Gruber's Masterful Obamacare Deceit

A mere two weeks after the political upheaval that gave the GOP huge victories in the House and Senate, and Governorships and State Legislatures throughout America, another bombshell hit which will further diminish Obama and the Democrats in the eyes of the public. MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber unwittingly became the embodiment of the duplicity and deceit that President Obama has perpetrated on America. 

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes...If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, ok? … lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting this thing to pass.”

Remember these deceitful "civil rights" crusaders? #gruber #Obamacare pic.twitter.com/uB67UxCcjm
— John Galt Report (@JohnGaltReport) November 15, 2014

So who uncovered this monumental deceit? Was it the mighty 60 minutes? The Nightly New with Brian Williams? ABC News? 

Actually, it was the work of a citizen reporter, Rich Weinstein, who clearly has more journalistic inquisitiveness and investigative skills in his spare time than the combined capacities of the pedigreed and well paid armies of the so called main stream media. 

As it turns out, Gruber is a just paid hack for Obama, albeit a big one—he earned over $2 million preaching the gospel of healthcare social justice. There will always be paid hacks to help demagogues. 

The real villain here is not Gruber; it’s America’s old, Pravda-like media—ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times et al. who not only bought Gruber’s pack of lies, hook line and sinker, but now refuses to cover the story. 

#Gruber is definitely not a worthy news story! @ABCNews @CBSNews @NBCNews pic.twitter.com/6u2m4BZr6Z
— John Galt Report (@JohnGaltReport) November 15, 2014

One suspects that when Gruber called the American Voters “stupid”, he also had in mind the obedient, lap dog media, without whose acquiescence and complicity in the ruse, Obamacare could never have been pulled off.   
  

SCOTUS Likely to Rule Obamacare Unconstitutional

UPDATE:  Heard enough lame analysis from the lame stream media on Obamacare and the SCOTUS decision? As usual, we turn to “prediction markets” for some sanity. Not legal here in the US, prediction markets allow people to make bets on event outcomes. We looked at prediction markets during the Walker recall election after noticing that the lapdog media was spinning the election polling in favor of their union comrades. The actual betting results on the morning of June 5, 2012 (Recall election day) gave Walker a 93% chance of victory. The consensus in the lame stream media was that the race was too close to call. 

Since the predictions of free individuals putting their money-where-their-mouth-is was so at odds with what the "experts" were saying, we decided to take a closer look at the upcoming SOTUS decision on Obamacare. The chart below shows a rolling 90-day closing price from the political prediction market, Intrade. Note that this graph is continually updated. Each number on the price scale represents the market-based probability in percentage terms for the event occurring (in this case, that the individual mandate is rule unconstitutional). A price of 75 represents a 75% probability of SOTUS declaring Obamacare unconstitutional.



>> You can learn more about "Prediction Markets" here.

Massive Lead for Walker in Recall Election

The lapdog media is spinning the Wisconsin recall election polling in favor of their union comrades. Even the usually reliable Rasmussen is way off on this one--they show only a 5 pt. lead by Walker. However, the graph below shows the results from the "prediction market" known as Intrade, where people are free to bet on election results. And those who put their money-where-their-mouth-is, are betting heavily on Governor Scott Walker. Note that at time of publication, on June 5, the price for a Walker win stood at 93. A closing price of 90 on the graph below equates to a 90% probability of event occurring (in this case, that Scott Walker wins the recall election). A $9 bet against Walker would return $100 if Walker loses.  With returns like that, you can be certain that money hungry Unions would be betting large sums against Walker if they believed he had a reasonable shot at victory. In short, almost no-one is willing to bet on Tom Barrett and the unions. You can learn more about "Prediction Markets" here.