by: the Common Constitutionalist
It seems that Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner has found a few choice quotes from Democrats, namely Bella Pelosi (I vant to suck your wallet) as the title of her article on Saturday would suggest: “Dems: Gruber wrote computer code, not Obamacare.”
Is that right. Well, he sure does have a lot to say and sure seems to have plenty of detailed strategic information for some guy tucked away somewhere pecking at a keyboard. That, or a very active imagination. Maybe he’s the inadvertent Edward Snowden of Obamacare, or maybe he’s a typical egotistical arrogant liberal who, like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, think they can say anything and not be held to account, even when they’re caught on audio or video. “Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?”
Nonetheless, Susan writes that House Democrats contend that Jonathan Gruber was merely a computer code expert who was factually wrong in the assertions he made, regarding Obamacare.
By now most of us have heard that he was merely a computer “modeler, who wrote 15,000 lines of computer code.” And for this, writes Ferrechio, he “banked more than $1 million from the federal government and states by helping design and implement the Affordable Care Act.” Where do I sign up for that gig?
Susan reports that although Pelosi insists that he played no role in writing Obamacare, Gruber evidently visited the White House eight times. Now why in the world would anyone in the White House invite a mere computer programmer to meet with them just once, let alone eight times? Answer: they wouldn’t.
So Pelosi claims he had no role yet on her own website she said “The White House sometimes consulted Gruber on healthcare issues.” Huh – asking a computer programmer about healthcare? That’s like asking the guy who does my dry cleaning how to rebuild my cars engine. It makes no sense. Yet remember, it doesn’t have to. There are no contradictions in the world of a liberal Democrat.
Want an example? Ferrechio has one. We’ve all seen the videos where Gruber is caught saying “the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ and a ‘lack of transparency’ were the key to getting the public to accept the 2010 law.” She then cites Pelosi on her own website saying “First of all, there was no lack of transparency in the drafting and passing of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act had more openness and transparency in its consideration than any law in many years.”
I’m not sure that this type of arrogance can be taught. It may be something that Pelosi was born with. It may be inherited. Perhaps we should look into her family tree. Is she a descendant of Charles Ponzi, or maybe Raoul Wallenberg? No, that couldn’t be. Wallenberg was a good liar who saved a lot of Jews in Hungary during World War II.
Anyway – back to this “no lack of transparency” claim of Pelosi’s. Does the phrase, you have to pass it to find out what’s in it ring a bell? This woman really is beyond the pale. That or she’s suffering the early stages of dementia.
In fact, she may have more contradictory statements over the past five years then Obama. Ferrechio writes that “Pelosi made a reference to Gruber’s modeling during a 2009 press conference, but when asked about him last week she initially said she didn’t know him.”
Pelosi disputes Gruber’s claim that the authors of the law deliberately avoided describing the individual mandate as a tax, saying “the authors of the ACA have always ignores that individuals would have to report it on their tax returns as in addition to income tax liability.”
Okay, I’ll give her a pass on that one. First it was a tax that it wasn’t a tax then it was a tax, etc.
All in all, Ferrechio does an excellent job condensing some of Pelosi’s more outrageous lies regarding Obamacare and Gruber. It’s a difficult thing to do so in a short one page article. It seems that not a day goes by when Pelosi is lying about something.
But hey, that’s what Democrat politicians do. They lie and do so with impunity. And they’re so arrogant that they don’t even care if and when they get caught.
It’s the nature of the modern Democrat Party.