GOP Fail: The Gruber Testimony

Jonathan Gruber

Sometimes opportunity knocks and no one answers.  Jonathan Gruber's testimony today was one of those times.  Gruber was a central player in the scam that is Obamacare and yet the focus of the questions and the coverage was on irrelevancies.

I watched some Fox News and they were shocked Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber would call voters "stupid."  Other news stories were similar, highlighting issues like Gruber's apologies or his refusal to disclose his pay.   None of those issues, though, really matter to the average voter.  They have never heard of Gruber and little care whether he apologizes for dumb statements.

The average voter does care intensely about his family's health care.  Gruber's videos revealthat the administration knew that average Americans would be harmed by Obamacare.  In particular, they reveal that:

• Obamacare was designed to make the average (healthy) American pay more.  The $2,500 cut was never real.  If Americans knew this, Gruber explained, "it would not have passed."
• Obamacare does raise taxes.   To avoid admitting that, the "bill was written in a tortured way."
• Despite the promise Obama made 37 times, Gruber knew from the beginning that there would be people who would loose the plans.

In sum, the foundational promises of Obamacare were false and, worse, were known to be false from the beginning.

The true Gruber scandal is not that an obscure technocrat insulted voters.  The true scandal is that the whole of Obamacare was dishonest from the start: prices have gone up and people have lost their plans and their doctors and the Democrats knew from the beginning that this would happen.  For the GOP, this should have been today's focus.

Celebrate, Celebrate

Democrats at their weakest since 1920s...

Women, children sacrificed to political correctness

Regarding the Rotherham horror, Allison Pearson asks:

If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?

The answer is one of those defining moments of left-liberalism: the left would prefer that 1,400 children get raped rather than risk offending the "Asians" (read Muslims) who were raping them.  For example, as the Telegraph explains:

Ann Cryer, an MP from 1997 until 2010, told The Sunday Telegraph how she had feared being called “racist” when, in 2002, she exposed a sex-abuse scandal involving Pakistani men in her constituency of Keighley, West Yorkshire.

And, also:

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, revealed that even now some of his colleagues disapproved of his efforts to uncover child abuse, because some were “obsessing about multiculturalism”.

As George Orwell explained, one of the basic principles of Communism is that:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

In the left-liberal world of political correctness, women are equal but Islam is 'more equal.'

In 50 years, liberals have not changed

Reagan warned us about Obama:
br>

Mass transit: when liberalism meets reality

Despite the mountains of subsidies they receive, buses account for a mere 3% of passenger-miles traveled.  They get those subsidies because Democrats love the idea of mass transit.  The reality is something else.  In the (Toronto) National Post, for example, one liberal discusses his awakening:

“I used to be a big supporter of the streetcar until I started riding it every day,” said Steve Tartaglia, who regularly rides the streetcar from Liberty Village to King and Adelaide.  He called his commute an “absolute circus.”

Illustrating the problems, other riders quoted in the article mentioned "rude drivers, overcrowding, frequent short turns, breakdowns, blockages, bunching and extra-long wait times" as well as human feces in the seats.

No amount of government funding will make this system work well.

US Judge decides that California's death penalty serves no "purpose"

Judge Carney

US District Judge Cormac J. Carney has ruled that California's death penalty is unconstitutionally in violation of "the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." In his opinion [PDF], he writes:

Since 1978, when the current death penalty system was adopted by California voters, over 900 people have been sentenced to death for their crimes. Of them, only 13 have been executed. For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California's death penalty system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution. Indeed, for most, systemic delay has made their execution so unlikely that the death sentence carefully and deliberately imposed by the jury has been quietly transformed into one no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death. As for the random few for whom execution does become a reality, they will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary.

While judges should rule on the basis of law, he veers far away from that when he decides that California's death penalty serves "no retributive or deterrent purpose." Deciding what is retributive and what is deterrent are policies issues, and policies issues are for the legislature, not the judiciary, to decide.

Notice also that the judge is declaring that the results of the judicial process are "unpredictable" and "random."  He seems unaware that his decision could be considered an example of just that.

So far, Carney's decision applies to just to the case of one Ernest Dewayne Jones who raped and murdered his girlfriend's mother.  One can expect, however, that death penalty opponents will attempt to apply the same reasoning to the cases of the rest of the state's convicted murderers.

Judge Carney, like Chief Justice Roberts who approved Obamacare, was appointed by Pres. Geo. W. Bush. Bush may have been strong on the war on terror but he wasn't strong on much else.

Compare and contrast

Pres. Obama speaks on the attack on the Malaysian airliner flying over Ukraine:


Pres. Reagan speaks on the Soviet attack on Korean Airliner KAL 007:


We celebrate Reagan for having  won the Cold War.  Obama has no idea that he is blundering into a new one.

Hat tip: Greg.

Today's Drudgetaposition

MICHELLE O: 'SPLURGING IS KEY TO LIFE'...

---

Moving in with parents becomes more common -- for middle-aged...

Philosophy: deconstructionism explained and deconstructed.

Deconstructionism is academically–trendy but its meaning can be hard to pin down because its proponents avoid precise definitions.  The basic idea seems to be that words don't mean as much as we think they do.  Here is how the Stanford University Philosophy Department explains it:

[L]anguage is, as Saussure says, nothing but differences. That is, words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might -- by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).

Let's focus on "[W]ords have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words.  'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc."  That, of course, is wrong.  'Red' refers to the range of electromagnetic wavelengths that excite one of the three sets of cones in the human eye.  The response of these cones can be quantitatively measured and looks like:

'Red', 'green', and 'blue' are not social constructs whose meaning may vary depending upon cultural influences.  They are definable with scientific precision.

It seems clear that deconstructivists avoid specifics because, once the specifics are exposed, their philosophy is reduced to foolishness.

Hillary visits San Jose; Tea Party breaks out

After ducking a shoe earlier today in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton traveled to San Jose State University to speak tonight.  A tea party broke out outside the Event Center where Hillary was speaking (click on any image to enlarge): 

Channel 2 News showed up and interviewed tea partiers:

In addition to the Tea Party, the San Jose State University's chapter of CollegeGOP  was there:

The student on the left is the chapter's vice president.

The woman below had an answer to Hillary's question: "what difference does it make"?  The difference depends on whose casket it is:

While many signs focused on Benghazi, the next election is not likely to turn on the issue.  At lunch, my waitress was asked if she knew about Benghazi.  She replied, "of course, he was a famous 1960s TV actor."  Yes, young people know about Ben Gazzara.

Other signs walked through other famous moments in Hillary's career.  Remember "reset":

Remember Hillary's role in the Vince Foster episode:

While talking with this woman, a liberal came up to us and asked "do you know which country Benghazi is in?"  I said "Libya."  She replied "I am not talking to you" and then asked my friend above a couple more geography questions which she answered.  The liberal then asked what Benghazi's latitude and longitude were.  We didn't have any numbers for her and that was her opportunity: she declared that we didn't know enough about Benghazi to be protesting it and left in a huff.  I suppose that no history professor would ever try to teach World War II without first requiring the students to memorize the latitude and longitude of Berlin.

Hillary's life also offers important lessons on feminism and women's rights.  To aid in discussion of these issues with the young women on the campus, this Tea Partier brought a show-and-tell item: a blue dress.

Off to the side of the protest was a woman with Hillary-in-a-box:

I thought the toy might have been cruelly designed to scare children, but I was wrong.  She was a Hillary supporter and also a local artist.  She designed and built the Hillary-in-a-box herself.  Standing with her was another Hillary supporter, also equipped with a Hillary-in-a-box:

Remember his outfit the next time someone claims that Tea Partiers wear silly costumes.

Further away, there was this man in the black hat gathering signatures for  MoveToAmend  which aims to end corporate personhood:

He explained to me that the constitution nowhere mentions corporations and the bill of rights applies only to individuals.  I asked if that meant that the the New York Times lacked the right to freedom of speech?  He explained that the Times is actually covered by freedom of the press which is an  exception to the constitution not mentioning corporations.

Speaking of things that upset liberals, take a look at this man:

He is wearing a Molon Labe sweatshirt which depicts an 'assault' rifle while also holding a "don't tread on me" flag. 

Here is another answer to the question of "what difference does it make"?

The overwhelming incompetence that Hillary displayed in that episode really should disqualify her from the presidency.  It won't , of course: most people like Ben Gazzara.

As the protest continued on into the evening, there was also this sign on the war-on-women:

This Tea Party was organized by the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots,  with help from Tea Party Patriots of Silicon Valley, the Silicon Valley 9-12 Project, and the Bay Area Patriots/SF Tea Party.

Tonight's event is part of four-day  three-state speaking tour.  ABC News reports:

Clinton’s tour kicks off Tuesday in California where she’ll deliver a keynote at a large marketing summit in San Francisco. Later that day, she’ll pop up to Portland, Ore., to headline the World Affairs Council of Oregon’s annual International Speaker series.

She’ll stop by Las Vegas Thursday where she will give closing remarks at a scrap metal recycling expo (and also likely draw attention from politicos taking note of her first appearance in an early primary state this year).

 According to the New York Times, Hillary charges $200,000 per speech.  So, ABC speculates that she might be paid $1 million over these four days.  Standing by her man has paid off.

Obama explains his policy on national borders

Paradox: Venezuela failing "despite" government having absolute control

The Atlantic analyzes Venezuela and is puzzled by Hugo Chavez's disastrous legacy:

Venezuela is now the world champion of inflation, homicide, insecurity, and shortages of essential goods—from milk for children to insulin for diabetics and all kinds of indispensable products. All this despite having the greatest oil reserves in the world and a government with absolute control of all state institutions and levers of power. 

So, Venezuela is a disaster "despite" having "a government with absolute control"?

PREVIOUSLY on the paradoxes that vex the minds of liberals/journalists:
•Paradox: Those most knowledgeable about science are least likely to believe climate alarmists
•Paradox: Those who support Obamacare don't  understand it
•Paradox: Rather than work, people accept free money!
•Paradox: Higher taxes yield less revenue
•Paradox: Price high despite shortage;  Also: despite homeowners protecting themselves, crime is down.
•Paradox: "Despite" having the most generous benefits for homelessness, homeless flock to San Francisco
•Paradox: Gun sales up despite politicians' threats to ban gun sales
•Paradox: Student test scores improve despite school funding decrease
•News report: Gun crime down "despite" increase in gun sales
•It's a paradox: Congress unpopular "despite record"
•"Ironically," conservatives and their children are happier
•It's a paradox!: Crime down when criminals are in jail.
•Paradox: Crime is down despite criminals being in prison
•Paradox: Few fraudulent voters if voters are required to have IDs

Is Obama an evil genius?

The Washington Post reviews the competence of recent Obama diplomatic appointments:

The nominee for ambassador to Norway, for example, prompted outrage in Oslo by characterizing one of the nation’s ruling parties as extremist. A soap-opera producer slated for Hungary appeared to have little knowledge of the country she would be living in. A prominent Obama bundler nominated to be ambassador to Argentina acknowledged that he had never set foot in the country and doesn’t speak Spanish.

 Even former senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the new U.S. ambassador in Beijing, managed to raise eyebrows during his confirmation hearing by acknowledging, “I’m no real expert on China.” . . . . 

The troubles began last month, when million-dollar bundler and Chartwell Hotels chief executive George Tsunis testified at his confirmation hearing to be ambassador to Norway. Tsunis admitted he had never been to the Scandinavian country and suggested, among other things, that the nation’s Progress Party was part of a discounted “fringe.” It is actually part of Norway’s center-right ruling coalition.

Mamet was asked during his own confirmation hearing this month if he had ever been to Argentina, where he would be ambassador. “I haven’t had the opportunity yet to be there,” said Mamet, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama’s reelection.

During the same hearing, Robert C. Barber, who raised more than $1.6 million for Obama in 2012 and has been nominated to serve as ambassador to Iceland, said he had never visited the Nordic nation.

Then there is Colleen Bell, the nominee for ambassador to Hungary and the Hollywood producer behind “The Bold and The Beautiful” soap opera, who raised or contributed about $800,000 to Obama in the last election. She stammered her way through testimony about U.S. strategic interests in the country, which is the focus of growing international alarm over its far-right government’s treatment of Jews and other minorities.  [Emph. added]

Add to these examples, such Obama cabinet appointments as John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, and one has a distinct pattern of incompetence:  Obama surrounds himself with fools.  This is not something that smart people do.  As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle observed:

Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.

Obama is mediocrity. He may do evil (forcing people into Obamacare, enabling Iranian nukes, etc) but these are the acts of a fool, not a genius.

ASIDE: Note that the wide variation in the cost of ambassadorships.  Mamet raised a mere $500,000 while getting Argentina while Barber raised over $1.6 million and merely got Iceland.

How much does it cost to buy a mayor?

Ray Nagin

A jury has found former New Orleans mayor Ray "school bus" Nagin guilty of 20 counts of corruption.  CNN reports:

A January 2013 indictment detailed more than $200,000 in bribes to the mayor, and his family members allegedly received a vacation in Hawaii; first-class airfare to Jamaica; private jet travel and a limousine for New York City; and cellular phone service. In exchange, businesses that coughed up for Nagin and his family won more than $5 million in city contracts, according to the January 2013 indictment.

$200,00 in bribes generated over $5 million in contracts: that is a 25-to-1 return on investment.

Mayor Nagin is also well known for his open racism, having declared that he wanted New Orleans to be a "chocolate" city:

It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be, a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.

PREVIOUSLY on the cost of buying government:
•Kickbacks and the LA Coliseum
•How to buy a congressman
•How to buy a judge
•Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Feinstein: how their husbands benefit from government contracts 
•How to buy a vote (they're cheap: $10)

The decline of American colleges

College students today work half as hard as students used to, according to George Will who was citing a study by Brink Lindsay of  Cato Institute:

Lindsey reported that in 1961, full-time college students reported studying 25 hours a week on average; by 2003, average studying time had fallen to 13 hours. Half of today’s students take no courses requiring more than 20 pages of writing in a semester. Given the role of practice in developing expertise, “the conclusion that college students are learning less than they used to seems unavoidable.” Small wonder those with college degrees occupying jobs that do not require a high school diploma include 1.4 million retail salespeople and cashiers, half a million waiters, bartenders and janitors, and many more.

While students are learning less and benefitting less, college costs (green line) have been rising faster than inflation (blue) , even faster than medical costs (red):

Colleges may be dominated by left-wing radicals, but that doesn't mean that they aren't in it for the money, as evidenced by the over 42 college presidents make over a million dollars a year.

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of education:
•University history prof, specializing in Reagan, has no clue
•A failing school substitutes liberal indoctrination in place of teaching •Prioritizing gimmicks over education
•Are public schools succeeding?
•Paradox: student test scores improve after school budgets are cut
•The great minds of the Ivy League
•Study: teacher's unions are bad for education
•Study: sexist women teachers stunt learning of girl students
•Black students, harassed for "acting white," get $150,000
•Teaching self-esteem backfires
•Education in Korea vs. the US: does "self-esteem" backfire?
•LA pays teachers not to teach
•What teachers learn in teacher's ed.
•Obama promises to throw money at schools
•How to get a job teaching in California even if you are illiterate
•Affirmative action backfire
•California offers student tutoring but only for students belonging to the right races
•High school implements race-based punishments for misbehavior

Dept of Justice investigation of IRS scandal exposed as phony

From the Washington Times:

The Justice Department selected an avowed political supporter of President Obama to lead the criminal probe into the IRS targeting of tea party groups, according to top Republicans who said Wednesday that the move has ruined the entire investigation.

Not surprisingly, the MSM is ignoring this:

So far ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to mention what Darrell Issa called “a startling conflict of interest.” In fact the Big Three networks have almost completely stopped covering the IRS scandal investigation altogether.

 For comparison:

In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they've allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service controversy