Sunday, November 23, 2014

Bill Maher Takes Jonathan Gruber's "Stupid American Voters" Comment Completely Out of Context and Says It's Not Controversial


Maher:  "How this is even controversial, I have no idea"

by Larry Simons
November 23, 2014

On Friday's telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, the recent comments by MIT Professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was the hot topic. At least 5 tapes have surfaced over the past two weeks that show Gruber saying it was "critical" to have a lack of transparency in getting the Obamacare law passed.

Gruber stated, "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Maher began the segment by explaining to his guests that he even acknowledged what Gruber's message was in the video clip, that getting the Obamacare law passed using slight of hand was essential and that they had to claim it was not a tax [even though it was] or the bill would have never been passed.

Maher acknowledged this, and after acknowledging it, he says, "I agree, and I've heard nobody else in America say that. Everybody on the left and the right.."oh how could he call Americans stupid"? Then Maher proceeds to play a video montage of himself on several shows saying Americans are stupid.

The problem with Maher's reaction is that he completely took Gruber's comments out of context. Are Americans in general stupid? That is a big resounding yes. I agree. But, this was not Gruber's message. Gruber was not referring to stupid Americans in general, he was specifically referring to Americans being stupid on the Obamacare law itself.

Maher goes on a 5-minute rant on Gruber's comments, while completely misunderstanding them. The irony here is, during this entire segment, Maher preaches on the collective stupidity of Americans while being clueless that Gruber was speaking about fooling those Americans who are specifically clueless about the Affordable Care Act.

For Maher to acknowledge that he knew what Gruber's basic message was [that they had to deceive to get the law passed] and then later make the claim that Gruber was talking about all Americans when he called them stupid, shows that Maher is either purposely trying to divert and ignore Gruber's message [which would mean that Maher would have to admit he was duped into accepting Obamacare], or that Maher is, ironically, displaying his own stupidity on this specific story.

As I stated in my recent story, the only ones who were truly fooled on Obamacare are the very ones who support it, mainly Democrats, since it was only Democrats who voted for the bill. No Republican voted for the ACA. No libertarian would vote for it. Who would be left but Democrats?

Gruber's admission that the administration had to use deception and lies to get the law passed leaves Democrats with no choice but to ignore the very core of Gruber's comments, or to spin his words. To date, I have not seen one Democrat, not one, say that Gruber's admission is an outrage. If they ignore Gruber's comments all together, that is damning because it gives credence to the reactions from the Obamacare opposition. If they address the comments, they have to either claim that the end justifies the means or find some other way to spin it.

The way Maher chose to spin the comments was just to deny the comments were controversial in any way. Maher said, "Jonathan Gruber, you have met your soul mate. How this is even controversial, I have no idea.".

It's crystal clear why it's controversial: Because the Administration had to lie to get a bill signed into law. And the natural response to this deception is: If the law was so good to begin with, why did it require any deception or removal of transparency at all?

Democrats ignore this question, because they would rather hold the view that Americans had to be duped into accepting a law that is really good for them [like the analogy that Maher gave of trying to get a dog to take a pill he really needs and is good for him, by slipping it into the dog's food because he won't take it on his own] than to admit that if the law was really that wonderful and it would be so beneficial to the American people, why it had to shrouded in deception and lies.

I agree with Maher in one aspect. Maher and Gruber could be soul mates, but not because they share a view that Americans are stupid, but that they are both rich elitists who support Obamacare because neither one of them needs it.

watch the clip---click here

Friday, November 21, 2014

Why Aren't Democrats the Most Angry At Jonathan Gruber for Calling Americans "Stupid American Voters"?


No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act and most [if not all] libertarians are opposed to Obamacare. So who are the "stupid American voters" MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber is referring to?

by Larry Simons
November 21, 2014

In the past two weeks, numerous videos have emerged showing MIT Professor and top Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber coming clean about the fact that the ACA could only be passed through a lack of transparency and the dependence of the "stupid American voter".

Interestingly, in light of these comments made by Gruber, it has been mostly Democrats who have been in full support of the arrogant, elitist remarks made by the top technical consultant on the Obamacare law [well, those Democrats who have actually addressed or acknowledged Gruber. Others, like Nancy Pelosi have denied even knowing who he is, despite lauding his work in a 2009 video].

It is not surprising that Democrats have been defensive about Gruber, since the ACA is fellow Democrat Barack Obama's signature legislation and defend the law they must, despite the fact that Gruber admitted a lack of transparency was "critical" to passing the law.

What is surprising is how it is mainly Democrats who support Gruber's comments [about the bill being passed because of the "stupid American voter" not knowing the difference] since it can be only Democrats he is referring to [since no Republican voted for the ACA].

Not a single Republican voted for the ACA in 2009 and 2010. The law passed the Senate on December 24, 2009 with a vote of 60-39, and the law passed the House on March 21, 2010 with a 219-212 vote. No Republican voted for the ACA in the House or Senate, so the ACA law did not fool a single Republican. When Gruber mocked the American people by calling voters stupid, who could he have been referring to other than the ones who were actually fooled by the law and voted for and supported it?

So, if only [or mostly] Democrats support the ACA, and we know for a fact that all but 34 House Democrats voted for it to pass, why is it that Democrats, of all people, are not completely outraged at Gruber's comments? They were the ones duped by the law, nobody else was.

Interestingly, it's only Democrats who run to Gruber's aid. People like Tommy Chong, who stated yesterday on FOX News that it's a "stupid way to be" if anyone opposes universal health care. Chong also stated that FOX News's coverage of Gruber is like "Benghazi all over again", as if to imply there was anything wrong with covering Benghazi.



Democratic Pollster Bernard Whitman appeared on The Kelly File to basically argue that the end justifies the means with the passage of the ACA. Whitman argued that since 8 million people are receiving health care that previously couldn't afford it, then the lie to get the law passed was A-OK.



Liberal political pundit Bob Beckel from the FOX News program The Five, who may just be the biggest asswipe on TV, defended Gruber's comments even as co-host Eric Bolling was telling Beckel that Democrats were the very people Gruber must have been referring to when making his "stupid American voters" comment since Democrats voted for Obamacare.



This level of arrogance by Gruber is almost unprecedented in the political spectrum, even for modern day politics. To make matters even more mind-boggling is the fact that a particular political party will come to the aid of such blatant arrogance even when the target of the mockery is the very party being ridiculed.

Can these Democrats really be this blind and delusional?

Thursday, November 20, 2014

And They Just Keep Comin'....Gruber Tapes 2, 3, 4 and 5


MIT Professor Jonathn Gruber [top Obamacare architect] claims his comments about "stupid American voters" were "off the cuff". Turns out, he said it on other occasions along with additional incrimination

by Larry Simons
November 20, 2014

MIT Professor and top Obamacare drafter Jonathan Gruber, now a household name due to his blatant admission that President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was only passed because of a "lack of transparency" because the "stupid American voter" was too dumb to realize what was really in it, has shown his face to explain away his comments.

Appearing on Ronan Farrow Daily, Gruber said:

"I spoke off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments."

The big problem with this explanation is that the October 2013 conference is not the only instance in which he made such similar statements.

Another video soon emerged from a previous event [just 9 days prior] in which Gruber said the law passed because "the American people are too stupid to understand the difference."

watch the video [at the 2:23 mark]



In this clip, Gruber was referring to the Cadillac Tax portion of the ACA, which is basically a tax hike on high end insurance packages which was concealed by taxing the companies providing the plans rather than taxing Americans directly.

Video #3

from November 2012

Gruber states that because of the "lack of economic understanding of the American voter", the administration was able to exploit Americans to hide the fact that Obamacare was a direct tax on the customer.

Gruber stated:

"I have been making this speech for twelve years and people would come up to me and say, ‘but wait a second you’re going to tax my heath insurance?’ And I’d say no, no, no! We’re going to tax subsidies on your health insurance. And they’d go ‘you’re going to tax my heath insurance?’ And you just can’t get through its politically impossible. So despite the fact we thought we might get this as part of the law it was going to be dead.”

“Until a second Massachusetts hero arose, John Kerry. John Kerry said no-no we’re not going to tax your heath insurance, we’re going to tax those evil insurance companies. We’re going to impose a tax that if they sell health insurance that’s too expensive we’re going to tax them. And conveniently the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate on the income tax code. So basically it’s the same thing – we just tax insurance companies, they pass on higher prices, that offsets the tax break we get into being the same thing. It’s a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

watch the clip


Video #4

from June 2012

As Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit writes:

"On June 13, 2012, Obamacare Jonathan Gruber was interviewed by Frontline.  He told them that the Cadillac tax issue was addressed in 2009.  Obama knew it was going to be a problem, and they all agreed to lie about it."

"From Jonathan Gruber’s Frontline interview in June 2012.
The next time I see him is summer 2009. The big issue there is that he really wants to make sure I’m moving forward on cost control. I think that at this point he sort of knew we had a good plan on coverage, but he was worried on cost control. So we had a meeting in the Oval Office with several experts, including myself, on what can we do to get credible savings on cost control that the Congressional Budget Office would recognize and score as savings in this law.
And that was a meeting — it was very exciting, once again, because the economists in the room all said the number one thing you need to do is you need to take on the tax subsidy to employer-sponsored insurance. We need one minute of background on this. The way employer-sponsored insurance works is, if you get paid in wages, you get taxed. If you get paid in health insurance, you do not. …
So this tax subsidy economists have been railing against for decades, it’s super-expensive. We forego about $250 billion per year in tax revenues. It’s regressive — the richer you are, the bigger tax break you get. And it’s inefficient because it causes people to buy excessive health insurance. So everyone in the room said, “You want something that is real cost control that we know it will work, go after this.”
 Now, the problem is, it’s a political nightmare, … and people say, “No, you can’t tax my benefits.” So what we did a lot in that room was talk about, well, how could we make this work? And Obama was like, “Well, you know” — I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, “Look, I can’t just do this.” He said: “It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?” And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.
Once again, that ultimately became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health care bill, which I think is one of the most important and bravest parts of the health care law and doesn’t get nearly enough credit. I mean, this is the first time after years and years of urging — and the entire health policy, there was not one single health expert in America who is setting up a system from scratch, would have this employer subsidy in place. Not one.
 So after years and years of us wanting to get rid of this, to finally go after it was just such a huge victory for health policy. And I’m just incredibly proud that he and the others who supported this law were willing to do it. …"


Video #5

from February 2011

In this video from February 18, 2011 at a meeting of the Vermont House Representatives Committee, a letter is read by Democratic committee Chairman Mark Larson in which a concerned citizen expresses his concerns about Obamacare, as Gruber listens.

After the letter is read, Jonathan Gruber snidely replies, "Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?" Laughter erupts in the room.

Turns out, the concerned citizen was actually two-term Vermont State Senator John McClaughry, who was an advisor to President Reagan in the 1980's. So, hardly an adolescent. But these things matter not to people like Gruber, who take great pleasure in continually insulting the American people and who openly and arrogantly admit that the biggest overhaul to the American health care system was a colossal lie and could not be passed unless the critical task of removing all transparency was implemented.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

MIT Professor and Architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber Admits That Obamacare Needed A "Lack of Transparency" to be Passed


Professor admits that Obamacare would have never passed had it not been for the "stupidity of the American voter" and there was full transparency about the law

by Larry Simons
November 19, 2014

A video that has surfaced on November 7 reveals what we as liberty lovers and Constitutionalists have known all along, that the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is a monumental lie and that it was with the utmost deception that the law was passed.

In the video, MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber pulls no punches as he fully discloses that in order for the law to be passed, a "lack of transparency" was "critical" [his words] to deceive the "stupid American voter".



The clip, from October 2013, shows Gruber on a panel discussing the strategies of the Obamacare law and the fact that the bill was written so that the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] would not score the individual mandate [to purchase Obamacare] as a tax. Gruber explains that if the mandate was written as a tax, the bill would die. Odd, since the Supreme Court eventually voted to uphold the individual mandate through its taxing powers [hence, a tax].

Gruber then says this:

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Here we have the architect of the Obamacare law openly admitting the law was passed based on a monumental lie. Interestingly, the fact that Gruber openly admits that the lack of transparency was "critical" to getting the law passed is ironic to say the least, since Obama announced in February of 2013 that his administration is the most transparent administration in history.

On February 14, 2013, Obama said this:

"This is the most transparent administration in history. I can document that this is the case. Every visitor that comes into the White House is now part of the public record. Every law we pass and every rule we implement we put online for everyone to see."

This statement should now go down in the annals of time as his second biggest lie ever, only outdone by his now famous lie, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it", which was PolitiFact.com's Lie of the Year for 2013.

This admittance by Gruber should be all that is required for the ACA law to be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a challenge to Obamacare in 2015 that will determine if the wording of the ACA limits insurance tax credits only to those who live in states that have set up their own exchanges.

So far, only 16 states have set up their own exchanges. This means that if the Supreme Court rules against IRS tax credits, the ACA will collapse because only in those 16 states will low and middle income people will receive subsidies to help pay their premiums, which will not provide enough cash to help the people the law was designed to help.

This will be a very important case because it will be entirely about ambiguity within the written law. The written law states that in order to get the tax credit, the states have to set up the exchanges. Next year the Supreme Court will rule on the wording of that statute. If they rule in favor of the literal meaning of the statute, they will have no choice but to rule against IRS tax credits and Obamacare will crumble.

Gruber stated that the law was written so that the individual mandate would not be a tax, because the law would not pass if that were the case. But we all know that the Supreme Court ruled the mandate constitutional based on their taxing powers. So, the actual law was written so as not to be a tax, but the Supreme Court ruled it is.

The only conclusion to make from this is that the drafters of the ACA have duped the Supreme Court justices. For that alone the Court should rule against the tax credits because if they make their decision based on literal terminology, as they should, the law will be killed.

As stated earlier, those who truly understand the Constitution knew from the start that Obamacare is a colossal lie and hoax. The fact that an Obama administration technical consultant came out an openly admitted the law was written to deceive gave all liberty lovers an early Christmas.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Bill Maher Calls Iowa Senator-Elect "Nuts" for Supporting Nullification of Federal Laws


The fact is, it's not hard at all to find an abundance of support for nullification in our country's history

by Larry Simons
November 6, 2014

On last Friday's telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, the topic was the 'then' upcoming election and why so very few people in the country actually vote based on issues rather than on party lines. Maher mentions that there has been a meme circulating throughout this year's election that "there aren't any nuts out there like there were in 2010". Maher mentions Iowa Senator hopeful Joni Ernst and her stances on some issues [she won on Tuesday].

Maher says:

"Have you heard about this nut in Iowa, Joni Ernst? She supports legislation to arrest federal officials who try to implement Obamacare. Right away, that should be disqualifying. She thinks states can nullify laws. This is crackpot talk radio shit. She doesn't believe in climate change. That's a hoax. She's for eliminating the minimum wage altogether. Eliminating the EPA, the IRS..I mean, she's a total nut."

I will be totally honest. Until Maher said her name, I had never heard of Joni Ernst. So, defending everything she stands for is not the purpose of my story. But I will defend her stance on nullification, since the concept of nullification is one of the oldest principles espoused by the founding fathers, Jefferson and Madison in particular. Nullification was the central theme to Jefferson and Madison's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

Ernst is correct. States can nullify laws. And they have. Two recent examples include the medical use of marijuana and the REAL ID Act of 2005. As of this writing, 23 states have nullified federal medical marijuana laws and have made legal its use. It is still on the books that medical cannabis is illegal under federal law, but 23 states and Washington D.C. have shown that resistance of the states, when it becomes so severe, the federal government backs off. This is a perfect example of nullification, and of all people, Bill Maher should be applauding it, since he is an admitted marijuana user.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is another example of the states simply saying "no" to a federal law, and the resistance becomes so widespread and severe, that the federal government just gives up on enforcing it. The REAL ID Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in May of 2005. Only 21 states are compliant with this law, which means 29 are not. This is nullification, the act of states saying "no" to unconstitutional federal laws.

The bottom line on nullification is this: An unconstitutional federal law is no law at all. All of the founders, even Alexander Hamilton, understood this. Most would argue that this is not the case because most courts in America have ruled that nullification is unconstitutional. The whole idea behind nullification is that the "federal government cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation", as author Thomas E. Woods writes in 'Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny In the 21st Century".

Woods writes, "If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798, it will continue to grow--regardless of elections, the separation of powers and other much-touted limits on government power."

Checks and balances coming from the government's three branches [Executive, Judicial and Legislative] are not always enough to provide true protection of rights for the American people, because these three branches can simply combine their power and go against the rights reserved for the people living in free and independent states. But nullification, the right of the states to resist unconstitutional federal laws, is the true check on federal power.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"

Hamilton is clear in saying that no judge can exercise their own will over the people in defiance of the Constitution. So, anyone who argues that nullification does not exist because the courts have all ruled that it is unconstitutional, clearly has not heeded the words of Hamilton.

Hamilton assumed, or hoped that the courts would get things right. But, naturally, we know that this is not always the case. How can people be expected to have faith in the courts as impartial arbiters since the courts themselves are a branch of the federal government?

Woods writes, "The Supreme Court itself, after all, although usually pointed to as the monopolistic and infallible judge of the constitutionality of the federal government's actions, is itself a branch of the federal government. So, in a dispute between the states and the federal government, the resolution is to come from...the federal government?"

Giving the courts the ultimate power to rule on disputes between states and the federal government would be the equivalent to there being a dispute in a baseball game between opposing teams [Team A and Team B] of whether Team A's shortstop actually tagged out the Team B's base stealer, and the final decision is not an impartial arbiter like an umpire, but the manager of Team B. What ruling do you think the manager will make?

The Supremacy clause of the Constitution was for this purpose, to make invalid any federal law that is not pursuant of the Constitution. Many falsely believe that the Supremacy clause refers to the laws of the federal government having supremacy over state law. This is false, but people like Bill Maher think it's fact.

The Supremacy clause states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding"

They key phrase in this clause is "which shall be made in pursuance thereof". In other words, all laws must be in pursuant [agreeable, harmonious] with the Constitution. Needless to say, if a law is not pursuant with the Constitution, it is simply not a law. Many will still conclude that the Supreme Court and other courts have ruled that nullification is unconstitutional, despite Hamilton himself stating "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

Many people claim that the Supreme Court has always done its job in upholding the Constitution and interpreting it correctly , but we clearly know this is not the case. For example, Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution does it state that one of the federal government's enumerated powers is regulating health care.

The Supreme Court knew this. They also knew Obamacare violated the Commerce clause of the Constitution, so they decided to make it "constitutional" by enacting it under their taxing powers as a direct tax. This too is unconstitutional because it clearly violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states:

"No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

The direct tax of Obamacare is not subject to apportionment rule [in proportion to the Census], as it must be, because it's a well know fact that not everyone is subject to this tax. As of last year, as many as 9 different groups of individuals have been exempted from the Obamacare tax. If any individual people are exempted, this by definition, is not a direct tax, as Obamacare claims to be and therefore, it violates the Constitution's direct tax clause. This is why Obamacare could and should simply be nullified.

Maher is not the only one who fails to comprehend the nullification principle, so I'm not just picking on him. Our Supreme Court also has no clue. If more Americans just stood up and said "no", as in the cases of medical cannabis and the REAL ID Act, the federal government would have no choice but to cave in.

Friday, October 31, 2014

CDC Now Says Ebola Droplets Travel Six Feet, Not the Previously Stated Three


CDC pulls their old Ebola fact document from their website which stated Ebola droplets travel three feet. Now they say it's six feet. WTF is going on here?

by Larry Simons
October 31, 2014

Just days ago, on October 27, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted an information flyer on their website about how a person can and cannot be infected with the Ebola virus. The old document stated that Ebola is not airborne and can only infect a person through droplet spread. The document stated, "Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of another person. Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet (1 meter) from one person to another".

Just today, the CDC pulled that old document [the link above, in my previous story will now take you to the new document, which is why in addition to linking to my sources, I post screen shots] and replaced it with a new one which now states, "A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their eyes, mouth or nose. Droplets generally travel shorter distances, less than about 6 feet from a source patient".

Click to enlarge

This begs the obvious question: Does the CDC know what the fuck they are even talking about concerning this deadly virus? I would bet everything I own that answer is a big fucking "NO". One might react to this and say, "Well, they can only tell us what they know as they receive information about it". BS!! The CDC is supposed to know every detail about this disease. It's nothing new. It has been around for 38 years.

It would be one thing for the CDC not to know what precautions to take, but to not know how many feet the Ebola droplets can travel to infect others? That's not only inexcusable and not believable, but in my opinion, criminal.

Why isn't anyone from the CDC being criminally charged? What if it was found out later that someone with Ebola heeded the CDC's advice from the October 27 instruction flyer [that was pulled] and they went near people and only stood four feet away, or five feet away because of the CDC's previous instruction that Ebola droplets can only travel 3 feet? That infected person would have been obeying the CDC's instruction and still infected people because now the CDC states the droplets can travel six feet.

What makes the CDC's actions even more criminal is the fact that during a press conference on October 7, CDC Director Tom Frieden stated that Ebola can only be spread through direct contact with a sick person or the fluids of a sick or dead person. Frieden said:

"Ebola spreads by direct contact with someone who is sick or with the body fluids of someone who is sick or died from it. We do not see airborne transmission in the outbreak in Africa. We don’t see it elsewhere in what we’ve seen so far."

First, the CDC tells us that it can only spread through direct contact with a sick person or their body fluids [The obvious interpretation of this is walking directly up to the person and touching their wet tongue or sweat].  Then the CDC tells us that it is not airborne and can only be spread through the droplets of a sick person sneezing or coughing and that these droplets can only travel 3 feet. Now, the CDC says they can travel six feet.

A flip-flopping politician can be laughed off and ignored. But flip-flopping when it comes to life and death matters should be prosecuted. Why is Frieden not being arrested for misleading the public on matters of life and death? Why is Obama not at least firing him? Why are people not being mandated to be quarantined? Why is the government not doing a damned thing about this?

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The CDC Says Ebola Is Not Airborne, Yet Their Definition of How It Spreads Is Almost Identical to the Flu, Which IS Airborne


CDC claims Ebola is spread by traveling droplets coughed or sneezed from an infected person, which is also how they say the flu is transmitted. Yet the flu is airborne and Ebola is not?

by Larry Simons
October 30, 2014

A new flyer released three days ago by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains the differences between airborne viruses and droplet spread viruses, and lists definitions. The CDC explains that airborne viruses happen "when a germ floats through the air after a person talks, coughs, or sneezes. Germs may land in the eyes, mouth, or nose of another person".

Then, under "droplet spread" viruses, it states, "Droplet spread happens when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of another person. Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet (1 meter) from one person to another".

Near the bottom of the flyer is a short FAQ section. It states, "Is Ebola airborne? No. Ebola is not spread through the airborne route nor through water or food".

[click to enlarge]
                               
The next question states, "Is Ebola spread through droplets? Yes. To get Ebola, you have to directly get body fluids (like pee, poop, spit, sweat, vomit, semen, breast milk) from someone who has Ebola in your mouth, nose, eyes or through a break in your skin or through sexual contact".

All well and good right? The CDC is saying the Ebola virus cannot be transmitted through the air, but by direct contact with someone else's bodily fluids. But, when we read the CDC's definition of how the flu is spread, we see something very interesting.

On the CDC's flu page on "how it spreads" it says this:

"People with flu can spread it to others up to about 6 feet away. Most experts think that flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. Less often, a person might also get flu by touching a surface or object that has flu virus on it and then touching their own mouth or nose".

[click to enlarge]
                             
Interesting. Here, the CDC is basically saying that the flu is spread in the exact same manner the Ebola virus is spread, through droplet spread...when people infected with the flu cough, sneeze or talk to another person. This is nearly identical to the definition given by the CDC for how Ebola is transmitted, "when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of another person", yet the CDC claims Ebola is not airborne, but the flu is.

The CDC is simply playing word games here. Notice how they try to mask words in both definitions [for transmitting Ebola and the flu]. Under the Ebola transmission definition, they state the "germs traveling inside droplets" must be coughed or sneezed into another person's eyes, nose or mouth for that person to be infected. Under the flu transmission definition, they simply just omit the word "germs" and say it's the droplets themselves that can infect a person with the flu.

What's the difference between "germs inside of droplets" and just "droplets"? Absolutely nothing, since germs are obviously inside droplets of people with the flu when they sneeze and cough on someone, or else there would be no way for them to spread the flu [if there were no transmission of germs].

Since the CDC admits that Ebola can be spread through the transmission of droplets from a sick person [whether it be spit or sweat] to another person's eyes, nose or mouth, why is this not considered "airborne" since they admitted in their flu definition that "flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lung"?

If I have Ebola and I spit in someone's mouth, nose or eyes, why is this not considered airborne to the CDC, when they have admitted the flu is transmitted the exact same way and that is airborne?

So, the obvious question needs to be asked: Why is the CDC lying to the American people by telling us all that the Ebola virus is not airborne when their definition of how to transmit Ebola is practically identical to how the flu is spread? Everyone knows the flu is airborne. This is why people with the flu are told to stay home from school or work, so that others cannot be easily infected since it is airborne. A more important question is, why is no one holding the CDC accountable for the purposeful deception and outright lying about a disease that can kill?

A person with the AIDS virus who purposely and knowingly transmits their disease onto another person can be convicted in a court of law for infecting another person when they knew they carried a deadly disease in their body. So, tell me, why is the CDC allowed to get away with the very same crime for purposely misleading the American public for knowingly telling everyone that the Ebola is not airborne while they admit that the Ebola virus is transmitted in the exact same manner as the flu?

This is criminal activity to say the least and Obama is solely responsible since he has the authority to fire the CDC director and to enact Ebola guidelines like making quarantining mandatory for those infected with Ebola.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Jimi Jamison: 1951 - 2014


by Larry Simons
September 3, 2014

One of my favorite vocalists, Jimi Jamison, has passed away from a heart attack this past Sunday at the age of 63. Jamison was the lead singer of Survivor from 1984 to the present. He had taken over vocals from Dave Bickler, who, two years prior, sang vocals on the band's biggest hit, "Eye of the Tiger". Before joining Survivor, Jamison was the frontman for the bands Target and Cobra in the 1970's and 1980's.

Jamison, however, scored more hits for the band, such as "I Can't Hold Back", "High On You", "The Search Is Over", "Burning Heart" and "Is This Love".

Jamison also recorded six solo albums between 1991 and 2012 including "Empires", "Crossroads Moment", "Kimball/Jamison" (with Bobby Kimball of Toto) and "Never Too Late". Jamison is also notable for co-writing and singing the theme song for the popular show Baywatch, "I'm Always Here".

Survivor lead guitarist and longtime friend of Jamison, Frankie Sullivan, posted this on his facebook page:

"There is no way to explain the loss of my brother “Jamo.” Over the years we developed a deep friendship. My heart is heavy with sadness as I struggle to express the pain, suffering and deep loss. 

Though I rest assured that Jim is in the best of places, it still provides little comfort for those of us left behind. His voice was magic and he had a loving heart. I called him “Golden Throat” and for good reason. Jim Jamison had a voice we will never forget. It was massive and huge and yet sweet and gentle. He was a loving soul and a brother to me in many ways. I will miss him greatly".

Outside of the hit songs with Jamison on lead, are my personal favorites from Jamison. Below is my list of Jamison's best songs, with Survivor and solo.

With Survivor:

"First Night"
"Everlasting"
"I See You In Everyone"
"Popular Girl"
"Broken Promises"
"The Moment of Truth"
"How Much Love"
"Keep It Right Here"
"Rebels Son"
"Oceans"
"When Seconds Count"
"In Good Faith"
"Man Against the World"
"Desperate Dreams"
"Across the Miles"
"One More Chance"
"Seconds Away"
"Don't Give Up"


Solo:

"Behind the Music"
"Crossroads Moment"
"That's Why I Sing"
"Lost"
"'Til the Morning Comes"
"As Is"
"Can't Wait for Love"  (with Bobby Kimball)
"Empires"
"The Great Unknown"
"Everybody's Got A Broken Heart"
"Walk On (Wildest Dreams)"
"Street Survivor"
"Never Too Late"
"Calling the Game"

Here are a few videos featuring Jimi on vocals

"I Can't Hold Back" (1984)


"High On You" (1985)


"The Search Is Over" (1985)


"Across the Miles" (1988)


"Never Too Late" (2012)