27 April 2010

"They did not want to influence the vote [with facts].”

Coyote Blog | Warren Meyer | Please Don’t Tell Us the Facts

Remember all that BS about the Obama administration only being ruled by facts and science? This is a mythology at the core of the progressive movement, that it is possible to have a wise dictator who uses the heavy hand of government coercion only for the best interests of the country, driven only by science and not by political influence.

This is of course a crock. [...]

But the myth persists, even in the face of obvious counter-examples, like this (emphasis added):
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken. “The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”

The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”

In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote — the review by the secretary’s office reportedly took less than three days — and bore a note that the analysis was not the official position of the Obama administration.
Wouldn’t want to influence a vote with actual facts.
This fraud is going to end up costing us more than whatever fast ones the Bush administration pulled with intelligence reports about Iraqi NBC weapon capability.

It's time for a good hanging.

[Edited: Or a firing squad. Whatever. Can't a guy make a hyperbolic reference to executing a white government official or some of her underlings of unknown identity — not to mention race — without people thinking he's alluding to racism?]

4 comments:

  1. I agree, but using a racial-charged phrase makes you look less credible. Drop the emotion, instead of facts+ ambiguous phrase

    ReplyDelete
  2. What's the racially charged phrase? "Hanging?" There's a reason I chose that and not "lynching." I associate the former with the treatment horse thieves and card cheats got in the West.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Um... Honestly I just associate "hanging" with mob justice (in general) or hasty military justice. It's probably because I'm too young for the civil rights era to be anything more than history to me. And because I read TJIC.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I picked up the "rope" tag from TJIC, no doubt about it.

    The UCMJ connotation isn't foremost in my mind, but I did pick up the phrase "to be hanged from the next until dead" from one WEB Griffin's military history novels, so there's that.

    ReplyDelete