ABSURD TO FOCUS ON JONATHAN GRUBER’S “STUPID” COMMENT (Part 2, “The Frankenstein Monster, in Real Life: It’s Really Not About Stupid”) In part I of this 2-part narrative, I attempted to focus attention beyond Jonathan Gruber’s comments, allegedly referencing the American people’s political stupidity, to the mindset in back of his statements, and the cause in which these words were enlisted to serve. I sought to place the focus, instead, on the Frankenstein monster that had been created, called ObamaCare, and facetiously titled, the Affordable Care Act. The media’s focus on the words used, by Gruber, I tried to point out, is a distraction, whether intended, as such, or not. By minutely referencing, what was said, rather than focusing on the strategy these words exposed, was used to hoodwink the public, the American people were led away from discerning that there was a conscious attempt to subvert their will. Let me be a bit more precise, than what was stated above; the public was led away from the greater possibility that they would recognize the true meaning of Jonathan Gruber’s words, which is that Gruber was employed for the very purpose of hoodwinking the public. President Obama, at the time these comments were made, was, also, engaging in a distraction, away from the political universe in which his words were employed. Consider that Gruber was no more condescending than was President Obama, who told the American people that, if they liked their healthcare insurance, they could keep their healthcare insurance. Forget Obama’s words, too. Tell me who is speaking here. Are these words, by an elected official, different from the words used by Gruber, I mean, in their intent?! Let me hurry up, and answer, because I want you to understand that the two utterances are one, and the same, not the same words, mind you, but the same tone, indicative of the same elitism, the same contempt. Neither Gruber’s words, not those of President Obama, show any respect, whatsoever, for the American people’s right to make their own decisions, even if it is the wrong decision, but based upon whose verdict? Who should make the decision, in such cases, when the people’s verdict is different from those they elect, the elected officials? If so, then how does the political situation differ from that in North Korea, under Kim Jong Un? Forget this jazz about focusing on Gruber’s comments about the ability of the American people to make their own decisions, in the healthcare arena, and focus, instead, on a real point of discernment, THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO! Forget this media junk, this media nonsense,, also, about comments made by some university clown, a babbling idiot, typical of these bubble-gum walking and chewing, challenged, airheads on these college, and university, campuses, who are morally challenged, as well, and dictatorial in their own right, daring anyone, in class, to disagree with their liberal insanity. [See the book, “Radical Son,” by David Horowitz, for my reference here.] The present firestorm over Gruber’s comments is absolutely a misplacement of the public’s focus. I can’t stress that fact enough. Let’s try tyranny, as a point of reference; that way, we could more easily see what is taking place on another front, that in the immigration arena. Obama, having been soundly denounced at the polls, is unbowed by the public’s verdict on November 4, when voters went to the polls to repudiate the actions of his administration. To those, who say that Obama was not on the ballot, let me remind you of what Obama, himself, said, which was that his policies were on the ballot, “every last one of them.” That being so, every one of his policies, therefore, were rejected by the voters Seeking to hide his tyranny, behind other words, Obama would have us know that only about a third of the voters went to the polls, almost two weeks ago. In our obvious “stupidity,” we are supposed to conclude that all of the ones, who stayed home, on election-day, did so because they were supporters of Obama, and were supporters of his policies. Just how does that work, that one endorses policy, by refusing to endorse them. If that were indeed the case, then Gruber, I must say, would be right, but since I am saying Gruber is wrong, then I am saying that Obama is not right. In fact, President Obama has not been right, on any major policy issue, during his six years, in office, and I’ll wait right here to be disabused of this notion, based upon my lack of understanding, by Obama supporters, who are died-in-the-wool crazy. While waiting right here, in vain, as usual, for these airheads to come up with a decent argument, to justify their seal-like conduct, I’ll continue with what I am doing, which is telling the truth, while doing the other thing, of course, which is not caring who doesn’t like it, and that especially includes these black conservatives, who make me about as sick as these liberal Democrats. I’d like to “pimp-slap” them too. This focus on the alleged stupidity of the American people, in Gruber’s world, points away from the real public interest, here, an understanding of the strategy that was consciously employed to conceal the tactic that was used by the federal government, to take over the nation’s healthcare system, which makes up one-sixth of the nation’s economy. The issue is not Gruber’s words; the issue is SOCIALISM, his words, another means, enlisted toward that end. For all intents, and purposes, Gruber was hired by the Obama administration, and was in the employment, more or less, of the Democratic Party, in crafting the Obamacare bill, for which only Democrats in Congress voted to pass, and, to which, a Democratic Party President signed into law. Gruber, and Obama, were on the same page, employed the same strategy, Focusing upon Gruber’s comments, as if they were made in a political vacuum, is mockery on the part of the media, which is engaged in the same dismissal of the intelligence of the American people, for which Gruber is being criticized. Having had his policies rejected, Obama has picked another fight, not with Republicans, who are not worth two dead flies, either, but another fight with the American people. The Obama regime is at war with America; that is what his policies indicate. Immigration is the present battlefront. But lest you think the Republican Party has moral standing, in this political battle zone, think again, and hit me up when you finish thinking about it. Both parties keep talking about “immigration reform.” These two political noisemakers are always talking about reforming something. As an American citizen, born, and naturalized in the United States, in keeping with the real, as opposed to, imagined, provisions of the 14th Amendment, allow me to state, in all of my usual humbleness, that if you members of Congress want to reform something, reform that reformatory in Washington, called Congress. That would be your own conduct, to be exact. As for reforming immigration, may I suggest, instead, that you just enforce the law. Ah, the law! Let me tackle that subject before closing. The 14th Amendment is used to justify the claim that a person born in this country, automatically become a citizen of this country, an interpretation that was rendered by the Supreme Court, in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, in 1898. It is a bogus interpretation of the XIV, by the Supreme Court, two years after its Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling, in 1896, which established the “Separate but Equal” doctrine, which is also found nowhere in the Constitution, and which was overturned, in 1954, by the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, which was the right decision, but was based upon the wrong argument. I don’t want to digress here, so let me get to the point, dealing with immigration, and, therein, this idea of naturalization by one’s birth here, automatically making one a citizen. Let me first quote the relevant language in the 14th Amendment, which states as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” You would think people sitting on the highest court bench in this country would not get confused over what is said in a single sentence, which covers only two lines, but, folks, do not put anything past our bettors, who are not stupid, for sure. We know this much, to be true, for sure, otherwise Gruber would have told us. The above quote is taken from the language in the XIV Amendment. I didn’t change a single word, but now, to show you the language these fatheads think they are interpreting, let me change it to their interpretation, and here goes, as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” What is the difference between the two? Let me ask this question of this super airhead, Jonathan Turley, who was on the “Kelly File” Friday, talking about we are at a “constitutional tipping point,” over the immigration issue, if Obama exceeds his authority, by going through with his threat to forego Congress in [Are you ready for this?] his reform of immigration. Will somebody tell this man, puh-leese, that the Constitution has been overthrown in this country? It was all I could do to keep from slapping Turley through the TV screen for mouthing this nonsense. These college professors are not “stupid,” they are, what’s the word I am looking for here, oh yes, insane? Notice, in the first of the passages, there is a conjunctive phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” I took this part of the language out in the second passage to show the difference between what is stated, and what is being interpreted, which is not what is stated. The problem, as you can see, is bigger than Gruber, is bigger than Obama, bigger than Congress, and even bigger than the law, since the law, governing citizenship in this country, itself, is non-compliant with the Constitution, even though enforcing the law would be an improvement over what passes for immigration reform, which is nothing but this lawlessness, on steroids. While the media is off on yet another tangent, prompting us to take a gander and look at Jonathan Gruber’s nonsense, let me say the obvious, we have bigger fish to fry. The next stop is December 6, in Louisiana. That’s the date the voters throw Mary Landrieu out of office, in the runoff election. She’s toast, and, in two years, Obama will be gone. The two are certainly not distractions, but reality, for a needed change. After all, one Frankenstein monster is enough.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:11:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015