Opportunities repeatedly have been overlooked by
the media and even by many blog news sites to more properly assess the true
motivations of President Barack Hussein Obama, based on his character, policies,
behavior and public mien. The scandal that has
erupted
over MIT economics professor
Jonathan
Grub’s remarks during a panel discussion about the machinations behind
getting Obamacare drafted, and then enacted in Congress and signed by Obama,
can serve as an important guide to what Obama is “all about.”
Judicial
Watch focuses on the “transparent” contempt Gruber has for Americans:
The
esteemed college professor who served as one of Obamacare's key architects has
admitted that a "lack of transparency" helped the administration pass
the disastrous healthcare law, which is facing a number of legal challenges.
It's
a scandalous confession for an administration that has repeatedly vowed to be
the most transparent in history. The information comes straight from
Jonathan Gruber,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist who served as a
technical consultant to the Obama administration during the Affordable Care
Act's (Obamacare) design. Gruber was recorded during a panel and the
video recently surfaced and has been making the rounds
on the internet.
"This
bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate
as taxes," Gruber says. "If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill
dies. Okay, so it's written to do that. In terms of risk rated
subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in
- you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it
would not have passed... 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..." (Italics
mine)
Gruber’s
bragging
– and, incidentally baring his decrepit, rotten soul about how he helped to
push through the
intentionally
deceitful ACA – serves as an overture to an assessment of Obama’s own soul.
Let us count the ways Obama has been spared – nay, let off the hook – by contemporary
assessments of his character, his motives, and his means and ends. He has been
called these things, even by his own supporters, by critics hesitant to pass
the final judgment on him:
Short-sighted, clueless, wrong-headed, dumb, inexperienced, ineffectively
pragmatic, delusional, negligent, an impotent moral relativist, out-maneuvered
by pros, reckless, feckless, prodigal, failed, a narcissist, cold, glib, out of touch, opaque, grasping, dismissive, a well-intentioned idealist, amateurish,
distracted, tactless, fumbling, incompetent, arrogant, misunderstood, more sinned against than sinning, ham-fisted, heartless, indelicate, manipulative, manipulated,
fraud, Putin’s poodle, China’s patsy,
racist, lackadaisical, Anglophobic, power-luster,
veteran of verisimilitude, doyen of dissimilation, abusive, self-defeating, self-wounding
….
In describing the character of Obama one could
compile a veritable
Roget’s International
Thesaurus of terms that would apply exclusively to Obama. It would contain
no antonyms. Let’s mention
some
of his more notorious legislative and executive orders since he assumed office
in 2009. To date, the White House lists nearly
ninety
pages of Acts he has signed, ten to a page. To date, he has issued
twenty
pages of executive orders, also ten to a page.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.