BREAKING: Newly-Discovered Video of Obamacare’s Architect Looking Down on Average Voters (Update: Another Video)

Update: Jump to the end for a new video linking Obama to Gruber’s deceptions.

Another day, another Gruber video drops where he demonstrates what a complete snot he is.  As I said previously on #Grubergate, the man has a fundamental distaste for Democracy, and the #Grubergate chorus has gotten loud enough to force Obama to talk about it.  Via Hot Air:

When asked directly if he or his administration had, as Gruber insisted, intentionally misled the public and oversight organizations like the Congressional Budget Office when they crafted the Accordable Care Act, Obama’s reply was terse and direct. “No,” he said. “I did not.”

Obama was joined on Sunday by Health and Human Services Sec. Sylvia Burwell who appeared on Meet the Press to distance herself and the administration from Gruber.

“I have to start with how fundamentally I disagree with his comments about the bill and about the American people,” she began emphatically.

Do read the whole thing, but, dear reader, you are looking at the website of a Google ninja.  Just as the now-famous Rich Weinstein, a.k.a. @phillyrich1 went through publicly available videos and found the video that kicked off Grubergate, I have found another video previously available that also proves just how much the architect of Obamacare looks down on ordinary Americans, which I will share with you after the break.

A Hypothesis on the Story of Exodus

Strap yourself in, because this is going to be a long one.

I don’t speak directly about my faith too often.  For me, faith is like the air I breathe or the sun in the sky.  It is just there, a constant presence, exerting an influence in more ways than I could count or quantify.  It doesn’t need to be talked about, it is just there.

This week I have finally gotten around to watching The Bible on Netflix.  This is the History Channel miniseries dramatizing the Christian Bible.  It is pretty good even if at times it shows its budget.  Also it keeps making me want to play Mass Effect (a joke only gamers will fully get).

But it made me think of a hypothesis I have about the story of Exodus and I thought I would share it with you.

I call it a hypothesis because one should always be careful attempting to know guess any part of God’s plan.  By definition God is omniscient and omnipotent and so we are a bit like cave men trying to understand nuclear physics when it comes to these things.  “Hypothesis,” therefore, is a precisely chosen term: it is an educated guess, and not even raised to the level of theory.  But I think it is a good one.  Maybe.

Time Apologizes For Allowing “Feminist” to Lead Its Dumb Poll

So Time every year engages in a stunning piece of bad journalism by running a poll for what words ought to be “banned.”  The piece is terrible journalism all around.  First, the winner doesn’t get banned because we have a First Amendment, duh.  Indeed, past winners like OMG, YOLO and Twerk didn’t seem to disappear.  At best, it reflects what words its respondents are sick and tired of.

And then there is the fact that the poll is utterly unscientific given that it is one of those “internet polls.”  So it is a survey of those who decide to take the time to answer these polls, which often induces people to try to game the outcome.  Of course it works fine for Time’s advertisers because it means more clicks, but it is simply terrible journalism.

(And don’t get me started on the fact that some of the “words” they are proposing to ban are actually “phrases.”)

And despite all efforts, they managed to make it worse.  This year, they decided to include the word “feminist” on the list of nominees and then, to the anger of many radical feminists, it was far and away the winner.  At last reporting it go 51% of the votes, with the next highest vote-getter receiving 12%.  Which in turn caused radical feminists to freak out, which in turn made Twitchy laugh.  Which in turn led to this bootlicking editor’s note on the poll itself:

The Danger of Shirtgate (to Conservative Pundits)

Let’s start by saying something basic.  “Shirtgate,” as it is being called, is kind of dumb overall.  It is not worth writing about in and of itself, but it is worth talking about for what it says, overall, about social attitudes and similar issues.

It started with the landing of a probe on a comet.  It was supposed to be a “one small step for a man” moment, and it was, but some radical feminists spotted something they really didn’t like: this shirt.

Rush Limbaugh’s Legal Threat to the DCCC

So the other day the news broke that Rush Limbaugh was threatening to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee otherwise known as the DCCC.  I remember reading about it at Instapundit and Mr. Reynolds saying “it sends a valuable signal.”  Well, respectfully, I think he is wrong.

But first, you should probably see that letter, below the fold:

On Veteran’s Day, Jesse Ventura Undermines His Own Victory Over Chris Kyle’s Widow

So via Twitchy we learn that Jesse Ventura has proven himself to be a real grade-A schmuck, again.  My language would be stronger, but I avoid cursing on this blog.  But here is what he said:

I hate to say it but Id be a conscientious objector today. I don’t believe that the military fights for our freedom. http://t.co/VucoqFFdlD
— Jesse Ventura (@GovJVentura) November 11, 2014

This is apparently in response to a Salon piece that has stirred up some controversy.  But I want to keep the focus on what Ventura said.

The Definition of Chutzpah

Or perhaps the alternate headline should borrow from John Hoge and say, “I’m not making this up, you know.”

A solar power company gets a $1.6 billion loan from the Federal Government.  Because the Feds suck at picking winners and losers they are having trouble paying it because they suck as a company.  So what do they do?

They ask for a $539 million grant from the Federal Government.  Yes, really:

A renewable energy company touted publicly by President Barack Obama which lists Google as an investor is requesting a $539 million federal grant to help pay off part of a $1.6 billion federal loan it received to build a solar plant in the Mojave desert.

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, which is owned by Google, NRG Energy and BrightSource Energy, uses nearly 175,000 mirrors, called heliostats, and sprawls 3,500 acres in California.

[…]

But since going operational in February, Ivanpah has failed to meet its own expectations, generating only 254,000 megawatt-hours of power, about one-fourth of what it predicted, Fox News reported this weekend.

NRG Energy said fewer sunny days than predicted are responsible for the deficit.

To help keep the project afloat, NRG Energy, which holds the largest stake in Ivanpah, has applied for federal grants through the Treasury Department.

In unrelated news, the national debt is about to reach $18,000,000,000,000 or $18 trillion as of this writing.  I just wanted to write out all those zeros to make an impression.

Closing thought: which is more unnerving?  The thought that they would ask a federal grant to pay off a federal loan they probably, on balance, shouldn’t have gotten in the first place?  Or the thought that they asked because they believed they stood a reasonable chance of getting it?  Or the thought that their belief they would get such a grant is well-founded?

Jonathan Gruber’s Contempt for Democracy

So one name that has become familiar in the Obamacare debates is Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT.  He was, as Reason succinctly puts it:

by most accounts, one of the key figures in constructing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He helped designed the Massachusetts health care law on which it was modeled, assisted the White House in laying out the foundation of the law, and, according to The New York Times, was eventually sent to Capitol Hill "to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation." He provided the media with a stream of supportive quotes, and was paid almost $400,000 for his consulting work.

This leads a lot of people to focus on his words during discussions of the intent behind Obamacare, especially in dealing with the issues raised by my previous post of whether the tax credits are supposed to be available if the state fails to create an exchange.  For instance, via Twitchy we get this video comparing his statements about exchanges created by a state, here:

Mother Jones Race Baits While Ignoring the Facts

So let’s imagine two different scenarios:

Scenario 1: A SWAT team decided to do a raid on John Smith’s house because they believe he has drugs.  In the early hours, they break down his door, they do not announce they are cops and Smith ends up shooting one of them.  The case is sent to the grand jury on possible murder charges, but they refuse to return an indictment.

Scenario 2: A SWAT team decided to do a raid on Mike Roe’s house because they believe he has drugs.  In the early hours, they break down his door, they announce they are cops and Roe ends up shooting one of them.  The case is sent to the grand jury on possible murder charges, and they indict him, and a trial is pending.

So why do you think we had this different outcomes?  Similar case, but one doesn’t even get an indictment, and the other does?  Why do you think that is?

If you said it obviously because of racism, you are Shane Bauer of Mother Jones:

Two no-knock SWAT raids. Two officers dead. One defendant is black, one white. Guess which one faces execution. http://t.co/GHFGEtaf8T
— Shane Bauer (@shane_bauer) October 21, 2014

King v. Burwell is as Test of the Supreme Court, Not Obamacare

So King v. Burwell is going to the Supreme Court.  The news came out Friday, but I figured I would discuss it today.

I haven’t talked very much about the King and Halbig cases, partially because they came down at a time when I was too busy and partially because the correct outcome in both cases was idiotically obvious.  Hey, dear reader, when you see the word “state” in a federal law, what do you think that means?  Well, the average layperson’s guess is pretty much what the law says: the states.  You know, like Virginia, Maine, California, Alaska.  Those things represented by stars on the flag.  The only difference between what a layperson would guess, and what the law typically says, is that often the law defines the District of Columbia as a “state,” and that is the case here.  But here’s what it never means in Federal law: the Federal government.

So it is blindingly obvious that where Obamacare says that an exchange “established by the State,” it is not referring to one set up by the Federal Government.  I try to give fair weight to the merits of the other side’s arguments.  There is none.  Likewise, I tried to come up with a way the other side could honestly believe that their side is right, but the argument is so lacking in merit I cannot believe they all have 1) good information and 2) having good information honestly believe what they are saying.  This is evidenced by the prevalence of people claiming that this was a “typo.”  As a dyslexic man, I am an expert in typos and this wasn’t one of them.