Political correctness is in my opinion an attempt at controlling the masses by influencing the language and the thought process of the people. How many times have you said something only to be told that you should not say it because it is not politically correct? That does not mean that what you said is not relevant or true, it simply means you should not say it.
When this happens you are attacked as a racist, or as being insensitive, or as a misogynist, or as being anti-this or anti-that all for expressing an opinion on a divisive issue. In some cases this might be true but in many cases it is not.
This is purposely done to intimidate a person into not speaking his or her mind, but worse yet it is designed to change your way of thinking into falling in line with whatever agenda you may oppose for fear of being ostracized by the public when in fact the first amendment was designed to protect your right to say what is not “politically correct.”
When being interviewed by Chris Matthews one of the people credited as being an Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, discussed the court decision which ruled that Federal exchanges could not grant subsidies and he, like most Democrats, claimed that this was simply a typo and was not what was intended when the law was written.
Here is what he had to say:
Chris, it is unambiguous this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states. And why would they?
Well we soon found out why the law excluded Federal exchanges when a 2012 video surfaced in which Mr. Gruber explained why they were excluded. It turns out that this was done on purpose to coerce the states into setting up exchanges–it was not a typo.
Since the Halbig case last week ruled that the Obamacare law does not allow states with Federally run exchanges to grant subsidies the Democrats have been running around saying this provision was a mistake and Federal exchanges were also supposed to be giving out subsidies. It was a simple wording error so we are told and of course because nobody read the bill before it was passed I thought that was likely the case–still, the law must be changed if Federal exchanges are to be allowed to hand out subsidies. (Providing of course that this ruling holds up and is not overturned in time.)
But here is a video I found over at The Right Scoop and it shows a man considered to be one of the Obamacare architects, Jonathan Gruber, giving a talk in 2012 where he admits the law only allows states to grant subsidies. And it was done for a reason…
I am not going to spend much time on this but here is something I found today as I was browsing the internet that I found a little interesting: According to this story the website thesaurus.com has listed as synonyms to the term ‘obstructionist’ the terms ‘right-winger,’ ‘traditionalist,’ ‘rightist,’ ‘unprogressive,’ and ‘redneck.’
While at the same time the website lists ‘left-wing,’ ‘progressive,’ and ‘liberal’ as being antonyms to the term ‘obstructionist.’ I went to the website and have verified it is true.
Here is the latest Afterburner video by Bill Whittle entitled ‘The Case for Israel.’ The title sums it up but make sure you watch this one all the way to the end.
The Government Accountability Office conducted a sting operation to test the eligibility verification system of the Obamacare website and the results were not good: 11 of 18 fake applications were approved despite falsified documents.
Here is more:
An undercover operation found that the majority of fake Obamacare applications submitted were approved by the health law’s enrollment system.
Fake applicants were able to get subsidized insurance coverage in 11 of 18 attempts, according to a report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The agency conducted the sting operation to test the strength of the Affordable Care Act’s eligibility-verification system.
Supporters of the law will claim this proves nothing because the sample is so small but when you look at the lengths the GAO went to in order to create false identities it still calls into question the whole verification portion of the website.
The story surrounding the circumstances of the destruction of Lois Lerner’s hard drive always seems to be changing. First we were told by the IRS that her hard drive crashed and despite the agency’s best efforts the data could not be recovered so the hard drive was recycled.
Now, according to this story, court documents show that Lois Lerner’s hard drive was only scratched and the data was recoverable but the IRS did not even try.
Here is more: