Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Real Truth Online's 2014 Fraud of the Year: Jonathan Gruber


Was there any doubt?

by Larry Simons
December 31, 2014

Despite the fact that I had not written this much in 2014 as compared to previous years would not have made any difference in my decision as MIT professor Jonathan Gruber as this year's Fraudie winner. He deserved it hands down.

One might think, "But why is he a fraud for inadvertently whistle-blowing the fact that the Affordable Care Act was passed by deceptive means? Doesn't this make him an unwitting hero?" The answer is "no". A big no. And here's why: Because Gruber, despite letting the cat out of the bag on numerous occasions [not knowing his words were captured on film], played a huge role in deceiving the American people. That alone makes him a colossal fraud. The fact that he subsequently spilled the beans to the American people, through no willful act of his own, makes him an arrogant and careless fraud.

Whistle-blowers sacrifice their careers and reputations to expose fraud. They do it willfully and announce it to the public on purpose. Gruber did none of the above. He arrogantly bragged in secret [or what he thought was secret] about it, took credit for it and had no remorse. In fact, he even apologized for saying it [a forced apology]. Whistle-blowers don't apologize.

In November, a serious of videos surfaced showing the MIT professor and prime Obamacare architect revealing that the Affordable Care Act needed a lack of transparency in order to be passed as law. This "lack of transparency" Gruber stated, was essential to deceive the "stupid American voter."

In a clip from October 2013, Gruber stated 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.”

This was an odd revelation, since just eight months prior to these comments by Gruber, Obama made the claim that his administration was the most transparent administration in history.

After the October 2013 video surfaced, scores of more videos came crawling out of the woodwork showing Gruber making similar statements. After the first video went viral, Gruber made an appearance on national television, lied and stated that he "spoke off the cuff and inappropriately", as if to pass it off as an isolated gaffe. In reality, he said it on may other occasions in different video clips at different times and different settings.

Just nine days prior to his "stupid American voter" comment made in October 2013, Gruber stated, "the American people are too stupid to understand the difference" and this was why the law was passed.

Video #3 from November 2013 showed Gruber stated 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.

He said:

"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."

Video #4 from June 2012 shows Gruber being interviewed by Frontline in which he states that Obama knew the Cadillac tax was going to be a big problem so they all agreed to lie about it. Gruber stated:

"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."

Video #5 from February 2011 showed Gruber at a meeting of the Vermont House Representatives Committee in which a letter was read by Democratic committee Chairman Mark Larson in which a concerned citizen expresses his concerns about Obamacare, as Gruber listens.

After the reading of the letter, Gruber relies, "Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?"

Just so happens the letter was written by two-term Vermont State Senator John McClaughry who was an adviser to President Reagan in the 1980's and who knew a great deal about the health care system.

Then, on December 9, Gruber appeared in front of the House Oversight Committee and blatantly lied by telling everyone, "I did not draft Governor Romney's health plan, and I was not the architect of President Obama's health care plan".

watch him say this at the 1:05 mark in the following video


But in this video, we see Gruber admitting to a group of MIT students in 2012 that he did write the Affordable Care Act, openly showcasing his monumental lie to the House Oversight committee.



In the above video [at the 8:29 mark], Gruber states:

"You're hearing a lot of discussion now about the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, which passed last March 23. This was the single most important piece of government legislation, perhaps, since World War II. Uh, certainly the most significant piece of domestic social policy legislation since Medicare was introduced in 1965. What does this bill do? Well, this bill tries to...and let me...full disclaimer, I'm going to describe objectively but I helped write it. I'll be objective, I'll try to be objective but just, full disclaimer, I was involved in writing the legislation, so there is some bias involved here."

As if things cannot get any worse, then we hear about the fact that Gruber openly admitted in 2009 that the ACA had no cost controls whatsoever and would not be affordable.

In a 2009 policy brief written by Gruber himself, in the section titled "Cost Control", Gruber said this:

"This is an important issue to understand and put in the context of the current debate. There are basically two types of cost control.

What I call win-win cost control sounds good and does good. But it doesn’t save any money.

• Invest in information technology, electronic medical records. Great idea; it won’t save any money, but it will improve the quality of our health care. 

Preventive care; great idea, it will improve our health, but there’s no evidence it will actually save us any money. 

• Comparative effectiveness research and guidelines, study what works and what doesn’t. How can you be against studying what works? But it doesn’t matter just to study it. Unless you tell doctors they can’t do it, it’s not going to save any money to just know it doesn’t work. We know lots of things don’t work that people still get.

The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want.

It’s about telling patients, “That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.” It’s basically about saying that we as a society are going to have a minimal insurance package that reimburses effective treatments but that makes people pay on their own for ineffective treatments.

• It doesn’t deny treatment. For instance, in England you can’t get an organ transplant if you are over a certain age. That may be good policy or not, but it will never happen in this country, not in our lifetime. 

There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, “You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.” That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage."

Later in the brief Gruber says this:

"But it’s not a short-run problem. Sure, we would like health care to be a little cheaper, or the cost to rise more slowly, but Americans aren’t ready to deal with the hard measures we’d have to take to get health care costs under control. That’s why I’ve been arguing strenuously that even though the bills that will come out of this process in the end won’t do a whole lot about cost control, they’re still a critical first step. 

Because, to wax political economy here for a second, what’s the history of health care reform in the US? We have tried on average every 17.9 years for the last 50 years to have a major health reform, and every time it’s been killed because the people who would get hurt by cost controls have opposed it.

So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.

Now you might say “That’s a leap of faith—just getting people covered makes the costs go up.” But look at what happened in Massachusetts. They pushed through a universal coverage bill. About six months later they realized, “Whoa, wait a second! We’d better get health care costs under control or we’re not going to be able to afford this program.” So they lobbied and the Massachusetts legislature passed one of the most important health care cost control pieces of legislation in the country, which set up a commission that recommended—we’re working on the legislation now—to move to a new physician reimbursement system to try to deal with some of the excesses that these powerful hospitals are charging for care. That happened because first we got to universal coverage. Now everyone is pulling in the same direction. 

It’s the same in the US. We need to get the coverage question out of the way, get everyone pulling in the same direction, and then we’ll get to cost control. But if people hold out for a bill that controls health care costs we won’t have a bill. And then 48 million people, 50 million a year later, and so on, will still be uninsured. That really is a moral failure."

So much for the Affordable Care Act. Not only was it passed based on a lack of transparency, but now we find out it was never meant to be affordable to begin with.

Not only was the bill passed out of deception and lies but the bill itself has no cost control proposals in it anywhere, as admitted by the architect himself. You might say that Gruber also shares this award with the ACA law itself as being a fraud on its own. But since Gruber is the architect, regardless of what he tells our House Oversight committee, he gets full credit for fooling everyone who has accepted this law hook, line and sinker....namely Democrats, since no Republican voted for this law.

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 Obama administration had to lie to get a bill signed into law when in February 2013 Obama claimed his administration was "the most transparent administration in history". 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 Jonathan 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)

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Rachel Maddow, As Do Many Others, Showcases Her Hypocrisy On the Redskins "Racial Slur" Issue


Right before last football season, Maddow wouldn't say the word "Redskins". On her TV show in April of this year, not only does she use "Redskins" 16 times, but also mentions the NAACP. Why is she using an acronym that includes the words "colored people"?

by Larry Simons
June 22, 2014

Let me just point out right off the bat that the entire issue of the Washington Redskins' nickname being "offensive" is one of the biggest fake controversies of my lifetime. Some Native American groups, as well as a plethora of celebrities and sports figures, "claim" to be offended. I can almost guarantee none of these people are really offended.

Why do I say this? Because every single one of these celebrities and sports figures has used the word "redskins" at some point in their lives. Am I saying that if a word is said at some point in time, it can never later on evolve into a racial slur? Not at all. The word "nigger" was not always a derogatory term, for it was used in such works as Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of Narcissus and Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without racist connotation. But over the years it became used in the pejorative sense and today it is a racial slur.

This is not the case with the term "redskins". Never have I heard this term used in a derogatory fashion. In fact, I have only heard it used in praise of Native Americans. The team song for example, "Hail to the Redskins!", is hardly pejorative. In addition, if a word is offensive, it is usually considered offensive by the vast majority of, if not all people. We now say "the N-word" in society because that word is so overwhelmingly offensive to all, the word is not even uttered unless the person is actually a racist.

I have not heard or heard of the word "redskins" ever being used in a derogatory fashion. Not once in my life have I heard someone walk down the street and say, "Hey, you stupid redskin, get out of here!" Unlike the "N-word", "redskins" never evolved into a derogatory term, and if it did, I totally missed it.

Many team names at Native American schools still use the nickname "redskins". In Anadarko, Oklahoma [where the Native American population is 41%], the local movie theater is called the Redskin Theater. In fact, the state name of Oklahoma in the Choctaw language means "Red People" ['okla' meaning 'people', and 'humma' meaning 'red']. Where are the calls to change the name of Oklahoma?

Redskin Theater in Anadarko, Oklahoma

In reality, the name "redskins" does not even have North American origins. From a 2009 article:
"The original name was a European one used to describe Algonquins who painted their face with bright red ocher and bloodroot, thereby making their face red with war paint. Only later on was it implied that the name was derived from a Native American's exposure to the sun or from the scalps of Indians that were paid to cowboys as bounties. Unfortunately, for some reason, perhaps because of our own ignorance, the name is believed to come from the human scalps of Native Americans. However, the original meaning comes from Europe and was used by the Europeans when they arrived in North America, hundreds of years before any reference to any other meaning was used. This is supported by Reader's Digest in its book "Americas Fascinating Indian Heritage" where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was..
"'inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermilion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.'"
Enter hypocrite Rachel Maddow, host of her own MSNBC show, who is one of the many progressives in the fake redskin name change controversy who claims the word "redskins" offends them. It doesn't. How do I know this? Easy. Her own words.

Last August, right before the start of the NFL football season, Maddow covered a story on how congressional delegate Eni Faleomavaega was now using the "R-word" to describe the Redskins and how others were following suit. In the segment, Maddow herself used the term "R-word" completely independently from her coverage of others using it.

Here is that clip:


This phony boycott didn't last long. This past April, Maddow flip-flopped and went back to using the "racist" term no less than 16 times during her April 28, 2014 telecast. Here is a segment of the transcript: [and audio]
"At the time the Redskins moved to Washington, that made them the southernmost team in the National Football League. Even though Washington, D.C., is not all that far South, the owner of the team made a strategic decision to try to market the Redskins as the team of the South, as the team of the old Confederacy. The band used to play "Dixie" before Redskins games.
And the Redskins owner, George Preston Marshall, he really did refuse to hire any black players for his team, 15 years after the rest of the league integrated. And he wasn`t embarrassed about it, he was proud about it. He said his team would, quote, "start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites."
Question: If Maddow was so strong in her belief that the term "redskins" was racist on August 9, 2013, why did she then continue using the "racist" term on April 28, 2014? Answer: Because it's a fake controversy, and Maddow is not offended at all. She, like most of her ilk, pretend to be upset so they have a "cause" to defend and to give the appearance she cares about a controversy that progressives usually get involved in.

As if this wasn't hypocritical enough, during the exact same April 28, 2014 telecast, she makes a reference to the NAACP. Yes, that NAACP, which stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Yes, that's right. The same woman who claims to be upset over the word "redskins" because she feels it's a racial slur, has no problem whatsoever using the acronym for the words "colored people".

The hypocrisy doesn't end with the acronym usage folks. Maddow won an award at a 2012 Detroit NAACP Annual Freedom Fund Dinner. So, according to Maddow, it is A-OK to support an organization with the words "colored people" in its name, but using the word "redskins" is offensive.

Here are two videos of Maddow at that dinner




Maddow at the NAACP dinner, with the words "colored people" all over the wall behind
her. No objections from Maddow.

Amazingly, the term "colored people" is not even considered derogatory to the directors of the NAACP. There has been no movement or attempt to rename the NAACP to a more politically correct term.

In my opinion, "colored" is more offensive than "redskins", because who's to say which person is colored? To a white person, non-whites are considered "colored", but to non-whites, whites would be considered "colored", correct? Why would I have the right to call someone not like me "colored"? That implies the person whose skin color is different is abnormal. Where am I wrong? Was it not the term "colored" that was on bathroom doors and water fountains during the days of segregation in the 1960's? Why isn't that offensive for that reason alone?

Whether the NAACP changes their name is their issue and their business. Personally, I have no problem with what any organization wants to use as their name. Keep in mind, I'm not the one who gets involved in fake controversies. My point is, why isn't Maddow offended by this? Maybe it's because progressives usually only get involved when an issue has turned into a "controversy" and gains attention, then they hop aboard, acting like they "care".

But why does it have to be controversial and garner nationwide attention for a word or phrase to be deemed racist? If a term is racist, would it matter how much attention it is receiving? Would it matter how many are offended?

In my opinion, the team name "Redskins" is an honor to Native Americans. The team song says "Hail to" them. Most Native Americans support the usage of their images and references in sports names and mascots. What they generally get offended at is the usage of caricatures like The Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo logo and the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk. Most support the Redskins image because it is not a caricature.

If I were Dan Snyder [owner of the Redskins], I would agree to change the team name right after the Federal Government changes the name of the President's anthem "Hail to the Chief" [since that could conjure up images of Native Americans and could be offensive] to a more politically correct title that actually describes the President, like "Hail to the Corporate-Controlled Fascist Totalitarian".

Monday, June 16, 2014

Casey Kasem: 1932 - 2014


by Larry Simons
June 16, 2014

Yesterday, on Father's Day, radio legend Casey Kasem, who is best known as host of the long-running American Top 40, lost his battle with a particular form of dementia known as Lewy Body disease. He was 82.

Instead of the traditional tribute in which I would normally list the accomplishments of the departed, I wish this to be more personal because Casey Kasem, unlike many of the celebrities I pay tribute to on my blog, actually influenced my life.

Music is a huge part of my life. But it wasn't just the actual music I was interested in. I became infatuated with the facts and figures of who was behind the music: the songwriters, the producers, the year the song came out, what album a song was released from, etc. Casey Kasem played a huge role in that.

Because of my strong interest in his radio show American Top 40, I began my own personal journals of my favorite music and I have been doing it since late 1981. It's a fun hobby and they make great time pieces for music.

Kasem began the American Top 40 program on July 4, 1970 and his last broadcast for reporting the Billboard singles chart was in 1988. One has to imagine that Kasem had to love this era of music. You simply cannot perform a profession unless you have a love for the very material you're covering. My point is, Kasem made you love the era as well. He gave pop music validation. It was official because Casey Kasem's stamp of approval was on it, even if you hated the fact that "Billy, Don't Be A Hero" or "Rock Me Amadeus" reached #1. You were back in front of the radio next week, listening to see if it was dethroned.

Every Saturday from early 1982 to mid 1986, from 9am to 1pm I was there listening to Casey count down the songs. He made me appreciate not just the music more, but the facts behind the musicians. Kasem's influence even followed me to college where I portrayed him in a skit.

He will be truly missed by generations of music lovers who appreciate music and beyond the music, the chart positions, the stories behind the song, the histories of the performers and the love for music itself.

I have always said, Dick Clark made stars, Casey Kasem validated them and made you keep reaching for them.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Bill Maher Tells A Guest That Obama Can't Change Laws Congress Passes Because He's Not A King


So why has he changed the Affordable Care Act 23 times without the approval of Congress?

by Larry Simons
June 9, 2014

On Friday's telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, the hot topic was the illegal prisoner swap President Obama made on May 31 when he released five Taliban operatives for the return of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who had been in captivity since 2009 after his desertion.

Maher argued that the biggest threat to America is not these five men, but the fact that Guantanamo Bay is still open. Political commentator Nicolle Wallace chimes in and says to Maher, "Obama's had 6 years to close it".

Maher responds, "And why didn't he? Because Congress wouldn't let him". Unheard in the ensuing cross-talk was Wallace saying, "Well, he did this without Congress!". Good point. But it went unaddressed because it was apparently unheard.

After Anthony "Dick Pic" Weiner puts in his irrelevant two cents [because he IS irrelevant], Wallace reiterates, "Obama's had 6 years to figure it out". Maher responds, "What do you mean 'figure it out'? That's such bullshit and you know that's bullshit." Wallace responds, "He's been President for 6 years". Maher replies, "He's the President. He's not the king for 6 years! Congress passed a law that said he couldn't do it".

Obviously, the problem with Maher's statement is that he is implying Obama follows laws Congress passes. If this is true, why has Obama changed the Affordable Care Act law 23 times completely unilaterally, without uttering one word to Congress, let alone seeking their approval to do it?

The following is the complete list [so far] on how many times Obama changed the ACA law entirely by himself:

1. Medicare Advantage patch: The administration ordered an advance draw on funds from a Medicare bonus program in order to provide extra payments to Medicare Advantage plans, in an effort to temporarily forestall cuts in benefits and therefore delay early exodus of MA plans from the program. (April 19, 2011)

2. Employee reporting: The administration, contrary to the Obamacare legislation, instituted a one-year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided health insurance. (January 1, 2012)

3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)

4. Delaying a low-income plan: The administration delayed implementation of the Basic Health Program until 2015. It would have provided more-affordable health coverage for certain low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid. (February 7, 2013)

5. Closing the high-risk pool: The administration decided to halt enrollment in transitional federal high-risk pools created by the law, blocking coverage for an estimated 40,000 new applicants, citing a lack of funds. The administration had money from a fund under Secretary Sebelius’s control to extend the pools, but instead used the money to pay for advertising for Obamacare enrollment and other purposes. (February 15, 2013)

6. Doubling allowed deductibles: Because some group health plans use more than one benefits administrator, plans are allowed to apply separate patient cost-sharing limits for one year to different services, such as doctor/hospital and prescription drugs, allowing maximum out-of-pocket costs to be twice as high as the law intended. (February 20, 2013)

7. Small businesses on hold: The administration has said that the federal exchanges for small businesses will not be ready by the 2014 statutory deadline, and instead delayed until 2015 the provision of SHOP (Small-Employer Health Option Program) that requires the exchanges to offer a choice of qualified health plans. (March 11, 2013)

8. Employer-mandate delay: By an administrative action that’s contrary to statutory language in the ACA, the reporting requirements for employers were delayed by one year. (July 2, 2013)

9. Self-attestation: Because of the difficulty of verifying income after the employer-reporting requirement was delayed, the administration decided it would allow “self-attestation” of income by applicants for health insurance in the exchanges. This was later partially retracted after congressional and public outcry over the likelihood of fraud. (July 15, 2013)

10. Delaying the online SHOP exchange: The administration first delayed for a month and later for a year until November 2014 the launch of the online insurance marketplace for small businesses. The exchange was originally scheduled to launch on October 1, 2013. (September 26, 2013) (November 27, 2013)

11. Congressional opt-out: The administration decided to offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staffs when they purchase insurance on the exchanges created by the ACA, a subsidy the law doesn’t provide. (September 30, 2013)

12. Delaying the individual mandate: The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate, by declaring that customers who have purchased insurance by March 31, 2014 will avoid the tax penalty. Previously, they would have had to purchase a plan by mid-February. (October 23, 2013)

13. Insurance companies may offer canceled plans: The administration announced that insurance companies may re-offer plans that previous regulations forced them to cancel. (November 14, 2013)

14. Exempting unions from reinsurance fee: The administration gave unions an exemption from the reinsurance fee (one of ObamaCare’s many new taxes). To make up for this exemption, non-exempt plans will have to pay a higher fee, which will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher premiums and deductibles. (December 2, 2013)

15. Extending Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan: The administration extended the federal high risk pool until January 31, 2014 and again until March 15, 2014, and again until April 30, 2014 to prevent a coverage gap for the most vulnerable. The plans were scheduled to expire on December 31, but were extended because it has been impossible for some to sign up for new coverage on healthcare.gov. (December 12, 2013) (January 14, 2014) (March 14, 2014)

16. Expanding hardship waiver to those with canceled plans: The administration expanded the hardship waiver, which excludes people from the individual mandate and allows some to purchase catastrophic health insurance, to people who have had their plans canceled because of ObamaCare regulations. The administration later extended this waiver until October 1, 2016. (December 19, 2013) (March 5, 2014)

17. Equal employer coverage delayed: Tax officials will not be enforcing in 2014 the mandate requiring employers to offer equal coverage to all their employees. This provision of the law was supposed to go into effect in 2010, but IRS officials have “yet to issue regulations for employers to follow.” (January 18, 2014)

18. Employer-mandate delayed again: The administration delayed for an additional year provisions of the employer mandate, postponing enforcement of the requirement for medium-size employers until 2016 and relaxing some requirements for larger employers. Businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to 70% of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and beyond. (February 10, 2014)

19. Extending subsidies to non-exchange plans: The administration released a bulletin through CMS extending subsidies to individuals who purchased health insurance plans outside of the federal or state exchanges. The bulletin also requires retroactive coverage and subsidies for individuals from the date they applied on the marketplace rather than the date they actually enrolled in a plan. CRS issued a memo discussing the legality of these subsidies. (February 27, 2014)

20. Non-compliant health plans get two year extension: The administration pushed back the deadline by two years that requires health insurers to cancel plans that are not compliant with ObamaCare’s mandates. These “illegal” plans may now be offered until 2017. This extension will prevent a wave cancellation notices from going out before the 2014 midterm elections. (March 5, 2014)

21. Delaying the sign-up deadline: The administration delayed until mid-April the March 31 deadline to sign up for insurance. Applicants simply need to check a box on their application to qualify for this extended sign-up period. (March 26, 2014)

22. Canceling Medicare Advantage cuts: The administration canceled scheduled cuts to Medicare Advantage. The ACA calls for $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years. (April 7, 2014)

23. More Funds for Insurer Bailout:  The administration said it will supplement risk corridor payments to health insurance plans with “other sources of funding” if the higher risk profile of enrollees means the plans would lose money. (May 16, 2014)

Supporters of the President will claim that Obama didn't "change" the law, he simply tweaked it because , after all, it's a new law and no law is perfect when it is written. Bullshit. Obama signed the ACA into law in March 2010. He signed it, meaning it is his duty as President to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed" according to Article II, Section III of the U.S. Constitution. This means he is to execute a law regardless if he likes the law. If a provision needs to be altered or removed from a law, it has to be voted on by Congress. Obama changed the health care law 23 times unilaterally, completely ignoring Congress.

Maher is delusional if he believes that Obama has never [not once] ignored Congress and neglected to seek their approval when it came to changing a law or abiding by a provision within the law itself [as in the prisoner swap case, where Obama violated federal law by not giving Congress a 30-day notice before the prisoner transfer].

Obama supporters will claim, "yes, but Obama didn't 'change' the law itself on Obamacare, he simply changed a provision". Every law consists of all its parts. Even changing a provision to a law is changing the law itself.

It is quite odd that Maher defended President Obama by sarcastically using the one descriptive title that he [Maher] believes his political opponents are insisting Obama must be [a King], when that is the most accurate title for his dictatorial actions.

Watch the clip here

Saturday, June 7, 2014

King Obama Violates Yet Another Federal Law, and In the Process Commits a Crime Punishable by 15 Years to Life In Prison


In addition to Obama breaking a federal law, he is guilty of a much bigger crime: Providing material support to a terrorist organization, punishable by up to 15 years in prison [or any term of years to life if the death of any person results]

by Larry Simons
June 7, 2014

As if things could not get worse for the scandal-a-day Commander-In-Chief in the midst of the re-opening of the Benghazi attack and more recently the Veterans Administration fiasco, they have, and in the biggest way. Last Saturday, President Obama illegally authorized the release of five high-ranking terrorist detainees and exchanged them in a prisoner swap for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a so-called "prisoner of war", when in reality he has been labeled a deserter by his former comrades.

This time it's not a mere scandal for Obama. It is a violation of a federal law that not only carries with it the possibility of impeachment, but is punishable by a long prison term, not to mention the fact that releasing five top terror suspects [who will most likely end up back in their home country and their terror organization] will put all Americans in potential danger.

The law that Obama violated is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014, which Obama signed just six months ago, which requires the Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, to notify Congress within 30 days of the release of any detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

According to Section 1035 of the NDAA, upon notifying Congress of the release of prisoners, the Defense Secretary is required to also include in the notification the following:

(1) A detailed statement of the basis for the transfer or
release.
(2) An explanation of why the transfer or release is in
the national security interests of the United States.
(3) A description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks
of reengagement by the individual to be transferred or released,
including any actions taken to address factors relevant to a
prior case of re-engagement described in subsection (c)(3).
(4) A copy of any Periodic Review Board findings relating
to the individual.
(5) A description of the evaluation conducted pursuant
to subsection (c), including a summary of the assessment
required by paragraph (6) of such subsection.

None of the above were handed over to Congress. Therefore illegal.

Also not carried out was the notification to Congress for the usage of federal funds [taxpayer dollars] that were spent for the actual transferring of prisoners to Qatar, and for returning Bergdahl. None of the notifications outlined in the NDAA were given. None of the conditions of the law were met. Nothing. The entire process was as illegal as you can get. In fact, it has been reported that the Obama administration never informed Capital Hill of the transfer until after Bergdahl was in American custody and the five Taliban prisoners were ready to leave.

Obama supporters will claim that Obama may have signed the law last year, but was opposed to the 30 day notice provision. Tough shit. In that circumstance Obama has a choice, to sign the law or veto it. He is not allowed to pick and choose which provisions he likes or dislikes, so he is left with the choice to sign it or veto it. He signed it, period. That means as President, according to the Constitution, and per his oath to uphold the Constitution, he must faithfully execute laws whether he agrees with them or not.

Obama violated the very law he signed, and for that he must be removed from office and charged with high treason for providing material support to terrorists. Others have actually been successfully charged and convicted for this very crime.

The following are the individuals who have been charged or convicted for providing material support for terrorism under this law:

  • John Walker Lindh, who was captured fighting for the Taliban during the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi, one of the first battles in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison on various charges
  • David Hicks, a former Guantanamo detainee who pled guilty in 2007 and served a sentence of less than one year in Australia.
  • Lynne Stewart, a 70 year old veteran civil rights lawyer who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for releasing information from her imprisoned client Omar Abdel-Rahman
  • Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former Guantanamo detainee who was Osama bin Laden's former driver. He was convicted in 2008 and served a sentence of less than one year in Yemen
  • Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, who attended the al Farouq training camp in 2000
  • David Headley, for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks

This law, 18 U.S. Code § 2339A and  § 2339B, a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, states anyone [and this includes the President] who provides material support for terrorists can be fined and imprisoned for no more than 15 years, but if a death occurs [as a result of the material support], could be sentenced to any term of years or for life. Specifically in § 2339B, the law states:

"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life".

The statute states that in order to violate this paragraph:

1. a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6))

Check. Obama knows this.

2. that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)

Check. Obama knows this.

3. or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

Check. Obama knows this.

"Material support or resources" is defined in § 2339A as the following:

"any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials"

Under statute § 2339B, it states:

"No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term “personnel” unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization".

Obama clearly knows that he has provided a terrorist organization with five more personnel. Obama supporters will argue that the five Taliban prisoners are not back in their terrorist organization, but are in Qatar for one year and Obama has promised that "we will be keeping eyes on them". Obama admitted this past Tuesday during a press conference in Poland that the Taliban terrorists could return to battle and harm Americans.

Obama stated, "Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely". How is this NOT admitting guilt of 18 U.S. Code § 2339B as stated above that reads, "unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization"? How is he not being charged with a crime??

Obama supporters cannot argue that he can simply use an executive order and "do what he wants" when it concerns prisoners of war. This is false in this case, because as Judge Napolitano pointed out to Shepard Smith yesterday, the President under no circumstance can violate a US statute even to get a prisoner of war returned. He also cannot spend money that has not been authorized by Congress, nor can he aid a terrorist organization.

Napolitano also adds that if the President had sent the 5 Taliban prisoners to Qatar to go to jail, that would be a completely different scenario and there would be no crime. But Obama admitted that these men could very well end up back with their terrorist group. That turns it into a crime.

On top of committing a federal crime, Obama then stands before cameras and states he has "no apologies" for the prisoner swap. Liberal talk show hosts like Bill Maher downplay it likes it's no big deal, only mentioning "how dangerous could five bearded assholes be?", while completely ignoring the legal aspect of Obama's actions. And when colossal fucknut Harry Reid was asked by a reporter if the White House could have done a better job in making sure the law was obeyed that required Congress to receive a 30 day notice, Reid replied, "What difference does it make?"

There you have it folks. When the President breaks a law [that puts millions of Americans in danger], Reid's response is, "What difference does it make?", but when Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who made the news a few months ago, breaks the law and refuses to pay federal taxes for his land [which harms NO ONE except the coffers of the Federal government], Reid calls Bundy's supporters "domestic terrorists".

So, to Harry Reid, actual American citizens are "terrorists" because they stand up to the Federal government, but when he is confronted by a reporter who asks why the law was not followed concerning five ACTUAL terrorists who Obama admitted will go right back to Afghanistan and rejoin their terrorist organization, Reid says it simply doesn't matter.

Un-fucking-believable.

Since President Obama actually releases terrorists who will most likely be back in their home country to rejoin their terrorist pals who will be hell-bent on attacking America [maybe as soon as a year], and Harry Reid supports these actions and claims it "doesn't matter", isn't it safe to say that these two are the REAL terrorists?