama perpetrated in re.Obamacare?

    I think he is weak and stupid.

    Nice guy, but nice guys finish last.

    Oh, by the way, Morris thinks this is a brilliant strategy to feed the monster until March.

    What will Dickeybird say when March arrives and Boehner cannot summon the courage to stop feeding it.

    Its like that line in The Lawman, Gonzo, where Lancaster says he always played by the rules, never drew on a man first, and if you stop playing by the rules just once, because you get tired or just scared, you find that there is another just once, and another until you don’t know who you are.

    Obama lied about Obamacare and Boehner lied about stopping illegal immigration.

    The alternative is a third party.

  57. So I do not understand any of this. The Republicans are not defunding the Immigration EO that Obola has not issued and the States are filing a lawsuit against Obola for his immigration policies?
    ———–
    Well, that is the beauty of it.

    Its like Gruber Peas told us with the wisdom that passeth all understanding.

    Lying, obfuscating, taking money under the table, defaming your opponents is okey dokey.

    Any one who opposes these things is an extremist and must be attacked by big media.

  58. What would Lynden Johnson do in a situation like this?

    He would call a press conference with the main proponents of amnesty, i.e. Fuckerberg who wants slave labor, La Razza who wants to take the American Southwest back for Mexico, Guiterrez who fancies himself to be the George Washington of a separate state comprised of illegals, and the Cali Drug Cartel who are doing the same thing that Immelt does–moving his manufacturing sites to China so he can be closer to his market.

    I would tell the audience to light up their reefers and lend me their ear. I would tell them about a Harvard trained idiot savant who though that anyone who can found facebook could surely run a vaunted liberal magazine. Therefore he bought that magazine with his billions and he ran it into the ground—because he had no idea what he is doing.

    And then what I would do is introduce Fuckerberg. I would thank him for his clandestine work to promote amnesty and a collapse of our southern border, because like his partner before him, he thinks the world is his oyster. And then I would say, because the housing facilities for this tidal wave of illegals are inadequate. And then I would surprise everyone, but most of all Fuckerberg, by saying that he and his wife have agreed to allow 100,000 of them to set up a tent city on his several acre estate. And then, as the audience gave him a standing ovation for something he knew nothing about I would give him the podium.

  59. “Immelt has spent the last 2-3 years buying up oil well equipment manufacturers…”
    ***
    GE Capital Rail Services is one of the largest leasers of rail oil tank cars and has thousands of additional cars on order. The majority are used to transport crude from ND and Canada. If crude prices stay below $80-90(?) per barrel and/or if Keystone XL north gets built, GE will take a huge financial bath.

  60. I know Jim personally. His opinion carries real weight. And he has good lobbyists on the hill.

    I am just surprised it took him this long to wake up.

    But you know the funniest part of this don’t you? Its that fucking Pelsoi.

    She talks (I can hardly stop laughing) about how these nasty little gotchas are buried in this bill which was delivered to the dimocrats in the dead of the night with no time to read it.

    Her blatant hypocrisy in this case works to our advantage.

    And it is aimed dead on at the RINO.

    Take me Lord. I have seen enough.
    ————–

    BLOOD IN THE WATER: TEAMSTERS, JIMMY HOFFA, JR. TO CONGRESS: KILL THE OMNIBUS BILL

    by MATTHEW BOYLE 10 Dec 2014, 1:42 PM PDT 180 POST A COMMENT

    There’s blood in the water on Capitol Hill. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., is out in strong opposition to the omnibus spending bill as Democratic support—and Republican support—for it continues crumbling.

    “On behalf of the 1.4 million members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am writing to ask that you vote NO on the rule and NO on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill,” Hoffa wrote to all members of Congress on Wednesday afternoon. “This bill and its self-executing rule will slash the pensions of thousands of retirees who worked years for a pension that they thought would provide them financial security in their retirement years. That promise is now busted.”

    Hoffa added that a “last minute $2 billion bailout to a $100 billion Fortune 50 company for breaking its promise to its retirees is outrageous and only adds to the list of special interest provisions in this bill.”

    “This disgraceful government subsidy to one of the most profitable companies in America should be stopped in its tracks,” Hoffa wrote, adding that “hiding behind a rule that prevents Members of Congress from directly voting to cut retiree benefits is a shameful act that may well be remembered at the ballot box in the future.”

    Hoffa’s letter became public as House Rules Committee chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) works to bring the 1,603-page omnibus to the floor of the House, even though it funds President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty. The Hill reports that at least 50 to 60 Republicans are working to oppose the bill, numbers that are beginning to surge, sources on Capitol Hill tell Breitbart News.

    Speaker John Boehner has been working with Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, and her whip Steny Hoyer to try to wrangle enough Democratic votes for the bill as Boehner won’t be able to pass it with Republican votes. But on Wednesday Pelosi expressed serious concerns with elements of the bill.

    “Once more, Republicans are working to stack the deck for the special interests against everyone else,” Pelosi said in a statement. She adds:

    Buried in the more than 1,600 pages of the omnibus package Republicans posted in the dead of night are provisions to put hard-working taxpayers back on the hook for Wall Street’s riskiest behavior. This provision, allowing big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC, opens the door to another taxpayer-funded bailout of big banks – forcing middle class families to bear the burden of Wall Street’s mistakes.

    Liberal Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is calling on House Democrats to oppose to the bill, and Pelosi and Hoyer are losing support in their conference rapidly. Even House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has come out in opposition to the bill, and several California Democrats walked out of a meeting with Pelosi where she asked them for support for it on Wednesday morning.

    Meanwhile, Republican support for the bill is crumbling as conservatives and mainstream Republicans alike don’t like the fact that it funds Obamacare and Obama’s executive amnesty. The bill ensures that Social Security benefits would go to illegal aliens who get Obama’s executive amnesty, and busts through budget caps set by the budget deal from House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)—after their deal passed late last year had already smashed through the spending caps set by the Budget Control Act. Ryan’s communications staffers Kevin Seifert and William Allison haven’t responded to a request for comment on whether he’ll vote for this bill, but if he does he’s undoing his own budget deal’s spending limits.

    That’s not even mentioning all the pork in the bill, including a reauthorization of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s casino crony kickback the Travel Promotion Act and nearly $20 million for protecting Rhinoceroses from poaching.
    Hoffa further attacked the bill as hurting truck drivers.

    “To add insult to injury, this Omnibus bill compromises highway safety by rolling back Hours-of-Service regulations, allowing truck drivers to work more than 80 hours per week – twice the normal 40-hour work week,” Hoffa said in statement, which hammered “secret negotiations and backroom deals” as having “produced a bill with a litany of special interest favors for corporate America, but it busts the dreams of hard-working Americans.”

    “The Teamsters Union strongly urges you to vote NO on the rule and NO on the Omnibus. Our members will be watching, and these votes will be entered on our scorecard,” Hoffa wrote.

  61. I guess I know what I will be doing tomorrow: calling Cantwell, Murray, and Bagdad Bob’s offices telling them this Republican Proposal is a sell out of the working class and vote NO>

  62. I am going to call Pete Sessions office. He appears to be a real loser. He was a regional manager with Bell South. He has got as much business being a congressman as a tarantula has on a slice of angel food cake.

    Senator Jeff Sessions is the opposite–a real patriot, and a leader.

  63. Off course Wbbeoi. I have actually attended several of his seminars. A true legend as is Brafman. A “lawyer’s lawyer” as we say.

  64. I guess this is quite significant. Howard Dean just announced his full support Hillary for President via a massive editorial in Politico.

  65. RINOs like Boehner, Pete Sessions and the rest of leadership promise to fight Obamacare and to fight amnesty. Then they deliver a 1600 page omnibus spending bill which breaks their campaign promises and rapes taxpayers to reward well heeled special interests. These people have no honor. From Hoffa’s letter, here are some of the give aways that Boehner has proposed, and because he lacks sufficient support from his own party is trolling for democratic support. Boehner is as guilty of fraud as Messiah Obama is when he pulls this shit:

    > $2 billion bailout to a $100 billion Fortune 50 company for breaking its promise to its retirees is outrageous and only adds to the list of special interest provisions in this bill.”

    > Taxpayer-funded bailout of big banks – forcing middle class families to bear the burden of Wall Street’s mistakes

    > Rolling back Hours-of-Service regulations, allowing truck drivers to work more than 80 hours per week – twice the normal 40-hour work week

    > Social Security benefits would go to illegal aliens

    > $20 million for protecting Rhinoceroses from poaching.

    > Reid’s casino crony kickback the Travel Promotion Act

    > Fund amnesty for 3 months

  66. In my opinion, these RINOs are as dirty as the politicians Herb prosecuted when he was U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. The difference is what these RINOs are doing is protected by law. The American People foot the bill for these give ways and they receive no benefit in return. It is a form of theft, and there is no remedy at law. It is immoral, unconscionable and a betrayal of the faith the American People put in the Republicans to serve the interest of reform and to reign in Obama.

  67. The rebuttal argument would state that this is simply business as usual.

    The answer is that we cannot afford to practice business as usual when the nation is nearly twenty trillion in debt.

  68. moononpluto
    December 11, 2014 at 12:25 am
    I guess this is quite significant. Howard Dean just announced his full support Hillary for President via a massive editorial in Politico.
    ——————————————————

    if that ain’t the kiss of death.

  69. Wbb,
    I really don’t know what happened to Trey, before this, he was a stand up, hard hitting prosecutor. I can only think that like all who serve, and I use that term lightly, in Government, money and power corrupt all. Some sooner than later…

  70. Move On has informed me they have voted at 81% to support OWarren for a presidential run. I guess Soros is looking for another cheap date. If she is willing to do that she is way more crazy and stupid than I thought she was.

    If Lizzy is smart enough to graciously pass, then she would do well to build her power and groom herself for later runs. She has been speaking out against some of the Wallstreet Corporate Welfare in the spending bill. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/warren-leads-liberal-democrats-rebellion-over-provisions-in-1-trillion-spending-bill/2014/12/10/c5c915e4-80b5-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html

  71. if that ain’t the kiss of death.

    _____________

    Ain’t it so? If Hillary is attracting the likes of Screamin’ Dean, she had better take a right turn to the middle.

    No surprise about MoveOn, is it Lu? Scum suckers. Reminds me of MoveOn’s 2008 “vote” when allegedly, Obama was selected as the Dim candidate of choice over Hillary. To hell with MoveOn. They can be given partial credit for their half-black, historic president’s destruction of this country.

  72. Many of us would still be in the dark on many issues if we didn’t have you Admin, and Big Pinksers to compare notes with.
    ___________

    So true, Shadow.

  73. gonzotx
    December 11, 2014 at 7:05 am
    ————-
    Its the age old question: did we misjudge him initially, or did he change and if so why.

    I am fine with bi partisanship, as long as it comes with anti corruption proviso binding on public officials, their agents and assigns, which reads as follows:

    “Provided however thou shalt not steal from the public.

    “Note: For purposes of this Act, stealing is defined to mean using, or agreeing to use public monies to enrich any person who has paid or promised to pay something of value to a public official, his campaign, pact or party, directly or indirectly, without prior written proof that said expenditure is: i) in the public interest which is defined with specificity, and ii) the foreseeable public benefit derived is tangible and will be equal to or greater than the monies expended.”

  74. A Harvard Business School Prof–who teaches our betters how to negotiate–extorts the princely sum of $3 from a Chinese mom and pop restaurant over a $1 discrepancy between a menu of prices on their website, vs what he was actually charged–treble damages under Massachusetts Law. His negotiation tactics are, to say the least, brutal.

    This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows that a preponderance of our federal judges, big media personalities, Matt Demon, Fuckerberg and Obama once quaffed from the cup of that glorious institution–and have never gotten over it.

    And they wonder why our nation is in trouble.

    Move over Gruber–you’ve got company.

    http://www.boston.com/food-dining/restaurants/2014/12/09/harvard-business-school-professor-goes-war-over-worth-chinese-food/KfMaEhab6uUY1COCnTbrXP/story.html

  75. I rather suspect that this conspicuous display of arrogance and distemper will only enhance his prospects for achieving tenure in the Harvard Business School. Barack’s friend Professor Gates is a case in point.

  76. if that ain’t the kiss of death.

    ——-
    At least screamin’Dean knows that Wigwam woman has no chance in Hell of becoming President.

  77. Free

    If Hillary is attracting the likes of Screamin’ Dean

    OMG, I didn’t see your post before I called him the same thing. 🙂 We do think alike in many ways. Sistaaaaaaaaaah!

  78. Before I rag anymore on Trey for his last performance, was this just the opening of the hearings or was this it?

    One thing that did finally happen with this shaming for hours is that it finally got the media to start exposing it, (as Admin pointed out) to the public. The corruption and abuse of the American ‘stupid’ public. Of course I wanted a kick ass fact finding hearing that would follow the money…but I hope it’s not over.

  79. And if anyone on the tenure committee of the Harvard Business School balks at the notion that he should be denied tenure on account of this incident, then mindful of the fact that he loves to make threats, I would urge him to borrow the ceremonial Lakota Souix chief’s head dress from Lizzie Borden, and remind them of what happened to Custer at Little Big Horn.

  80. And for Obama who is himself a Harvard man, and believes that terrorism is simply work place violence, he would be inclined to construe this threat as free speech, and robust discussion.

  81. One thing that did finally happen with this shaming for hours is that it finally got the media to start exposing it,
    ———–
    Question: what exactly do you think big media exposed? That Gruber believes that the American People are stupid? My reaction to that is he may be right, and even if he is not, who cares. Or, did they show that from to focs’l to fantail and from keel to top mast everyone involved at all levels knew that contrary to what Obama said, the “health legislation (fucking Axelrods euphemism–as if congress through this act was bestowing health on the American People, rather than increasing the cost and decreasing the coverage of their health insurance) would reduce costs and people would be allowed to keep their doctors. Unless those comments by him were revealed in their reporting and unless he was described as the architect, their reportage can be construed as little more than an effort to cover up the real problem, in which case, it’s political value is marginal. As to its legal impact with the Supreme Court pending, the Republicans did not prepare a clean record on the appeal.

  82. Again, big media is begging their party to get Hillary into this race, so they can shift public attention away from the Obama scandals which will be the main grist of the next legislative session, couple with the unravelling of his signature act. Therefore, the loudmouths of the party, who I would never make the mistake of calling leaders, are weighing in, to force her to declare sooner as opposed to later. My best guess is that she has got the Wall Street money rapped up, and there is also that poll showing that she is the preferred candidate of the wealthiest Americans. Therefore, in the money game of politics she is in the drivers seat, and politicians like Dean know this. Therefore, their goal is to force her to declare, and to keep her on the narrow progressive path of Obama–which is terminal cancer to this nation, should she succumb to it.

  83. wbboei
    December 11, 2014 at 2:39 am

    RINOs like Boehner, Pete Sessions and the rest of leadership promise to fight Obamacare and to fight amnesty. Then they deliver a 1600 page omnibus spending bill which breaks their campaign promises
    _____________________

    Sure looks that way. 👿

  84. December 11, 2014 House Republicans narrowly cleared a major hurdle Thursday morning in their race for the exits, winning a key procedural vote on a massive spending bill to keep the government afloat.

    Passage of the rule governing debate for the “CROmnibus” bill by a razor-thin 214-212 margin means that the measure can come up for what should be an easier final vote Thursday afternoon. The rule passed only after two Republicans, Reps. Kerry Bentivolio and Marlin Stutzman, were persuaded by leaders to switch their votes from no to yes. Every Democrat voted against the rule, but several are expected to back the underlying bill. Still, GOP leaders are considering a fallback plan to bring up a shorter continuing resolution if the larger bill fails to pass Thursday.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/gop-leaders-confident-spending-bill-will-pass-but-mull-fallback-plan-20141211

  85. Amen, Shadow!!

    I’m pissed at Candy-ass Anderson Cooper for making me want to decent Dicky-boy Cheney. I don’t want to see people tortured but at some point, you have to weigh heir right not to be treated like shit against their murderous actions.

    I wish that torture report had been read with with video of people jumping to their deaths on 911 shown in the background.

  86. Speaking of torture against people that would nuke our country if they had the ability…there are wars, there are bullets, there are fire bombs, nukes and suicide pilots filled with Americans that bring down our largest buildings filled with innocent people.

    IMO, being against torture to these individuals to obtain inside information is just helping our enemy kill more of us.

    If someone were going to behead my family member, I would do everything I could to get information out of them.

Comments are closed.