“Gentlemen, I refuse to sign any pledge. I never have been drunk, and, by the blessing of God, I never will get drunk, but I have a constitutional privilege to get drunk, and that privilege I will not sign away.”

James “Chancellor” Kent

Amazing how many people discover the importance of the 2nd Amendment when something like #ferguson takes place:

It’s worth noting the body language of the woman conducting the interview.

Via Bryan Preston at PJ Media. This is the reason why it’s rather short-sighted to sign or vote away your 2nd amendment or any of your rights, you never know when you might find you have a need for them.  As John Adams put it:

Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.

Never forget without the 2nd Amendment the first amendment is just words.

Update: Exhibit B

Honesty, you may ask?

Yes, honesty. MIT’s Jonathan Gruber has been quite explicit on his position:

Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.

As Alinsky said, “A good tactic is one your people enjoy,” and Gruber must relish calling Americans “too stupid” to understand Obamacare . . . otherwise, why would he keep repeating it (h/t THS)?

Gruber’s saying he now regrets his remarks. Like a child who’s sorry they got caught, Gruber may have been surprised over the brouhaha, and regrets having been so candid since, as Pete said,

Because he understood that the media would not reveal and/or report on it.

Indeed, there’s even a Pajama Boy-lookalike at the WaPo looking at “CONTEXT”, yes, all in caps:

Keith Hennessy, which Gruber might regard as one of the great unwashed, stupid American voters, looks at Dr. Gruber’s honesty about lying [note: Gruber has a PhD in economics, not an MD or DO in medicine]. Hennessy poses four questions

1. Is Dr. Gruber right that lack of transparency was a huge political advantage in enacting ObamaCare?
2. Do Dr. Gruber’s allies in Congress and the Obama White House agree that ObamaCare cross-subsidies were intentionally obscured to avoid politically unpopular votes?
3. Do they agree with the more general principle, that some large, explicit, and transparent subsidies will be unpopular, and that the only way to enact them is to hide and obscure them?
4. If so, is it ethical to hide and obscure large cross-subsidies (or large costs), in ObamaCare and elsewhere, so they can be enacted into law? Does the end of greater redistribution justify the means of obfuscation, of lying to voters?

Hennessy answers yes to the first three, no to the fourth, but more interesting is his list of nine areas

where American economic policy hides or obscures subsidies or costs, I believe intentionally.

And that‘s where the honesty dies.

Read Hennessy’s excellent post, of course. He also says (emphasis added),

Apparently Dr. Gruber thinks it’s OK to lie to American voters when his allies are in power to enact policies that he wants but the voters wouldn’t. He then says American voters are “stupid” both for not agreeing with his value choices and for not figuring out the deception.

Which brings me to Rich Weinstein, the Mild-Mannered Investment Adviser Who’s Humiliating the Administration Over Obamacare.

Gruber, the true voice of liberal arrogance, never learned that out there among the great unwashed, stupid American voters, some are actually paying attention.

For more Gruber fetidness, the Washington Free Beacon has a YouTube, if you can stand it.

P.S., Rich Weinstein, if you’re ever in Miami, I”ll buy you lunch at Versailles.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news and culture at Fausta’s Blog. Her major medical policy was cancelled under Obamacare since she did not have pediatric dental coverage, something she didn’t need when her child was growing up.

I thought this kind of thing was considered a crime against humanity:

…troops are pressing ahead with the demolition of hundreds of homes along the border with the Gaza Strip, cutting off electricity and firing warning shots in the air in a heavy-handed campaign to evict thousands of residents from the volatile area.

I would expect the international outrage to be incredible.  These people are being permanently forced from their homes,

And the $20 grand being offered in compensation isn’t covering it:

They say the compensation process is bureaucratic and there is little time to find new housing.

One man, who requested anonymity because of safety fears, said his 70-member extended family moved from a four-story building into a single-floor space of just 1,300 square feet after they were told their home would be destroyed.

I would expect to see marches, and protest and loud speeches in the UN, at least I would if there wasn’t a word in the initial paragraph that I left out before “troops”

That word?  Egyptian.

Maybe Israel should hire out arabs next time they need to stop terrorists in Gaza & the west bank because nothing done to an Arab is going to raise any anger in the west as long as it isn’t done by a jew.

James Taylor: The chips are down. I want you to keep everything that Smith says out of all our newspapers and all the others you can line up in the state.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

Dalek: Do not deviate.

Doctor Who Destiny of the Daleks 1979

A lot of bloggers have already written plenty of words on the newly released Gruber Video extolling the virtue of tricking voters.

But there is one aspect of his words that is, in my mind, more outrageous than anything else.

It’s not the suggestion that lawmakers were trying to hide the true meaning and costs of the law. After all lawmakers have spun or twisted law for the sake of personal power, pandering or achieving particular ends since before Daniel was tossed into the Lion’s den but something more subtle.  Take another look at the clip in question.

What is implicit is the idea that said deception would be entirely successful. Why? Because he understood that the media would not reveal and/or report on it.

There is a specific reason why the Bill of Rights after explicitly protecting freedom of speech specifically mentioned the freedom of the press, it’s because the press has the power to amplify that freedom far beyond the individual. While one might be able to downplay or defame an individual making a claim such tactics are considerably less effective when applying them to a press organization (although in fairness the administration has done their best when it comes to Fox News).

Because of that explicitly granted privilege the press has an obligation to honestly and accurately report the goings on of government in order that the people deciding who shall rule them can make their decision based on the merits.

That the press didn’t do their job in reporting on this deception is despicable but the fact that the administration and their allies took it as rote that said press act in that fashion should be a matter of personal disgrace to any person who claims the Constitutional protections of a journalist.

Postscript. That being said this report was almost a given:

Since the video was uploaded, the major English and Spanish broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision, and Telemundo have chosen not to cover this devastating video on either their morning or evening newscasts.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Update: Dave Weigel’s piece about the fellow who first posted the clip makes my point:

Weinstein, back at home, was stunned at the reaction. Why did he keep finding Gruber gaffes? Why didn’t the press glom onto this stuff first?

“It’s terrifying that the guy in his mom’s basement is finding his stuff, and nobody else is,” he says. “I really do find this disturbing.”

No it’s the difference between making an effort to find something and making an effort to not find them.
Update 2: Glenn Reynolds answers the question from Dave Weigel’s piece on why the press didn’t glom onto this stuff:
If the Gruber video had come out before the election, would the GOP have picked up Virginia and New Hampshire? Quite possibly.
Democrats with Bylines indeed.

There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.