2nd Grand Obama Policy Deception

Well we now have proof that a second of President Obama's accomplishments is based on a big fat lie. First we learned from Jonathan Gruber, the economist and consultant paid $400k to help create and sell Obamacare to the American people, that we were intentionally deceived. As reported by Marc A. Thiessen in the Washington Post on 17 Nov 2014, "...there are now seven Gruber videos, in which he mocks the “stupidity” of American voters and boasts of the Obama administration’s ability to take advantage of it. In a new video that surfaced Friday, Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

Now we have an Obama Administration official admitting that the people (and Congress apparently) were lied to regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal. In a New York Times profile of Obama Administration National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Rhodes himself details the level deception and lies told to the country in order to get support for the deal.

If progressive ideas are so good, why do they so frequently require some initial lie? The power of propaganda!

The Delusional Iranian Nuclear Deal

Apparently only the Obama Administration and a small band of "true believers" actually consider the Iranian nuclear agreement an actual deal. Hundreds of retired admirals and generals don't, most of Congress (just not enough to over-ride a presidential veto) doesn't, the Israelis don't, 81% of the American people don't and most importantly, the supposed partner in the deal, the Iranians themselves, don't think this is a deal. When asked about any aspect of the deal that could be considered beneficial to the U.S. (by definition, both sides of an agreement must receive some benefit in order to make something a deal.), the Iranians adamantly deny that it is part of the agreement. It baffles me how anyone can believe that there is an agreement when one of the parties doesn't agree to any of the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to deter the progressive, "we are just smarter than you are" crowd. Their delusion is complete.