Sunday, November 30, 2014


Much like the incumbent president’s health care tax, negative ramifications of his granting of amnesty to illegal aliens are beginning to surface, further illustrating significant faults in his unilateral overriding of public distaste for the executive action.
Brian Hughes reports in, that “The White House now acknowledges that many of the illegal immigrants spared from deportation under Obama’s sweeping executive action will become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits once they reach retirement age.
“The administration says Obama’s move is sound fiscal policy, that it makes sense to grow the tax base. They also argue that it would be unfair to force people to pay into Social Security and not reap the same benefits as everybody else.
“Immigrants would have to work at least 10 years to qualify for Social Security and Medicare benefits, administration officials said, and Obama’s executive action could always be reversed by any of his successors.”
In this case, there’s a very clear, and extremely disturbing revelation being made by the “administration officials” quoted in the article. Because for the first time to this writer’s knowledge, those officials are acknowledging that, “Obama’s executive action could always be reversed by any of his successors.”
What that statement implies is that the incumbent president, and those around him, are not only fully aware that there’s a distinct possibility of future reversal, but that it might even be likely. And, if that’s the case, what they’re really saying is that the whole aspect of “executive action” is nothing more than a political game played at the highest level of national legislative activity. Because, the incumbent isn’t acting individually simply in support of generally unpopular legislation, he’s also using the circumstance to pander to his political base.
Which means that, after six years in the most important job in the world, he not only hasn’t grown into the position, he’s still the exact same community organizing street hack he was back at his start in Chicago politics. 
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, November 29, 2014


Today’s items sadly, but loudly, reflect the damage done to the nation by the incumbent president and his cohorts in Congress.  reports that, “In just a matter of months, the price of a barrel of oil has dropped from more than $100 to about $70."
Thanks to oil production in the U.S., “OPEC, the cartel of oil-producing nations that has historically been able to calibrate the price of oil - and ultimately gasoline - by increasing or decreasing supply, announced Thursday that it won't fight the price skid by cutting production this time.” 
As a result an API study found that, “This reduction in petroleum product prices have saved U.S. consumers an estimated $63 to $248 billion in 2013 and estimated cumulative savings of between $165 and $624 billion from 2008 to 2013.” 
An added, but huge, benefit is that Iran is suffering too,”with the price drop adding to huge revenue losses due to sanctions on its crude sales imposed over its nuclear program.” While “Russia's economy is in trouble, making falling oil revenues a problem there, as well.” 
Therefore, immense gains to the U.S. economy are occurring now, while significant damage is simultaneously being wrought on the nation’s enemies. Which makes one wonder how much better things could have been over the past six years if honest and straightforward professional leadership had taken place instead of political pandering to extremist supporters, such as misguided environmentalists. 
On a similar topic, Sharon Begley of Reuters reports that, “Major U.S. corporations have broadly supported President Barack Obama's healthcare reform despite concerns over several of its elements, largely because it included provisions encouraging the wellness programs. 
“The programs aim to control healthcare costs by reducing smoking, obesity, hypertension and other risk factors that can lead to expensive illnesses. A bipartisan provision in the 2010 healthcare reform law allows employers to reward workers who participate and penalize those who don't. 
“But recent lawsuits filed by the administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging the programs at Honeywell International and two smaller companies, have thrown the future of that part of Obamacare into doubt. 
What this means is that the government, as usual, couldn’t be satisfied with gains already attained by the health care tax, but instead sought to challenge for more from formerly solid, well-known supporters. And therefore, in their patently stupid and greedy approach, not only are subject to losing the funds involved but possibly the entire program.  
In that regard, Maria Ghazal, vice-president and counsel at the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of more than 200 large U.S. corporations, said "The fact that the EEOC sued is shocking to our members. They don't understand why a plan in compliance with the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the target of a lawsuit. This is a major issue to our members."
As a result, “A threat of a corporate backlash comes at a time when Obama faces criticism even from his Democrats' ranks that he had devoted too much political capital to healthcare reform.
“Such action could take the form of radical changes in health benefits that employers offer. It could also mean supporting a potentially game-changing challenge to Obamacare at the Supreme Court next year and expected Republican efforts to eviscerate the law when they take control of Congress in 2015.” 
And, if that isn’t enough, Sarah Hurtubise, reporter for the, writes that, according to Gallup, “Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to [a new] survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect. 
“The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.” 
Therefore, by creating a tax that was intended to provide health care coverage to approximately 16 percent uninsured in 2010, we now have 33% of those formerly covered in full, now unable to afford the costs of Obamacare.
Thus, this isn’t really just a transfer of wealth, it’s outright theft.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, November 28, 2014


Observing the incumbent president’s recent actions leaves considerable room for presenting alternative motives for his behavior. An article by David Lightman and Anita Kumar in today calendars subjects he’s personally addressed since the recent Congressional elections..
“Nov. 10. He declared strong support for net neutrality, the idea that Internet content be freely available and subject to government regulation to protect consumers. Opening the door to government regulation infuriated conservatives.
“Nov. 12. During Obama’s Asia trip, the United States and China unexpectedly agreed to new targets for greenhouse gas emissions designed help combat climate change. Republicans complained that Obama unilaterally decided the U.S. would cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels in the next 11 years.
“Nov. 20. Obama announced he would unilaterally protect millions of immigrants who are in the United States illegally from deportation.
“Nov. 24. Obama pushed out [Defense Secretary Chuck]  Hagel, a former Republican senator. It was widely reported that Hagel was dismissed after a series of disagreements. Previous Obama defense secretaries complained that national security discussions were often insular and guided from the White House predominantly by domestic politics.”
Examining the incumbent’s actions, the authors explain that: “Typically, when you have a change in power in Congress, the new congressional majority dominates the conversation and drives the discussion.” But, not in this case. 
In response, White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer Pfeiffer, said. “Since right after the election, the president has been driving the discussions, moving forward aggressively on core priorities.”
Voters, however, “Generally rejected those core priorities, as Republicans had a net gain of at least eight Senate seats and will start 2015 with their biggest majority in the House of Representatives since the late 1940s.” While, “Obama maintains he’s on the right course; it’s just that Republican obstructionists have made progress difficult.”
So, one could look at this situation and conclude, as does Mr. Pfeiffer, that the incumbents acting forcefully, driving the discussions as a leader. Inferring that his “core priorities “ are an example of leadership and concerns for the good of the nation as a whole.
Or, one could alternatively determine on the other side, as did the vast majority of voters on November 4th, that the incumbent’s simply a political hack who's pandering to the shrinking core of leftists still supporting him.
And, what’s really far, far worse, is that if you carefully look at the actions he’s personally taken, you find that each in its own way is disastrous for the nation and its citizens by growing government, increasing regulation, decreasing job opportunities for Americans, and opening doors to future illegal aliens by enticing them to come here. 
Which makes you wonder whether or not these actions have been taken by someone who knows or cares about what’s good for the nation at all, but rather driven solely by political payback, regardless of national risk or cost.
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, November 27, 2014


With the world in the shape that its in, the quiet of Thanksgiving’s a very welcome day.

So, let’s leave all the problems for tomorrow and sit down to a turkey dinner today.

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, November 26, 2014


While the citizen uprisings in Ferguson, Missouri along with the public contempt of Jonathan Gruber have grabbed the major headlines and stories in the press, Iran has quietly backed U.S. leadership into a corner once more. Which means they’ll continue their nuclear weaponry development while total washouts, like bumbling John Kerry, chase themselves in circles accomplishing absolutely nothing good for the U.S. at all.   
The washington reports today that, “Top Iranian leaders have been celebrating a recently inked extension in nuclear negotiations with the West, with leading military figures and politicians saying that the deal is a sign that the “Americans have very clearly surrendered to Iran’s might,” according to regional reports.
“With a seven-month extension in talks—originally scheduled to expire on Monday—set to start in early December, nuclear experts are predicting that Iran will continue its most controversial nuclear work and likely have enough enriched fuel for a bomb by June 2015.
Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps, said late Monday following the announcement of an extension in the talks that, “The Americans have very clearly surrendered to Iran’s might, and this is obvious in their behavior in the region and in the negotiations, and the enemies’ reservations vis-a-vis Iran are completely felt."
Now, while the Iranian’s talk and bluster is good for their public image, they certainly know that if the U.S. wanted to curb, or completely shut down, that nation’s nuclear development it could certainly be accomplished handily. However, they also know that the U.S. is merely going through toothless motions, whereas the current administration is fully in favor of leaving Iran alone to do as they please militarily without interference. 
On another subject, another typical administration supporter and close friend of the incumbent president made headlines yesterday.
The, reports that: “A prominent gay rights activist charged last week with sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy is a strong supporter of President Obama who has visited the White House more than a half-dozen times in the past two years, visitor logs show.
Terrence P. Bean, 66, who raised more than a half-million dollars for Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, last visited the White House on May 30 when he met with the president, first lady Michelle Obama and political adviser David Simas.
White House visitor logs show that Mr. Bean, co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights group, also has visited the White House on at least six other occasions since June 2012. On one visit in 2013, Mr. Bean brought along Kiah Lawson, described in news reports as his ex-boyfriend, who is also charged with sexually assaulting the juvenile.”
So, here we have additional evidence that practically any and all types of behavior are acceptable and tolerated by those on the left. And, in fact, those who find fault with the open door policy are castigated as narrow-minded, bigoted, purveyors of bias, extremism and social intolerance.
However, if this same guy and his friend visited “W” Bush when he was in office, screams for impeachment of a deviate would be repeatedly carried in every outlet of the liberal press nationwide.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014


Finding the following item on Drudge yesterday, I re-read it several times, to be sure I wasn’t hallucinating. But no matter how carefully I pored over the text, the information within remained the same, as follows:
“Liberal site Policy.Mic decries the president’s failure to expand ObamaCare in his sweeping executive action on immigration: “His latest actions do not provide those newly-protected immigrants access to health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act, preventing millions of people from purchasing coverage and receiving subsidies. Obama could have, within the parameters of existing law, broadened the scope of the program as part of his executive action.”
So, for those on the far left, granting amnesty to those entering the nation illegally isn’t enough. According to them, those earning incomes and carrying the nation’s tax-burden on their shoulders should also be required to fund the costs of the law-breaker's health care costs as well. Which can only lead one to suspect that those demanding the extension of hand-outs are part of the 50% of the population living on one government subsidy or another, contributing absolutely nothing to the economy themselves.
Along the same lines, according to Heritage Foundation's poverty expert Robert Rector regarding the costs of the amnesty granted illegal aliens; “The net cost — which is total benefits minus total benefits paid in — of the amnesty recipients I estimate will be around $2 trillion over the course of their lifetime,” Rector explained in an interview with Breitbart News Monday. He added that the calculation is based on the assumption that 4 million undocumented immigrants will participate and they will live, on average, 50 years. 
“What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people — who on average have a 10th grade education — into the Social Security and Medicare programs.
“With the expected earnings for an individual with that level of education, he explained that the amnestied immigrants will take vastly more out than they will contribute to those programs. 
“Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” Rector explained. 
So, in regard to the cost effect of those being granted immunity, although having entered the nation illegally, those on the far left feel that while a $2 trillion expenditure is quite acceptable, it may not be enough. Which makes one wonder if those same liberals would feel the same way if that money were taken from them, and not just from those earning incomes.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, November 24, 2014


You’ve got to hand it to the incumbent president. While undoubtedly unfit for the office he holds, he’s highly skilled at taking advantage of the opportunities presented by representing a party that places patronizing and pandering far above professional capability. 
He also has no qualms about disregarding the truth whenever it suits his goals and objectives, taking a Machiavellian approach to fulfilling his agenda. And it’s his proclivity for smoothly hiding his purposes that will likely sink Bill Clinton’s wife attempt at attaining the presidency in 2016. 

In an interview with ABC's "This Week," on Friday in Las Vegas the incumbent opined that, “voters want a "new car smell" in the 2016 White House race and that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be "a great president. They want to drive something off the lot that doesn't have as much mileage as me." 
While saying a number of possible Democratic candidates would make "terrific presidents,"  Hillary Clinton is the only one he mentioned by name. He said she would be a "formidable candidate" and make "a great president" if she decides to run a second time.

Reading the incumbent’s words, parsing them carefully, leaves little doubt that he chose them purposefully. Fully aware of the damage they’d cause a Clinton campaign. Because, not only is Bill’s wife not a “new car” by any stretch of the imagination, she’s been around longer than most of the other hacks comprising her party, including the incumbent himself.

So, once again, for whatever the reason, the incumbent's trying his best to do her in permanently while using double-talk, his only real forte, to keep himself above suspicion. 

At the same time, highly knowledgeable pollsters, Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell co-authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal on the 23rd, in which they approached the same subject from a different direction, as follows:

“Mr. Obama’s willingness to disregard the public’s wishes will hurt Mrs. Clinton in particular. The president’s former secretary of state is already struggling to forge an independent identity without disowning the president. It will be almost impossible for Mrs. Clinton to directly oppose him over the next two years, though she will certainly continue to try to distance herself from Mr. Obama, as she did during her summer book tour. But if the president continues to lose the support of Democrats and moderates—as Mrs. Clinton has—she might have no alternative but to shelve her presidential ambitions.”

And then, reader Fiore Iantosca, offered another opinion in the comments following the article: “Father Time and Mother Nature will not allow Hillary to run, IMO.”

Lastly, as has been predicted here for quite a long time by now, the AP reports that, “Elements are falling into place for an agreement to allow talks on Iran's nuclear program to continue another seven months, a well-placed Western diplomat said Monday.

“The diplomat told the Associated Press that according to the deal, a broad agreement should be completed by March 1, with the final details worked out by July 1.

“The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential talks, is familiar with the discussions now taking place in Vienna on how to continue the negotiations past the original deal deadline of Monday midnight.”

So, just like the concerted plan to sink Bill Clinton’s wife in her presidential ambition’s by misdirecting the public, the administration's desire for Iran to attain nuclear weapon capability has taken another significant step forward. However, the time frame negotiation really doesn’t really matter all that much. Because by now Iran, and everyone else, knows full well that it can do whatever it wants without any real obstruction from the U.S. 

That’s it for today folks.


Sunday, November 23, 2014


While Secretary of State, John Kerry, flies around in his taxpayer provided jet, his so-called efforts to strike a satisfactory nuclear arrangement with Iran are a total waste of time, money and hot air. Because it’s just about a forgone conclusion that Iran will continue building nuclear weaponry  unbridled.   
Fox reports that, “Talks between Western diplomats and their Iranian counterparts appeared to be at a stalemate Sunday as the deadline to reach a comprehensive agreement about the fate of Tehran's nuclear program crept closer. 
“The Wall Street Journal, citing a senior Western diplomat, reported late Saturday that reaching a final agreement by a Monday deadline was "impossible," though a deal setting out the key principles of a final agreement is not out of reach.  
“We have reached a point in the talks where probably we can’t have an agreement without some very significant moves from the Iranians," the diplomat told the Journal. "No one can say this is finished ... The only thing is we can’t do the job for the Iranians."
“Meanwhile, Reuters reported that Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency quoted a member of that country's negotiating team who also said an agreement by Monday was "impossible."
Reading about the stalled negotiations, brings back recollections of  items posted here over the past couple of years that provide a very clear roadmap of exactly what's currently taking place and the underlying reasons for Iran’s eventual, unencumbered, nuclear capability.
On March 13, 2012, more than two years ago, columnist Ben Shapiro wrote in that, “President Barack Obama’s longtime pastor at Trinity United Church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has announced his support for the anti-Semitic “March to Jerusalem” at the end of March. The White House has refused comment.
“The “March to Jerusalem” is a massive campaign designed to send anti-Israel partisans across Israel’s borders and into Jerusalem. The National Conference on Jewish Affairs reports Iran's government is involved in the organization of the event and plans to send thousands of participants in caravans, whose schedules have been published by the Quds News agency.” 
Then in March of this year, the Washington Free Beacon reported that, “The Heinz Foundation, headed by the wife of Heinz heiress Mrs. John Kerry, AKA Teresa Heinz Kerry, has been caught having donated $50,000 to the “Conflict Kitchen,’ a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania soup kitchen that serves up food on a platter of anti-Zionism.
“The soup kitchen recently came up with the gimmick of serving “Palestinian food,” whatever that means, in leaflets with quotes that support both terrorism and the idea that Israel should not exist.
“The Heinz Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon, which scooped the story, that “the opinions of Conflict Kitchen do not represent those of the Heinz Endowment.” It also did not answer one way or the other if the fund would continue to dish out money to Conflict Kitchen.”
Adding these two elements to the frigid relationship between the incumbent president and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s perfectly logical to assume that permitting Israel’s most hostile neighbor to develop nuclear weaponry is something not only highly favored by the current U.S. administration, but that they're especially pleased to help.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, November 22, 2014


Many staunch Republican voters are quite upset that their Congressional leaders are leaving DC for the holiday without a severe retaliation against the incumbent president's unilateral granting of amnesty for almost 5 million illegal aliens now residing in the U.S.
However, in the long run, delaying a reaction will likely turn out to be a good thing. Because, every time retaliation is done quickly, without sufficient thought and consideration of all remedies possible, huge mistakes have been made in the past.
Therefore, if Congressional Republicans us their heads instead of their anger, they’ll stop to consider something the incumbent himself said in his speech: “'My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.
That's the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us. That's the tradition we must uphold. That's the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come.”
And those are the words that, if dissected and understood properly, will sink the person who said them, the incumbent president himself. Because those who he’s using as an example, the very immigrants he’s claiming are the fabric of the nation, all arrived here legally. And that’s the huge difference  between those who built the nation and the open, lawless ease of entry he’s forcing upon the nation now.
Furthermore, he’s not only using a completely invalid argument to support his comparison of illegal entrants to those who came here through proper channels and procedures, he’s simultaneously making fools of those who did so, as well. 
Which means that he’s grossly insulting every law-abiding immigrant, their relatives and descendants by making those legal arrivals efforts to become true American citizens a merely elective waste of time and effort. Because, had they simply walked in without a care or concern for the nation’s laws and regulations, that would have been fine with him and his Democrat cohorts.
Therefore, as the reality of this blanket acceptance of illegality sinks in, it almost doesn’t matter what Republicans do in response. Because the huge majority of American citizens having legal ancestry, or having gone through the process themselves, will ultimately realize on their own how they’ve been insulted and their efforts at lawfulness have been mocked. And that by itself may be a blow that the Democrat party may never recover from in the future at the polls.
On another, but similar subject, Fox reported today that another long-festering issue may be finally moving in the Republican ‘s favor.
“Federal investigators have told Congress that they have recovered data that may include lost emails from one of the pivotal figures in the controversy over the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of tea party groups, congressional aides said Friday.
Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Republicans who run the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the investigators said at a staff briefing Friday that they have recovered up to 30,000 emails to and from Lois Lerner.”
So, this too may prove to be a significant example of the value of diligence and persistence. Because, while surely preferring a far earlier conclusion to this matter, the time elapsed couldn’t be helped. And now, after the wait, the Republican case looks significantly better.
Which means that in both cases, fostering illegal immigration or abuse of governmental power via the IRS, it’s the result that counts and not the immediacy of reaction. And therefore, employing some time and patience should be rewarded in the future. Especially since in both cases, the Republicans position is absolutely correct. 
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, November 21, 2014


The Republican party has received another huge gift from the incumbent president. And now it’s up to them to use his generosity wisely. For if they do, its possible that the Democrats won’t recover from the damage he’s done for years to come, perhaps never.

While two thirds of the nation is against amnesty for illegal aliens, the incumbent granted it to them anyway. Add that mistake to the increasingly costly, unwieldy, increasingly costly health care tax and the unpopularity increases dramatically. Then there’s the botched foreign policy regarding the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which can only be curtailed, according to military experts, by putting “boots on the ground,” something the incumbent’s vowed not to do.

Regarding amnesty itself, according to, the incumbent said last night in a televised speech directed towards Hispanics, “'We’re going to offer the following deal. If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.”
What’s quite interesting is, if you read his promises very carefully, he really didn't offer illegals very much. Because while it's likely those granted “temporary” amnesty would have beaten the porous system any way, he went further to assure that: “'This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that.
“All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you”
Therefore, it would be wise for Republican leadership to take a very measured, calm and collected approach in their response. Because, a knee-jerk, overboard reaction seems to be what the incumbent’s trying to entice them to do. But, they’d be far better off to wait until after year-end when they take control of both houses of congress, and stay away from sure self-inflicted disasters like shutting down the government again.

Furthermore, taking too much time to rally against a rather innocuous amnesty deal will take away opportunities to take on other colossal errors made by the administration that present much more serious worldwide threats. 

For example, today the reports that, “[An} analysis, endorsed by leading former American and European officials, bolsters research conducted by the United Nations indicating that Iran continues to hide a great deal of its nuclear work. 
"The findings coincide with comments issued Thursday by the head of the U.N.’s nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, stating that Iran still refuses to explain its research into an atomic weapon. 
“Iran has vigorously pursued its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons,” according to the report, published by the International Committee in Search of Justice. 
“No serious indications that Tehran has stopped or abandoned this project or intends to do so were observed” in multiple internal reports issued by the U.N. over the past years, according to the report. 
“On the contrary, all the available information points to the conclusion that it has resorted to further secrecy and concealment to keep its program intact and unhindered,” the report concludes. “Further revelations and information all point to the fact that a military program and military related activities are at the heart of the Iranian nuclear program. 
“The report was endorsed by former U.S. Ambassador the UN John Bolton and former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. It was authored by former European Parliament Vice President Alejo Vidal Quadras.”
So, here we have additional evidence that Iran has never really intended to curtail its nuclear weapon activity, which was almost assuredly known all along by the incumbent president and his bumbling Secretary of State, John Kerry. All of which most certainly suggests that both were planning from the very beginning to pay only lip service to decrying Iran’s nuclear buildup, while distancing the U.S. from long-time ally and friend, Israel, who now stands all alone again.
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, November 20, 2014


Tonight the incumbent president will appear on national TV at 8PM. He’ll explain why he’s bypassing Congress and overriding the desires of 2/3rds of the US population by granting amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal aliens now in the country.
Although many perceive his tactic as politically damaging to himself and his dedicated liberal base, some believe that he’s purposefully acting due to spite of the recent huge electoral losses to his party, and therefore himself by extension. Significant numbers also think its simply a matter of another attempt to grow a cadre of future Democrat voters. However, the answer is far simpler, and significantly more devious than that.
The basis for the strategy can be seen in “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals” by the late community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, published in 1971, in which the author detailed the following 12 points.  
  1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
  3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
  8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
  10. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
  11. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
  12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions
Therefore, what’s being done doesn’t take any particularly sophisticated talents, capabilities or even beliefs. It’s simply a war plan for attempting to defeat adversaries by taking the other side of an argument, and then following the rules of engagement as laid out by Saul. 
In this particular case, though, beyond the enjoyment of the battle itself, 5 million potential voters or more, will likely be gained in the process.
As far as the 5 million illegal's themselves granted amnesty are concerned, they represent another example of formulated effort to achieve a desired political result. This one, Cloward-Piven.
Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."
“The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.
As far as amnesty itself is concerned, it seems every political aspect of the tactic has been well thought out by the White House to maximize voter appreciation, as follows.
According to “President Obama's announcement Thursday night of his plans to overhaul the nation's immigration system is scheduled to happen at an opportune time -- at least if the White House is hoping to reach a captive audience of Hispanic television viewers.
Obama's 8 p.m. Eastern time announcement will come at the start of the second hour of the 15th annual Latin Grammys, which begins at 7 p.m. Thursday on Spanish-language TV network Univision. At least 9.8 million viewers tuned in to all or part of last year's telecast, meaning Univision defeated CBS, Fox and NBC that night.
Univision says it will postpone part of the awards show to air Obama's speech, while the big four TV networks, ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC, currently have no plans to air the address.
Told about the scheduling coincidence by a pack of reporters, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) the second-ranking GOP senator, said, "Talk about a major pander."
In conclusion, what turned out to be most interesting is that I, like countless numbers of others have dedicated substantial time and effort analyzing, dissecting and discussing the amnesty issue and its ramifications for the nation.
However, according to the U.S Census Bureau, there were 206,072,000 registered voters in the U.S. in 2012. And therefore,  all this hubbub, and time consumed by the POTUS, his staff and supporters, has been made over a group amounting to only .024% of those eligible to vote. So, that means that 99.975% of those registered are still free to vote as they choose. 
All of which leads to the thought that whoever did the arithmetic in the White House concluding supporting illegal’s made sense was just like Gruber who suggested that the health care tax was a good idea. And that, in turn, points out that the incumbent president didn’t really need to institute the disastrous health care tax or grant immunity to illegal’s either.
What he needed instead were new role models, new idols and new advisors, because the one’s he chose just ain’t workin’ out for him, or his whole party either.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014


The Republican’s lost Keystone pipeline approval in the Senate yesterday, but only by a single vote. Practically guaranteeing passage in January when they become the majority in the chamber. However, the loss also almost surely guarantees that Louisiana Democrat Senator, Mary Landrieu, will now not be reelected. Therefore, having to wait another two months certainly seems to be worth the delay in passage.
Then there’s an item from by contributor, Michael Batasch, also regarding the votes results headlined: “Activists Bundle Up To Protest Keystone XL Outside Dem Senate Offices.”
Mr. Batasch writes: “Democratic Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Michael Bennet of Colorado have come out in support of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which has made them a target of environmentalists who want to see the project defeated in the Senate.
“Senator Carper and Bennet must know that if they are going to stand with big oil and support the Keystone XL pipeline, then they will lose the support of the youth vote,” Elli Bloomberg, an American University student protesting at Bennett’s office, said in a statement. “As young people we must demand better of these Democratic senators and hold them accountable,” he said. “Keystone XL is unacceptable, it will ruin my generation’s future, and violates the right of indigenous communities.”

 Now, here's the part that has to be read slowly and carefully to grasp the likely unintended, but certainly most salient aspect of Mr. Batasch’s article: “Environmentalists argue that Keystone will harm the environment and contribute to global warming. So they bundled up to withstand the frigid blast of Arctic weather and protest against Democrats who have pledged to vote in favor of legislation approving the $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline.”

So, here we have a troop of young folks generally regarded as the intellectual elite of the nation standing outside, freezing their tails off, to protest against a fully enclosed pipeline at the beginning of what’s projected to be among the coldest winters in recorded history. Which means it’s no wonder they haven’t a prayer of finding a job that takes more intellect than flipping burgers in fast food joints, because even that may be stretching their ability to function effectively.

On another issue, yesterday Rush discussed an article by Chris Cilia of the Washington Post, titled: “"Why Jonathan Gruber is Conservative Catnip."
Mr. Cilia wrote: "The key to understanding why Gruber has become a cause celebre -- but not in a good way -- for conservatives is that his comments about the ACA confirm two things that the right has long believed about Democrats and the law: (a) The ACA was made purposely vague to keep the public in the dark about its depth and breadth, and (b) liberals think conservatives are stupid."

To that, Rush opined, “In other words, as far as Cilia's concerned, this is nothing but personal for us. The reason Gruber is so interesting to us is because he admits that liberals think conservatives are stupid, and that's a point we've been trying to prove for what?”

The subject of Rush’s commentary struck home because it’s one presented here frequently. Especially regarding the White House and its presidential staff. Because, while intellectual capability is critical to managerial expertise, it is something severely lacking in the current group of sycophants surrounding the incumbent president.

Therefore, it’s quite odd, and a dichotomy, to have a staff of supporters so patently dense and arrogant thought by a reporter, Chris Cilia, to be intellectually more adept than rivals who are in fact, considerably above them intelligence-wise. 

Which means, what really occurred when Jonathan Gruber disclosed the fraud and deception behind the health care tax’s passage, the “catnip” had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence of those in either party. Because, the issue isn’t whether or not one’s holding office are smart enough, it’s whether or not they’re devious, deceitful and arrogant enough to lie, cheat and steal to defraud the entire nation, such as Democrats do in their extreme selfishness on a regular basis.

That’s it for today folks.


Tuesday, November 18, 2014


The incumbent president’s selling of another major lie, this one about knowing nothing of Jonathan Gruber, seems to make no long term sense. Because, in addition to looking like a guilty child caught misbehaving, his “legacy” will analyze all his untruths in detail, it will insure that his presidency might very well be deemed in the future as the very worst in the nation’s history.
What's most remarkable about his habit of instant denial when caught, however, is that with today’s technology irrefutable hard evidence exists proving the prevarication’s.
In the current situation, “Obama spoke at the Brookings Institution in a video posted by the conservative group American Commitment on Monday. The president was touting his policy ideas, which stemmed from what he called some of the “brightest minds from academia and policy circles.”… Gruber advised Obama’s first campaign in 2006 and went to the White House at least a dozen times while Obama’s been in office, in addition to receiving an almost $400,000 contract to advise on the health-care law.”
On another matter, want to know why the health care tax was so important to pass for the incumbent president, and also why Gruber was such a valuable asset to help mislead the public about it’s structure? 
The New York Times reports that, “[S]ince the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, the relationship between the Obama administration and insurers has evolved into a powerful, mutually beneficial partnership that has been a boon to the nation’s largest private health plans and led to a profitable surge in their Medicaid enrollment. The insurers in turn have provided crucial support to Mr. Obama in court battles over the health care law… Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.”
Which, as usual, proves that for the current administration the same basic premise always applies. And if you want to know why anything is ever pursued by them, just follow the money to get the answer. 
And finally, a quote from Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I think the new Republican majority has long despised and denigrated this president. And if they can roll him, I think they would like to. And I think it’s important for him to set the stage early on this, particularly when the stakes are so high for climate, for the environment, for the damage that the pipeline will do.”
The most interesting point about the Senator’s objection to the pipeline is that if you consider its makeup, all it is a tube that’s buried under the ground having no environmental impact at all. In fact, if it wasn’t marked and fenced off, no one would even know it was there.
Therefore, if the pipeline was laid and left unmarked, the only way the Senator could even find it’s location would be with a specifically drawn map and a metal detector. Which means that by comparison, more toxic waste comes out of this guy’s mouth than the entire Keystone XL.
That's it for today folks.

Sunday, November 16, 2014


Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal on Friday, headed her column, “The Loneliest President Since Nixon.” The subtitle read: “Facing adversity, Obama has no idea how to respond.”
The column began with her quoting a Democrat operative who’d told her that,“People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore.”
Ms Noonan followed that observation by writing that, “This came to mind when contemplating President Obama. After a devastating election, he is presenting himself as if he won. The people were not saying no to his policies, he explained, they would in fact like it if Republicans do what he tells them.
You don’t begin a new relationship with a threat, but that is what he gave Congress: Get me an immigration bill I like or I’ll change U.S. immigration law on my own.”
Farther along, after describing many examples of how the incumbent president has alienated virtually everyone around him, regardless of party or affiliation, she noted that, “The last time we saw a president so alone it was Richard Nixon, at the end of his presidency, when the Democrats had turned on him, the press hated him, and the Republicans were fleeing. It was Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s standard-bearer in 1964, and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, also of Arizona, who went to the White House to tell Nixon his support in Congress had collapsed, they would vote to impeach. Years later Goldwater called Nixon “The world’s biggest liar.” 
But Nixon had one advantage Obama does not: the high regard of the world’s leaders, who found his downfall tragic (such ruin over such a trifling matter) and befuddling (he didn’t keep political prisoners chained up in dungeons, as they did. Why such a fuss?).”
Ms Noonan’s column struck home with me completely, whereas I’ve had doubts of the incumbent’s capabilities since he first campaigned for the presidency without an iota of qualifying credentials. Having accomplished far less than a significant segment of the population, possessing absolutely no practical experience whatsoever, his track record in office proves the point undoubtedly.
In that regard, a reader once again offered a succinct summation, as follows:   
Allen Huggins, wrote, “When he was elected, his critics claimed he was an "empty suit" as he had really accomplished nothing other than getting elected with boastful rhetoric.  Now we realize that it is far, far worse.  He's not an empty suit. He's an arrogant college professor who thinks he has all the answers and looks down at the rest of us fools.  He won't listen to reason, as all he hears is himself.  Very na├»ve.”
In today’s Clinton update, Lee Rood wrote a column in, headed “Is Iowa already sick of Hillary Clinton?,” which begins as follows:
“If you’re a die-hard Democrat in New York hoping to overcome the disappointment that was Nov. 4, you’re worried.
But here in Iowa, where the first-in-the-nation caucuses are a mere 14 months away, some are breaking into a cold sweat.
Most party leaders here will assure you all conversations about the 2016 presidential nomination still begin and end with Hillary Clinton.
The former first lady and secretary of state is a sentimental favorite. Though she has not formally announced her candidacy, her well-oiled super PAC may be the most deeply rooted ever at this stage in the Hawkeye state.
But that may be the problem. Familiarity breeds if not contempt, then frustration.”
Ms Rood then mentions Jerry Crawford, “who co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 campaign in Iowa and helps lead Ready for Hillary in the state.”
And it’s Mr. Crawford's thoughts that stimulate Ms Rood’s ideas regarding Bill Clinton’s wife’s problems in the state, whereas “Crawford, who has led presidential campaigns in Iowa for almost three decades, acknowledges Clinton could easily stumble out of the gate if sometimes contrarian Iowans believe they are being force-fed an unlikeable candidate.”
This is noteworthy today because, while the election’s still two years away, and Bill's wife hasn’t even announced presidential candidacy yet, anti-establishment bias among the voting public may play a significant role in 2016, negatively affecting her especially.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, November 15, 2014


Presently, talking heads across the media are trying to determine just how much Jonathan Gruber’s demeaning of the American public will cost Democrats and especially the incumbent president. In that regard, Rush once again dissected the situation brilliantly, using Ron Fournier, of the National Journal, formerly AP bureau chief in Washington, DC as his model liberal for discussion.
Whereas Rush’s analysis is well worth reading, a link to the transcript follows, while several key points continue below.
Rush quotes Fournier as saying:  "If there's one thing that unites clearheaded Americans, it's a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest." (Guess he never heard of the Clinton’s, Agnew or Nixon.)
To which Rush replies: “No, ” then continues, “"If there's one thing that unites clearheaded Americans, it's the belief that our leaders [are not] transparent and honest!" That's what's dawning on people. Yeah, in theory we would hope that they govern as they campaign.  We would hope that they're telling us the truth when they tell us who they are and what they believe.  The sad reality is "clearheaded Americans" are more and more beginning to doubt that their leaders are honest with them, nor are they transparent.”
Rush also has a well-thought out explanation for Gruber’s saying about the health care tax that, “we had to lie because the American people are too stupid to understand what we're doing.”
Rush's rejoinder: “You know, it sounds to me like what Gruber's actually saying is, they had to lie in order to keep from blowing up the relationship they had with the media.  If you read Fournier's piece, it's clear he was all-in, 'cause he wanted this.  He's a good liberal and he's got compassion and he cares about the poor, and he cares about the budget, and he wants the uninsured to be covered.  It's the only fair thing to do!  We can't bust the budget, and there's the Democrats running around saying it's exactly what it's gonna do.
And so he believes it.  It sounds to me like what Gruber actually is saying, they had to lie because of the stupidity of the media. They had to lie so as not to blow up the media bubble that they had created. The media was all-in. The media was thinking it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The media and the left thought it was compassion central, gonna take care of the poor and the downtrodden, the hungry and the thirsty.  And if the truth had come out... look at Fournier's reaction today.  What if Fournier had this reaction in 2009?  What if others in the media had this reaction they had yesterday and today in 2009?”
And finally, Rush hits the nail on the head with: “Because what the Gruber story illustrates is that the left lies about everything and they will lie about everything in order to get what they want, and they will assume that you're either too stupid -- I actually think they think you're too smart.  They can't be honest with you because you would reject it, that makes you too smart, not too stupid.
If you were really as stupid as they think, they wouldn't have to lie.  If you were as stupid as Gruber runs around saying, they could say whatever they want, you'd be too stupid to believe it or understand it, and they could get done what they wanted.  The fact that they have to lie, predicated on the fact that you're too stupid, actually means that you're wise to them.  You'll see through what they want to do, even though they're trying to cover it up.” And that's precisely the situation.
On another issue. While the incumbent president was busy yesterday pledging three billion of taxpayer money to combat global-warming, Reuters was publishing the following story.
“Prices for slaughter-ready or cash cattle in the U.S. Plains hit an all-time high on Friday, fueled by an early winter storm at a time of the smallest herd since the early 1950s.
Some beef packers paid record cattle prices of $171 to $172 per hundredweight (cwt) in parts of Kansas and Nebraska. That topped the previous high of $170 set three weeks ago and was up as much as $5 from last week's sales.
This week, early wintry weather blew across the Midwest packing heavy snow in the northern Plains along with bitterly cold temperatures that stretched as far south as Texas.
"We got an added boost from the weather market," said Jim Robb, director of the Colorado-based Livestock Marketing Information Center.
Frigid temperatures made it difficult to sort cattle, said analysts. And, treacherous driving conditions snarled transportation of cattle to packing plants, they said.”
And then finally, it’s back to the Clinton’s again.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, “At an American Federation of Teachers event in Washington D.C., on Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden subtly undercut Hillary’s oft-repeated claim that the Clinton economy sustained a vibrant middle class. 
“The fact is, the middle class started declining in the late 1980s,” he said. “All through the ’90s, with the exception of two years, the middle class was declining — except for the last two years.”
So, here we have a leading Democrat who’s sniping at Bill Clinton’s wife, although she hasn’t even announced presidential candidacy yet. Which means that as the 2016 election draws closer, the gloves will really come off to the extent that, with all of their inside information regarding each other, future disclosures by both will likely destroy the two contenders altogether.
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, November 14, 2014


Spent some time this week, watching Herring Networks, One America, an all-news “conservative” cable channel that very well might give Fox News a real run for its money.
The items and stories presented are basically the same as found on Fox, however, there are far, far fewer interruptions and virtually no commercials. All the breaks in content are informational background on the station itself, or interesting bits of history and Americana.
Naturally, the question is: How long can the station keep this up with no revenue from ads? But while it does, it’s certainly a pleasure to not be continually inundated with mindless drivel about products and services one couldn't possibly care less about. Yet, that doesn’t really bother me as much as it could, because I always keep the TV sound off, until some news item catches my eye and I temporarily turn the volume up.
In today’s news about the Keystone pipeline, reports that, “Obama said his administration believes the project should be judged on the basis of whether it accelerates climate change. Obama also insisted the pipeline would not be a “massive jobs bill” and would have no effect on U.S. gas prices.”
However, the generally reliable bastion of support for the current administration, The New York Times, reported yesterday in article by Nelson D. Schwartz, Clifford Krause, and Dionne Searcy, as follows:
“With Americans spending roughly $1 billion a day on gasoline, Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service, estimates that consumers will save roughly $8.4 billion in November and December, compared with the last two months of 2013, based on an average price for regular gasoline of about $2.89 a gallon as opposed to $3.23 last November and $3.26 last December.
The typical American household buys 1,200 gallons annually, so if prices fall to the level Mr. Kloza predicts and stay there, that adds up to a yearly savings per household of at least $400. A 15 percent drop in the cost of home heating oil since last winter should also be helpful, especially as cold weather arrives in the Northeast.
The extra cash in shoppers’ wallets and pocketbooks could help generate nearly half a percentage point in added economic growth in the fourth quarter, and roughly $70 billion more in consumer spending over the next year, according to Barclays.”
Now, I suppose that when your income perspective derives from having the American people pay for your rent, food, fuel, travel and virtually every other cost of your existence, a mere $70 billion in consumer’s pockets likely doesn’t seem like much. Nor does a half percent in the GDP. But, for those living in the real world, the boost to their pocketbooks is huge. 
Along the same lines, it may be quite true that the pipeline would not be a “massive jobs bill,” but that doesn’t mean it won’t create any jobs at all.
Ellen R. Wald wrote on, that “In January of 2010, Trans-Canada CEO Russell Girling claimed that the project would produce 13,000 construction jobs.  In April of 2011 the number grew to 20,000, which the Canadian Ambassador reiterated in August 2011.  In January 2012 the number was revised back down to 13,000 and this past April the company revised that number even lower, to 9,000 construction jobs.  Meanwhile, both the federal government and the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University’s College of Industrial and Labor Relations examined TransCanada’s application and made their own job creation estimates, at 6,000-6,500 and 2,500-4,500 respectively.”
So, here again, while the numbers vary by source, there’s no doubt that a number of jobs will be created. Which is something you’d think would interest an administration that had to shorten the work week and recalculate the formula by which unemployment figures are derived in order to hide the damage done to the working segment of the population by their anti-business policies. 
However, this elitist bunch in the White House not only doesn’t know a thing about how the American economy runs, but when given a clear chance to make things better job-wise, continues to protect its political platform rather than boost the nation’s economy. No wonder they lost that last election in a historical landslide
In the comments following the Keystone article, lleeds wrote, “Breaking News:  Nancy Pelosi said she never heard of the Keystone Pipeline, so can we just move on.”
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, November 13, 2014


When any organization, regardless of its chosen endeavor, has no functional capabilities or talents, its virtually impossible to achieve any kind of tangible or meaningful managerial results.
And that’s what the current administration is faced with now, whereas it is comprised of hucksters and political types, having no practical experience in governance whatsoever. Yet it’s still trying to run the formerly most successful nation in the free world without the most basic capabilities.
Evidence of the administrative talent lack can be seen in virtually every segment of the nation’s various areas requiring operational skills, such as the economy, education, foreign policy, the environment and most certainly, health care.
As far as health care’s concerned, the last few days have been quite embarrassing for the administration, and especially the White House, as reported by Lucy McCalmont on, as follows
“The White House is denouncing comments from key Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that a lack of transparency and the stupidity of voters helped in the passage of the health care law and is instead pointing a finger at Republicans.”
In response, having no valid rejoinder, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press briefing in Burma that, “The fact of the matter is, the process associated with the writing and passing and implementing of the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent.”
Now, while that statement is patently false, Earnest went on to rejoinder with a typical politician’s tactic of smearing rivals when caught red-handed in an untenable situation.
Earnest said; “It is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices available to middle class families,”and that, “[T]he president is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law.”
However, anyone with an iota of interest in the subject knows full well by now that if nothing else, Republicans have been crystally clear about their conclusions regarding the health care tax. And were they to have their way, they'd immediately repeal it in total. But, if that alternative wasn’t possible they’d at least permit cross-state-line competition for coverage and stop all protections to the administration’s allies in the medical insurance business for starters.
Which makes one wonder about the degree to which a guy named “Earnest” would fabricate the truth to cover up one of the worst pieces of legislation ever foisted on the income-producing half of the American public.
On the same subject, and also from, “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed Gruber’s role in Obamacare on Thursday, telling the press, “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.”
In response, “Many outlets were quick to point out that Pelosi cited Gruber in a “Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster” on her official website in 2009.”
Therefore, today’s responses from key administration and Congressional individuals leads to a truly interesting question. Because if somewhere, sometime, one of them actually did tell the truth to the public, or anyone else, how would they know?
That’s it for today folks.  

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


It’s far too early to tell how much damage has been done to the administration in general, and the health care tax specifically. However, there’s no doubt that both have been dealt an extremely costly blow by the comments of the arrogant elitist whom had a great deal to do with the architecture of Obamacare.
Aside from MIT economics professor, John Gruber, administration advisor on the health care tax proclaiming American voter’s in general are “stupid,”  a similar slur by him was disclosed on yesterday’s Fox News' "The Kelley File."
Shown speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis, he referred to “the so-called ‘Cadillac tax’ on high-end health plans,” saying, "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference."
Referring specifically to the way the "Cadillac tax" was designed, he touted the plan to, “instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn't understand the difference.”
And once again, the best summation Mr. Gruber’s comments came from a reader of the article.  
tishuwish wrote: “Is he really that far off base? After all he is referring to OBAMA SUPPORTERS. Democrats that voted for obama, and I have to agree with him, they have to be the stupidest thing walking! I personally never took offense to what he said because I knew he wasn't referring to me!”
Which leads right into the next item from, as follows: “A new Gallup poll showing “The favorability rating for Democrats is the party’s lowest since Gallup began asking the question in 1992.
Only 36 percent had a favorable view of the Democratic party, a 6-percentage-point drop from before the midterms, the Gallup poll released Wednesday found. With the GOP standing with 42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 the GOP has had a higher rating than the Democrats.”
Additionally, John Nolte of Breitbart writes that, “As things stand today, Republicans in Congress enjoy a 42% approval rating. Obama, on the other hand, sits at a 39% approval rating. His disapproval rating sits at a whopping 56%. 
When asked by Gallup who should have more influence over the direction of the country, a majority of Americans chose Republicans in Congress over Obama by a whopping 56-36% margin.”
While the poll results indicate significant dissatisfaction with the Democrat party as a whole, and the incumbent president even worse, the following item, also from, by Andrew Restuccia and Erica Martinson, may shed some light on why the public is fed up with both. 
The authors write that, “Tied to court-ordered deadlines, legal mandates and international climate talks, the efforts scheduled for the next two months show that President Barack Obama is prepared to spend the remainder of his term unleashing sweeping executive actions to combat global warming. And incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have few options for stopping the onslaught, though Republicans may be able to slow pieces of it.
The coming rollout includes a Dec. 1 proposal by EPA to tighten limits on smog-causing ozone, which business groups say could be the costliest federal regulation of all time; a final rule Dec. 19 for clamping down on disposal of power plants’ toxic coal ash; the Jan. 1 start date for a long-debated rule prohibiting states from polluting the air of their downwind neighbors; and a Jan. 8 deadline for issuing a final rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions from future power plants. That last rule is a centerpiece of Obama’s most ambitious environmental effort, the big plan for combating climate change that he announced at Georgetown.”
At the same time, Drudge posted the following links.
Which leads me to suggest once more, that to find out why the entire global warming farce doesn’t resonate with voters today, or anyone else blessed with common sense, climate change fanatics ought to close their mouths and open a window.
Because we’re on the cusp of the coldest winter ever predicted by real experts who actually know what they’re talking about, and not a bunch of money/power-hungry hacks driven by government grants. 
That’s it for today folks.