New term: 'Grubering' and how it applies to Climate Alarmism

WUWT reader M. Paul writes: Sometimes a new word emerges that neatly encapsulates a set of complex ideas.  We have recently seen such a word enter the lexicon: Grubering.

For those of you who missed it, an MIT Professor named  Jonathan Gruber has been caught on video describing all the various ways that he helped the Obama Administration to deceive the public regarding the true nature of Obamacare.


People are now referring to what the Obamacare campaigners did as “Grubering”.  Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative.  The justification for Grubering  is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion.  Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics can possibly know what’s best of the little people.  Jefferson would be turning in his grave.

I think that no other word describes what we have seen in the climate debate quite as well as Grubering.  The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations.  There are many discussion about how the public could not possibly understand such a complex subject.

The late Steven Schneider puts it succinctly:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Our critics sometimes dismiss skeptics as “conspiracy theorists” noting how unlikely it would be that thousands of  scientists would collude.   They miss the point.  We now know that Grubering takes place — we see it laid bare in the Obamacare campaign.  It was not strictly a “conspiracy”.  Rather it was an arrogant belief that lying was necessary to persuade a “stupid” public to adopt the policy preferences of the politicians and the academics in their employ.  Its Noble Cause Corruption, not conspiracy, that is at the root of this behavior.

“Climate Grubering” — its a powerful new word that can help us to describe what’s been going on.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 16, 2014 4:56 am

So now there are Denialists, skeptics, warmists, alarmists and Gruberists.

Reply to  edward
November 16, 2014 7:25 am

Actually, there are just two camps: Liars and non-liars. Gruberists are the liars.

Reply to  RockyRoad
November 16, 2014 8:32 am

Rocky I agree but liars get caught eventually because they forget what they said last time. Truth comes naturally and doesn’t need such memory. Something most of us learn young, and, it seems, some never do.

David A
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 16, 2014 10:12 am

Noble cause corruption does exist, but yes, the liars are in many cases simply greedy money grubbing power hungry individuals, invested, ego wise and monetarily in green energy, political power and personal prestige. Nothing nobel about that.

george e. smith
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 16, 2014 1:09 pm

So Martha Stewart got thrown in Jail for “lying” to “The Government” (about something that is none of their business).
So hasn’t Gruber lied to the Congress of the United States, in what he has presented to them as Obamacare, and told them it contains ?
Even Nancy Pelosi seems to have been taken in by his lies, and you know what a stickler for the truth that she is.
Seems like Gruber should be headed for jail sometime, considering how much his lies have cost virtually all of us (American taxpayers).

Reply to  RockyRoad
November 16, 2014 3:05 pm

Noble cause corruption does not exist. Corruption is never noble. Noble is having the courage to do the right thing, no matter the consequences for yourself. Corruption is lying and cheating for your own benefit.

Reply to  RockyRoad
November 17, 2014 5:23 am

Thomas, it’s the cause that is noble, not the corruption.

Reply to  RockyRoad
November 17, 2014 10:01 am

I think the name of the two camps are Gruberists who think they lie for the greater good and Truth tellers who tell the truth for the wrong (according to the Gruberists) reasons.

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  edward
November 16, 2014 8:56 am

A fine and apparently necessary addition. Bravo.

William Astley
Reply to  oebele bruinsma
November 16, 2014 10:51 am

The problem with using the word ‘Grubering’ as a label is it’s meaning is different depending on your core beliefs, it confuses the underlying problems/issues with allowing and/or encouraging ‘climate change’ white lies/propaganda . Some people believe Grubering is necessary.
The Obama administration believes ‘white’ lies are OK if the objective is worthy. Most people would agree that health care is a worthy objective. The question is how much it will cost, who pays, and what are the most effective systems to provide it.
From the Obama administration’s standpoint (and many democrats) Gruber’s fault then is not the white lie, but rather bragging that he lied, not keeping his mouth shut, not effectively hiding the lie.
The skeptic’s issue with ‘cimate change’, ‘white lies’, is lying/propaganda, data/analysis manipulation and so on makes it impossible to make an informed decision. What is the nature of the ‘climate change’ policy problem(s) that do or do not need to be addressed, changes how much money should be spent on the problem(s) in question.
Almost $2 trillion dollars has been spent on green scams and climate change.
What is the benefit that we have received for the $2 trillion dollar expenditure? Is there less climate change? Did the planet get colder? If the planet got colder, is that a good thing or bad thing?
The logical best policy for all countries is different if there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. There is a limited amount of GDP to spend on everything. Less money spent on AGW leaves more money to spend on health care, education, roads, bridges, research and so on. Spending more and more money on AGW is not win-win.
Our second issue is the green scams do not work, even if there is an extreme AGW problem to solve. The problem is the ‘greens’ irrationally hate nuclear power which is the long term solution. There is roughly a billion years of fissionable material using fourth generation nuclear reactors.

November 16, 2014 4:59 am

I know a baby food called Gurber./Gerber.
So that’s what we get fed by those whose care we are in.
Here comes the aeroplane open wide.

Joe Public
Reply to  Twobob
November 16, 2014 5:25 am

More apposite in this context: “So that’s what we get spoon-fed by those whose care we are in.”

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Twobob
November 16, 2014 6:39 am

It’s warmista pablum

Skeptic Tank
Reply to  Twobob
November 16, 2014 9:34 am

More like dog food.
Or, dog …

November 16, 2014 5:03 am

I somewhat agree with Edward. I think the term is absolutely fair, but overuse will justify use of the other terms like denier. I suspect I’ll use the new term, but sparingly and only in specific cases where the record supports it.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Merrick
November 16, 2014 6:51 am

I don’t think the crooks need any excuses to use the ‘D’ word

Quinn the Eskimo
November 16, 2014 5:03 am

Don’t forget the MoneyGrubers.

The Mighty Quinn
Reply to  Quinn the Eskimo
November 16, 2014 1:00 pm

Democrats paid Gruber, a heretofore respected Ivy League professor, $400,000 to lie to the American people. How many “respected scientists” did Democrats buy for tens of billions of dollars of climate science grants?

November 16, 2014 5:04 am

Climate Grubering certainly seems to have a long tradition of being the weapon of choice for the members of the Green Blob [h/t on the latter to the U.K.’s former Environment Secretary – who has seen both the blight and the light – Owen Paterson]

Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
November 16, 2014 6:14 am

Here is the earlier Grubering. These people know full well what they are doing, and prefer to call sceptics nasty names. They know they are telling fairy tales and exaggerations.

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
Al Gore
It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

November 16, 2014 5:06 am

Some years ago, when Brinkley was still hosting the Sunday morning show, the topic of bias in the media came up. George Will said something very close to “If I were to give my good friend Sam Donaldson truth serum, attache him to a lie detector, and ask if there is bias in the media he would reply “No!” and pass the test. The reason is it is not a conspiracy, but something much worse, a consensus.” He was not using “consensus” in quite the same way the “science is settled” folks are, but more along the lines of an agreement on how things should be. Whether health care or CAGW, we see much the same “consensus.” Or “Grubering” though I prefer the term “being Gored” in the area of climate.

Reply to  Tregonsee
November 16, 2014 6:03 am

Was Gore Grubering or was Gruber just Goreing us?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 6:42 am

The truth was Gored

Leo Smith
Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 9:31 am

Gruber was Goebbelsing us…
Goebbels warming…

Third Party
Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 9:34 am


Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 7:44 pm

Feeding us Goebbelsdegook..

Reply to  Tregonsee
November 16, 2014 12:20 pm

George Will was trying to be polite. Here are some other words and phrases that more directly suggest what is going on:
mob psychology
moral posturing
heresy trials
political pressure
political correctness
political orthodoxy
competitive praying in public
In all cases, speakers face an incentive structure where they are under pressure to show that they are “well intended”. In the case of AGW, the reporters, and artists, and academics need to show that they “care about our precious mother earth”, and are willing to challenge the “greedy overconsumers”. If they fail to do that they are obviously in the pay of the Koch brothers.
That is largely how the “consensus” has been achieved.

Reply to  TYoke
November 16, 2014 12:29 pm

I forgot to include words like banishment, shunning, excommunication. Politically derived “consensus” is a human dynamic that has been around for a few thousand years.

Reply to  Tregonsee
November 16, 2014 8:19 pm

Good post, Tregonsee. I once read an interview with a college senior who was asked why she chose Journalism for a major. She replied, “Because I want to make a difference.” This was accepted as a perfectly logical answer. This implies that journalism is all about opinion. Opinion is fine – but only on the editorial page.
Also see Plato’s Noble Lie, Machiavellianism and Taqiyya. Although the first two primarily deal with politics, the concepts also work well for any persuasive argument – especially with uncritical individuals. In my beloved South it translates to “Just say anything to win, Bubba!”
Could it be said that you were ‘Gored’ by a ‘Gruberist’?

Mike Mangan
November 16, 2014 5:06 am

Once again the key component is the mass media. CBS, NBC, ABC ad nauseum are barely mentioning Gruber. The mass media blithely gives credibility to the relatively small team of hyper-partisan “climate scientists” without ever really investigating their claims. If reporters, editors, and journalists hadn’t abdicated responsibility for the last 40 years, millions of low information American voters would not have been Gruberized.

Reply to  Mike Mangan
November 16, 2014 7:49 am

And the mass media is not mentioning House Dem leader Nancy Pelosi, who recently claims she never heard of him. “I don’t know who [Gruber] is,” “Pelosi told reporters Thursday. “He didn’t help write our bill”
From an earlier quote off a video of her mentioning him: “I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange…”
She most likely worked with him in writing the bill.

Mike H
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 16, 2014 9:20 am

And the admin paid $400k for some guy who “didn’t help write our bill”

Reply to  Mike Mangan
November 16, 2014 1:03 pm

All politicized media behaves in the same manner, that is, ignoring or downplaying whatever upsets their party line… while trumpeting with earnest frivolity their most rigorous commitment to the highest standards of impartiality.
Nothing unusual here.
Besides, all politicians lie… constantly.
Nothing unusual here either.
What Jonathan Gruber got caught running his mouth. It’s fine that he is now made to “pay” for his imbecility but it demonstrates nothing new about politicians or politics.

Dunham Cobb
November 16, 2014 5:07 am

I love it. From here on out, when I am called a denier, I now have an equally immature, insipid and jejune response. Thank you Mr. Gruber!!

November 16, 2014 5:13 am

This is by far the site that has the done most to turn the tide against AGW. Just to clear things up. It is obvious, never thought I had to say it. But thank you Mr Watts LOL My point is that John Coleman got onto the MSM and got a somewhat lukewarm message across successfully. Imagine when the stuff here gets to MSM it will really open the Pandoras box required LOL

Reply to  Eliza
November 16, 2014 6:04 am

The MSM will make sure this ‘stuff’ never gets there and have been doing so for decades.

November 16, 2014 5:18 am

“segregates”? This is a verb, not a noun. Perhaps you mean surrogates.

Reply to  jim
November 16, 2014 9:04 am

Same paragraph: probably intended to say “what’s best /for/ the little people.”

November 16, 2014 5:27 am

3rd paragraph — “segregates”??? how about “surrogates”

Jerry Henson
November 16, 2014 5:33 am

I teach my grand children that “consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one.
The example I use is “George Washington was bled three times on the day he died.” If it had not been the “consensus” of the medical community that bloodletting was the proper treatment, he might still be alive today.—Sarc

Pierre DM
November 16, 2014 5:42 am

Grubering is a big part of Chicago style politics. Lean on people you want corroboration from with personal destruction for them and their families using certain agencies under the auspices of this administration for the “greater good”. Almost had this style of politics in 1960 but the Kennedy’s wouldn’t play ball. When you keep that in mind you can understand how trusted agencies seem to be doing things that are counter to the way they have always done things in the past. Basic shakedown method.
You have people in high places grubering whom would not normally do so, including in the media. I would put more faith in the climate data if there wasn’t a Chicago politician in the WH. It’s not working too well in foreign affairs. With the election there is now blood in the water, we will see what happens.

November 16, 2014 5:43 am

Grubering is essentially an euphemism for the Government — Academic – Media Complex
To sell the naturally conservative and skeptical public on something which you as the all-knowing academic know in your “head of heads” tpo be true or at least should be true — you exaggerate and then use the gullible “useless idiots” of the media to do your PR — the benefit is lots of gov’e $ in research and consulting grants and the creation of more “Grubers” to carry on your foul legacy.
Thanks to Jon’s arrogance — we’ve seen it exposed for all its worth — in his case you can supplement the MIT profs sallary with at least $2M in state and Fed contracts

November 16, 2014 5:44 am

I thought nouns and verbs were fully interchangable in american English.

Reply to  Greg
November 16, 2014 5:45 am

Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to Jim, above.

Reply to  Greg
November 16, 2014 6:07 am

Amazing thing about the American english language.
It’s so versatile.

Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 1:05 pm


November 16, 2014 5:49 am

Oh, no. Not strictly a “conspiracy”… just a large number of conspirators following the ‘policy preferences’ line and telling lies to hoodwink the public for an agenda outcome.
Maybe ‘Treasoning’ would be a better description.

November 16, 2014 5:55 am

November 16, 2014 at 5:06 am
Some years ago, when Brinkley was still hosting the Sunday morning show, the topic of bias in the
Simply put “Group Think”

Jerry Henson
November 16, 2014 5:58 am

MIT must be soo proud.

Reply to  Jerry Henson
November 16, 2014 7:28 am

After how they suppressed their initial results in cold fusion, this is nothing new for MIT.

Reply to  Jerry Henson
November 16, 2014 8:38 am

Chomsky is a hard act to follow.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Harold
November 16, 2014 2:18 pm

Who’d Want to?

November 16, 2014 6:00 am

Grubering is a great term. Makes me think of Monty Python’s “Are you embarrassed easily?”

Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2014 6:03 am

I like it. Additionally, we would have the nouns Climate Gruberism, and Climate Gruberist(s), and the verb to Climate Gruber and the past tense Climate Grubered.

November 16, 2014 6:06 am

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Found a list of quotations on Global Warming Catastrophic Climate Change on this site;

Reply to  MikeH
November 16, 2014 9:57 am
Good list. More at that site pointing out hypocrisy and lies from the CAGW crowd.

Reply to  MikeH
November 16, 2014 12:51 pm

Terrific list. Recommend to everyone. The quote most relevant to “Grubering” that I saw was this one:
Quote by Club of Rome: “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

Reply to  TYoke
November 17, 2014 9:05 am

I would guess that is the same argument that all technocrats(technocrazis) throughout history have always used.

November 16, 2014 6:09 am

The only surprise (to me anyway) with Jonathan Gruber is that he admitted on camera that he had lied as he did. I am not surprised that most Americans are too stupid to understand that. I am also not surprised that Dr. Trenberth and others in his coterie lie to people they think are too stupid or malleable to call them on it. After a few years working as a legal aid attorney, I have seen and heard too much to have any faith whatsoever in the American people. Most of my clients were* too dumb to figure their way out of a paper bag, much less figure out how to make a rent payment on time. How could anyone expect them to recognize the political lies they are fed?
*In my cynicism, I have moved on to private practice. Hopefully, the clientele will improve at least a little. Sorry for the rant.

Michael 2
Reply to  starzmom
November 16, 2014 8:11 am

Agreed. I.Q. 100 means *average* and that means half are below it (and half above it). Certain employments will tend to put you in contact with one half or the other disproportionately. Academics live in a bubble as also legal aid attorneys. Might be the same bubble — if you have a high I.Q. you *might* be stuck in a university but more likely gainfully employed somewhere doing something with your mind.
Good computer programmers tend to consistently be above 100 in my opinion since the computer is dispassionate; it doesn’t care about your politics, only your correctness.

Ian W
Reply to  Michael 2
November 16, 2014 9:20 am

Do not confuse high IQ with not being stupid. Academics manage to take stupidity to an art form, or as Stephen Vizinczey, stated in “An Innocent Millionaire”:

Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it.

Dr Gruber please note.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Michael 2
November 16, 2014 9:37 am

Umm. the mean is not always the median..
Consider 10 people with 1Qs of 50, and 20 with IQs of 125
the average IQ is 100, but most people are (a lot) more intelligent than 100.

Reply to  Michael 2
November 16, 2014 11:20 am

IQ 100 is median by definition. We can call that average IQ as well, since IQ score distribution assumes symmetry.
However, you get slightly different IQ scores depending on how you measure the assumed ‘intelligency’. So it is not mathematically precise distribution.

James Loux
Reply to  Michael 2
November 16, 2014 3:24 pm

IQ is a measurement of an individual’s capacity to reason and understand, not their knowledge of facts. An individual’s IQ can be measured at any age and normally stays fairly steady throughout one’s life, increasing some from the benefit of one’s life experiences.
Do not confuse high IQ with success in Academia. High IQ is not required and may not even be compatible with staying in an Academic environment. Those with high IQ often struggle to keep staying there and instead move to a more compatible place to work and to achieve their goals.
Sorry, not even close. As noted by Hugh, IQ is a ranking of individuals based on the scores of these individuals on an IQ test. IQ 100 is the ranking given to the individuals who achieved a score that is the median of all of the scores. Assuming that the scores fall into a normal distribution, every 15 points in each direction is one standard deviation from this median. So a ranking of IQ 115 states that 15.9% of the individuals achieved scores higher and an IQ 85 ranking states that 15.9% of the individuals scored lower.
Gruber laughed about the deception at conferences of like minded folks, and they laughed with him. He excused his comments by noting that they were made at these “academic conferences,” indicating that the comments were not made for the common folk to hear, but only the other elite, clearly in order to improve his image among his peers. IQ has nothing to do with it. Grubering is the simple ego-centered belief that one is superior to others and should run their lives for them. It festers where other like minded egoists can encourage each other with little interference from realtiy. And it describes the Climate Alarmism Community perfectly.

Michael 2
Reply to  James Loux
November 16, 2014 8:06 pm

James Loux wrote “IQ is a measurement of an individual’s capacity to reason and understand, not their knowledge of facts”
It is necessarily both. I agree with you in principle but in practice one must possess some skills and knowledge to permit being tested. It also assumes, I think, that the person being tested wishes to get the highest score possible.

Reply to  Michael 2
November 16, 2014 4:09 pm

Gotta agree.
Some people are so smart they’re stupid. Nothing like the circular reinforcement that comes from believing that $100K student debt shoes how smart you are, cos, you know, took a lot of smarts to get that far in the red.
If you majored in the Liberal Arts, or that other pseudo science ‘Sociology’, then you are even smarter-er, than the Business Majors. Cos if you get tenure, you can get other students to pay off your student debt.
Gotta love that money go around.
“There are Liers, Damn Liers, and then there are Grubers”

Coach Springer
Reply to  starzmom
November 16, 2014 8:17 am

Well, many, and maybe most, understand they are lying. And we are just stupid enough to accept it as necessary as long as it’s for our own good or addresses a primal fear like weather and the lack of control of it. It “helps” to think the other side is lying too. Fortunately, reality intrudes – but on its own schedule.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  starzmom
November 16, 2014 9:37 am

This only proves that an electorate allowed to vote their choice, stupid as much of it may be, still produces a better political economy than the high IQ tyrants and central planning paternalists of the 20th Century whose ugly works are hanging out for all to see. Careful in your cynicism that you don’t opt for someone like Gruber or Stalin to do your voting for you.
Rather than endorsing Gruberism, don’t you think a nice alternative would be to have as choices for the voter as upstanding and thoughtful candidates as we can get? And if any of them are somewhat lacking, that the other side will be busy pointing out their flaws, dishonesty, hypocracy, etc. It works and is far superior to the “smart” people making choices for us. The USA came to be the greatest nation in the world by giving freedom to all and sundry to do. This freedom to do, created the world’s economic engine for 7 billion people who have taken freely, if reluctantly from the USA.
It is why the rest of the world, largely of the Gruber, elitest persuasion, abhors and denigrates the US. It is why world institutions are set up to put the USA down and stop this mighty engine so that they can carry on with their elitist plans for people, including you Mr/Ms Starzmom. This of course would make you an officer of the state, but what the heck, you would be run by smart people. Full disclosure, I’m not even from the USA.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 16, 2014 9:43 am

November 16, 2014 at 6:09 am
My rant above was for starzmom

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 16, 2014 1:44 pm

My take runs somewhere between yours and Starzmom. I don’t doubt her stories from the legal aid society. However, that in no way implies support for turning our liberties over to an “elite” set of central planners.
The problem is that human being have a very strong tendency towards deluding themselves about their own “good intentions”. Granting unaccountable power to central planners is a virtual guarantee of vile despotism.
There is a reason that bad administration is historically associated with slave owners, nursing homes, mental institutions, foster homes, juvenile reformatories, and autocracies of all kinds. In all cases, the governed are powerless to change their governance. They have no liberties that their masters are obliged to respect. Not coincidentally, in every one of those cases above, those with power are nearly always certain that their mastery is appropriate and relatively benign.
The best guarantee of good governance is still limited government and a strong Bill of Rights, imperfect though it may be.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 16, 2014 2:37 pm

I was not endorsing Gruber’s actions at all. I am only bemoaning the fact that too many people bought what he was selling, either because they are too dumb to see it for what it was, or because his means achieved their ends. Sadly, the people who will bear the brunt of the negative aspects of obamacare will be the less well off, while the elitists like Gruber either have enough money that they don’t care, or they will have carefully excluded themselves from the law to begin with.
It would be nice in this country to have more choices in candidates, and to have a media that is at least nominally neutral in its treatment of candidates and parties. But we don’t have either, and likely never will.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 16, 2014 2:58 pm

I largely agree with TYoke above. I don’t want to see the elitists we have seen recently telling us what is good for us. The problem is that there are many–legal aid clients and other welfare recipients on one hand, and elitists who want to take care of them on another–who see governance by elitism as the only way to accomplish their goals. We will suffer for that.
For what it’s worth, while I was at legal aid I rarely talked with a client who understood that his or her problems were mostly his or her own fault. Most expected that if they called a lawyer, everything would be fixed to their satisfaction. Sorry, if you can’t or don’t pay the rent you cannot live there anymore.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 17, 2014 9:20 am

November 16, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“I was not endorsing Gruber’s actions at all. I am only bemoaning the fact that too many people bought what he was selling, either because they are too dumb to see it for what it was, or because his means achieved their ends.”
The American public did not elect Obama because of Grubering but because of free stuff.
Or in other words, because of their rational self-interest. All socialists I know personally are piss poor and incapable of handling money (exactly like their idol Marx). OF COURSE they hate capitalism; they’re not good at it.
And isn’t it perfectly rational to want to destroy a system in which you keep losing?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 17, 2014 3:45 pm

This reply is to DirkH. You’re right. Gruber, among other things, convinced people that they were going to get something for free or at least at a lower price–health insurance. Those folks contacted their elected representatives and put pressure on them. As it turns out, the people who were getting free health care still are–through Medicaid. Everybody else who pushed for it has found their bills going up, because Gruber lied. It was just one part of the free stuff people were going to get.

Reply to  starzmom
November 16, 2014 7:42 pm

Yeah, it was called the uninformed voter.
This why Dems want to make it mandatory to vote- how else how going get every last
stupid voter to the polls.

November 16, 2014 6:36 am

Not sure that adding a name to a tactic mankind has long used is really helpful. Grubering, exaggeration, spin, swift boating (what is that? No don’t tell me I don’t really care), Oreskes’ ‘merchants of doubt’, argumentum ad verecundiam, they’re all labels for the art of persuading people to do things your way.
If there’s one rule to the game that warmists should have remembered it is ‘don’t lie if there’s a chance the subject will find out the truth before they sign on the dotted line’. Since AGW is for ever and not just for Christmas, they should, for the first time ever, have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

November 16, 2014 6:37 am

The definition of Grubering should be the inadvertent admission of deceptive political strategy. Politicians almost always lie about their motives for pushing a policy, but we rarely get them on camera bragging about it.

Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2014 6:37 am

segregates ? surrogates?

Bloke down the pub
November 16, 2014 6:42 am
November 16, 2014 6:47 am

I love the quote “double ethical bind” was that guy serious? He succinctly nailed it. They think what they are doing is ethical.
I believe Orwell called it doublethink.

Reply to  LogosWrench
November 16, 2014 6:50 am

Why use Grubering when we already have demagogue?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  LogosWrench
November 16, 2014 6:57 am

It was just his way of saying that the ends (“saving the planet”) justify the means (lying). Down that road lies totalitarianism.

November 16, 2014 6:51 am

Gruber thought he was in a “safe” environment, so the truth was told far better than in front of a grand jury under oath. The “safe” environment was just a routine meeting of high-level academics. I can imagine the audience barely nodding & shrugging their shoulders, whispering (like the TV insurance commercial) — “Everybody knows that…”
Reminds me of the FBI agent that infiltrated some communist organization and was told “15-20 million Americans would have to be “taken care of” after the revolution”, and the other communists casually nodding and murmuring agreement.

November 16, 2014 6:51 am

there is no need for a new word. We already have LIAR and the term “snake oil salesman”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  cnxtim
November 16, 2014 7:05 am

Except that it is more nuanced, more descriptive than the word liar, and the phrase snake oil salesman applies to dirtbags like Gore.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2014 10:12 am

Grubering also implies the deliberate obfuscation of legislation so it can’t be criticized. That’s why the word is a worthy addition.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2014 7:35 pm

“Grubering also implies the deliberate obfuscation of legislation so it can’t be criticized. That’s why the word is a worthy addition.”
Ok, but do we throw him is prison, or does he get a talk show?

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 16, 2014 6:53 am

Jonathan Gruber has demonstrated his worth, but his direct family and relatives have little choice. Bet there are also many unrelated individuals, not limited to Germany and Austria only, feeling vicarious embarrassment towards this man. No need to add insult to injury in their case. So, I vote against this one, sorry.

Reply to  Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 16, 2014 7:08 am

Yeah, well, maybe he should have thought of that before he ushered his name into this infamy, don’t you think?

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  JohnWho
November 16, 2014 8:05 am

In my opinion the chances of Jonathan Gruber giving any dignity to others are close to nil. Is it worth slandering the most common surname in Austria because of him?

Michael 2
Reply to  Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 16, 2014 8:14 am

It happens. Adolph Hitler cannot be the only person on Earth with a surname “Hitler”. Well, maybe NOW he is/was. How many people want to be named Lenin or Stalin?
But other readers have pointed out that the techniques are well known and identified in George Orwell’s “1984” (and its cousin, “Animal Farm”).

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Michael 2
November 16, 2014 10:35 am

Stalin was a nickname meaning “man of steel”, sort of like Superman. His given last name was Jughashvili.
As you said, it happens. Look at the occupation named after “Fighting Joe” Hooker, or
the syndrome named after Dr Downs
or the term for murdering someone by suffocation- named after grave robber and murder William Burke.

November 16, 2014 7:00 am

FYI – there are now online 6 different “Gruber” speeches that debase the USA voters. He did mean it.

Reply to  CPIIESF7
November 16, 2014 9:54 am

Was there any doubt?

jim on
November 16, 2014 7:01 am

My apologies, I forgot it was 1984. It makes perfect sense that the great communicator, Obama would use “segregators” to dispense newspeak and that nouns and verbs are interchangeable. I quess Gruber really is “relatable”.

Jerry Henson
November 16, 2014 7:02 am

Jaakko, Gruber is responsible for damage to his family’s name. To “Gruber” has entered the lexicon and I believe it will and should have a long life.

November 16, 2014 7:07 am

Uh, but will the “stupid” public be able to figure out that they’ve been deceived or will only the “not so stupid” folks figure it out?

November 16, 2014 7:25 am

Große Lüge, (German for big lie) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Hitler asserted the technique was used by Jews to unfairly blame Germany’s loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff. (Source – Wikipedia)
So now we have Große-Lüging or Grubering for short….

Reply to  saltspringson
November 16, 2014 8:41 am

In American English, we have “gross loogy” which is roughly the same thing. Something one spits out, and you don’t want to step in it.

Reply to  saltspringson
November 16, 2014 9:25 am

… and he learned the technique from the Woodrow Wilson era Progressives in the US a decade before.

Reply to  nielszoo
November 17, 2014 9:23 am

to be precise, from Edward Bernays, advisor of Wilson and inventor of modern Propaganda.

November 16, 2014 7:33 am

The last election proves most “stupid voters” aren’t as dumb as grubface

Reply to  John piccirilli
November 16, 2014 10:18 am

Democrats didn’t turn out… Republicans did. Hmmm…

November 16, 2014 7:37 am

This kind of addition to the English lexicon is like having too many passwords to remember. It drives me batty. I prefer “propaganda”. I just don’t have brain space for all the new ways to talk about ancient concepts. That said, I do like using the phrase “Mannian graphing techniques” when I criticize inappropriate or unmarked splicing of two differently derived value sets.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 16, 2014 9:04 am

He deserves total public condemnation from US taxpayers.
Leave his name on it
Personalize it.
Shame the man.
Ridicule the man.
Say it often and say it loud..
Some more fuel for the US House to add to the fire.
Like Gleick, Jones, Mann and the rest of the team, they wear dishonesty as a badge of courage.
Progressives have no shame.
The problem is the only stupid, ignorant, dummy citizens voting on ACA were elected politicians in congress.
The US Congress was Gruberized and they accept it happily.

Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 10:02 am


John in Oz
Reply to  mikerestin
November 16, 2014 11:59 am

Keeping the names of the Gruberists to the fore has not worked so far as Gore, Mann and the like are still held up as experts. Only Mann seems to be dropping in the popularity stakes but he is still out peddling his wares to the gullible.

November 16, 2014 7:39 am

So far, no one has drawn the obvious conclusion that this past week has been Obamacare’s #GruberGate, which is a thing on Twitter by the way.

November 16, 2014 7:40 am

Also, WUWT will have to add “Gruber” to the Tag Cloud.

Reply to  mscontrarianscientist
November 16, 2014 8:23 am

And GruberGate.

Reply to  mscontrarianscientist
November 16, 2014 8:43 am

And “Gruberish”. As in “speaking Gruberish”.

Reply to  Harold
November 16, 2014 9:26 am


Old Data
Reply to  Harold
November 16, 2014 5:58 pm

I prefer gruberish – nonsense with the clear intent to deceive.

November 16, 2014 7:44 am

Sorry to submit all these shorter comments–should have rolled them into one. But, the main benefit of the term “Gruber” is that millions of Americans now grok that they’ve been lied to by the government deliberately. The term is at or near the top of Twitter for a week now. People that have not yet understood that AGW is a hoax may now “get it.” So, I definitely vote for using the term “Gruber” as it relates to climate.

Paul Courtney
November 16, 2014 7:48 am

“Grubering”, trendy but after a few more weeks of burying this story, people may not get it. I’ll stay with the old technical terms-“climate goobering”.

Mark Bofill
November 16, 2014 7:49 am

People in the public sphere have not yet adapted to the reach of detail, accuracy, and longevity that the internet gives the masses in researching prior positions. I think even some politicians who ought to have known better have been stung by this.

November 16, 2014 7:49 am

A key characteristic of Gruberism is, of course, contemptuous arrogance. And what better example of that is there than Gruber’s own comic book he wrote in which he casts himself as a superhero that single-handedly rescues the American health care system using his superior smart powers.

November 16, 2014 8:02 am

I really hate this stuff. One of the reasons I have been skeptical about climate alarmism for years is precisely because we have been treated like mushrooms — kept in the dark and fed manure, as the old joke goes. Do the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age present a problem to the warming narrative? Solution: make them disappear!
What makes this even worse is that politicians of all stripes and sides do this. “Being economical with the truth” isn’t just a Dem or warmist bad habit. Nobody to turn to, in the political arena, if you actually were to be so silly as to want a politician to speak reasonably accurately and truthfully.

November 16, 2014 8:05 am

I think I get it now. Those who do not posses a college degree are considered ignorant, those who do are considered “properly programmed”. Unless they disagree with the consensus, which classifies them as “doubters” and therefore dangerous.

November 16, 2014 8:07 am

Point of fact, the American public was not all aboard with the ACA, It was the politicians who passed it, less than half of the electorate was supportive of its passage.
Same with the bailouts, the public largely opposed them, but panicked politicians passed the legislation anyway.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Sam Grove
November 16, 2014 8:38 am

True in many respects, but Grubering was the deflection of valid criticism and critical thought that could have otherwise stopped the political act. Which brings us back to climate agreements, EPA executive actions, and government grant and department scientific Grubering. It still works for their purposes.
The point is to seize the initiative and require proof not that you might be wrong, but that you are wrong and are not trying to do good. Climate is the perfect topic for Gruberng. That healthcare Gruber only lasted until the delays of implementation started to wear off.

November 16, 2014 8:08 am

Grubering? Let’s not forget Goreboring and Mannipulated.

Reply to  Peter Miller
November 16, 2014 11:11 am

You find Gore boring too?

Old Data
Reply to  Peter Miller
November 16, 2014 6:02 pm

Or mann-bare-pigging.

November 16, 2014 8:14 am

I like Grubering in regards to trying to sell CAGW. I think it will stick (I hope it will).
Climate Grubering, I’ll be using that.
The first time I heard the term was this morning. (and by the way “Meet The Press” this Sun morning did mention Jonathan Gruber, talking about Obamacare)

November 16, 2014 8:18 am

In fairness,I disagree with the comparison, although explaining why is difficult. There is a difference between lying to reach a policy outcome (bad, more state-run healthcare) and lying about science that does not exist. Both are terrible, but the second is much worse

November 16, 2014 8:18 am

In fairness,I disagree with the comparison, although explaining why is difficult. There is a difference between lying to reach a policy outcome (bad, more state-run healthcare) and lying about science that does not exist. Both are terrible, but the second is much worse

November 16, 2014 8:21 am

Grubering is like making fun of your victim, after jamming something unpleasant down their throat. It reminds me of the recent “cowardly” and “chickensh**” remarks made about Israeli PM Netanyahu. they were aying that he had been too cowardly to nuke Iran, and now it is too late.
Bullies and thugs get enjoyment out of bullying people. It’s hard for them NOT to brag about it. Notice that (D)irtbags will acknowledge that politicians are liars, even that (D) politicians are liars – they seem to take pride that their guys are better liars than (R)s.

November 16, 2014 8:23 am

BTW, I deeply appreciate being able to comment without giving up identification info.

Reply to  jeff
November 16, 2014 10:30 am

Agreed. Too many websites are run by control freaks.

November 16, 2014 8:26 am

Algore has been feeding the public Green Gruber Pellets for many years. GGPs are really rabbit excrement coated with green slime. Liberals can’t discern their true nature, and cheerfully beg for more.

Reply to  Scizzorbill
November 16, 2014 8:45 am

Soylent Gruber. It’s made of … porkies.

November 16, 2014 8:27 am

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Very apt: What Dr. Gruber and his allies did to sell healthcare is just like what Al Gore, Michael Mann, Paul Krugman, and other climate alarmists do to sell the global warming/climate change/WE’RE ALL DOOMED!! scare. In their view, we’re too stupid to understand that (in their minds) the policies they advocate are for the best, so they have to lie to us to get us to agree.

November 16, 2014 8:32 am

On CBS “Face the Nation” they just played clips of Gruber Grubering.
That really surprised me. Maybe there is hope for the skeptic view in the MSM.
They didn’t mention the word Grubering however.

November 16, 2014 8:36 am

Gruber: a type of porky.

November 16, 2014 8:39 am

The public still thinks a holy man in the sky controls their lives, A nasty guy in hell is going to torture them for eternity and that they were all created equal. When you got minds that are so easily manipulated is that, how do you expect them to suss out the nuanced differences in political policy?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom
November 16, 2014 2:19 pm

Tom, you sort of hope that the opposing parties themselves will delve into things to reveal dishonesty, hypocrisy, lies….in each other. People who care and know a few things are more likely to vote and many of those that Gruber is trying save despite their stupidity are less likely to vote. Hey the system works and if they were mistaken, they get to throw out the mistake. The US has beaten the rest of the world hands down and most of the earth’s citizens have their leaders chosen for them. You wouldn’t suggest that an academic elite is going to choose what’s best for you are you? When the Stalin types get voted in, they are the only choice on the ballot. Stop being so statistical and sociological.

November 16, 2014 8:46 am

Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday promulgated the “97% of scientists” lie this morning. Through ignorance, I hope.
Twitter #FNS

Old England
November 16, 2014 8:48 am

Your description and explanation of ‘Grubering’ is a perfect match for the whole approach to governance (Ruling) within the EU.
The Unelected Eurocrats who run the EU believe that you cannot trust the electorate to make the right decisions and as an extension of that you cannot allow the elected representatives, Members of the European Parliament, to have the final decision on EU Laws. They might be swayed by their voters and reach the ‘wrong’ decision that is at odds with the unelected and unaccountable Eurocrats.
On the odd occasion when the public have been allowed a say on a key EU issue, such as their country remaining in the EU or signing up to a new treaty giving more sovereignty away to the unelected, then when the public vote the ‘wrong way’ they are forced to have referendum after referendum until they eventually vote the ‘right way’.
That is the left-wing technocrat approach, epitomised by the UN and ‘climate change’ that will destroy democracy amongst western nations if we are not all very careful. You have begun to experience that in the US with Obama using the EPA to side-step democracy and in effect force carbon legislation to suit his and the UN’s agenda.
Grubering, yes I like that word and it ‘sounds’ right.

November 16, 2014 8:52 am

Here’s a less than 1 minute video which helps explain Grubering:

Bill Illis
November 16, 2014 8:53 am

Bishop Hill has a really good post today that goes a long way toward explaining this issue.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bill Illis
November 16, 2014 10:09 am

Yes, an accurate description of the Watermelon mentality.

Doug Ferguson
November 16, 2014 8:54 am

“Grubering” is just another manifestation of Alinksky’s “Rules for Radicals”. Everyone should read his (Alinsky’s) chapter on ethics and his defense of “The end justifies the means” and how he views all political and social conflicts as war where most anything is justified. The problem with this philosophy is that it always turns out that the means most always corrupt the ends. This idea was not originated by Alinsky as it goes back to Lenin and even further back. Alinsky just brought it into the context of American politics and modern progressives have brought it to a new level. Much of the “anti-skeptic” diatribe relies on one or more of Alinsky’s Rules.

Reply to  Doug Ferguson
November 16, 2014 9:31 am

It’s amazing that most people using in these Alinsky ‘ethics’ don’t realize that there’s always someone else using those very ‘ethics’ against them — and they’re ostensibly on the same side.

Reply to  Doug Ferguson
November 16, 2014 2:26 pm

Well we may agree on the global warming scare, but I really think any one who does not understand that the public finance effects of quasi-monopolistic insurance companies charging premiums and govermental tax supported health care are nearly identical is just poorly informed. Private health insurance premiums are simply a private tax. As for the Republican position on health care reform it is has been every bit as disingenuous – to the point of no more than outright propaganda. There is not now and never will be a Republican alternative to Obama Care unless it is the same program under a different name with a few tweeks and modifications. Why? Because you cant insure everyone unless everone pays. So, you Republicans can crow all you want about Gruberr but you are every bit as bad. At least he was trying to help poeple who need coverage to get it instead of inventing lies to prevent them from getting it.

Reply to  TRP
November 16, 2014 3:39 pm

I’d have expected Pelosi’s congress to start by establishing a program to get more medical staff like doctors and nurses and technicians to ensure 10M – 30M new patients would actually get healthcare.
ACA is just insurance not medical care.
Healthcare is already an assembly line process. Adding more sick people will bottleneck the system even more.
The progressives should have just come out and said:
We are expanding Medicaid to accept anyone that wants to enroll.
Medicaid rates will be means tested.
We’ll be increasing the tax rate and removing the cap on earnings subject to the tax to help pay for it.
That’s progressive.
I don’t like the ACA because it’s BS and it will damage healthcare in the US with little or no gain.

Michael 2
Reply to  TRP
November 16, 2014 9:28 pm

TRP blurted out: “Private health insurance premiums are simply a private tax.”
That’s amazingly creative. I have never considered such a thing as a “private tax” but now I see every time I buy food, pay rent, purchase gasoline or go to a movie I am paying someone’s “private tax”.
“As for the Republican position on health care reform it is has been every bit as disingenuous”
It seems pretty simple to me. Tort reform is likely to make a big difference. I think you mistake that Republicans are wannabe Democrats.
“There is not now and never will be a Republican alternative to Obama Care”
Duh. Read again my statement above. Republicans are not and should not be engaged in socialism.
“Because you cant insure everyone unless everone pays.”
Yep, like I said, socialism. You can have liberty and choice or you can have socialism. It isn’t even all bad so long as everyone understands that you are giving up liberty to have “everyone insured”.
But you know what? I don’t care about INSURANCE. I prefer good medical care. An insurance card is USELESS without medical facilities.
“You Republicans can crow all you want about Gruberr…”
Thanks, not that I needed your permission…
“but you are every bit as bad.”
Says you. Your mileage obviously varied.
“At least he was trying to help poeple who need coverage to get it”
Well, sure, order them to get it “or else”. But I see you are obsessed with “coverage” rather than CARE.

Reply to  TRP
November 17, 2014 9:44 am

TRP: “At least he was trying to help poeple who need coverage to get it instead of inventing lies to prevent them from getting it.”
The ends justify the means, in other words. Well, Leftist SOP, nothing new under the sun. But it’s amazing that you even defend your SOP in front of people of whom you know that they have much higher standards.

November 16, 2014 9:39 am

Also, these liars as they do the Grobering in fact are Grub worms eating at the roots of science.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 16, 2014 9:42 am

The proverb isn’t exactly the same in English, but seems fitting. Wer andern eine Grube gräbt, fällt selbst hinein = you can easily fall into your own trap.

Bill H
November 16, 2014 9:53 am

In My Humble Opinion, The politically correct speech rules placed on people so that they must attach being a liar to individuals and then use that name, in an effort to make the example, to get the point across has been a disaster for both science and politics.
Since when have we allowed ourselves to be muzzled and our thoughts censored to the point that we ourselves wont use the truth outright? The ends justify the means (any means) is the mark of a thief and a liar.
I grow tired of being told i cant hurt these peoples feelings. WHY? They aim to deprive me of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I can think of many things more destructive than calling these people out as the liars and thieves they are.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” –Edmund Burke

David A
Reply to  Bill H
November 16, 2014 10:05 am

Yes, I agree. I have recently taken to linking peer reviewed articles to support the skeptics case at several pro CAGW sites. At some, like “Eco watch” I can post whatever I want, (at least they do not edit) but I am called an evil capitalist, devoid of all scientific thought, a science denier, oil funded bot , a paid shill for big oil, etc. The substance of my links to disparate CO2 science links, NIPCC links, Pop tech links, and other links to the peer reviewed skeptics case is never addressed. At best , even if I reference twenty or more scientific publications demonstrating a lower climate sensitivity then the IPCC, I am accused of cherry picking, with out any address to the points made.
It took the Guardian, less then five posts and one hour on their site to send all my comments to pre (read permanent) moderation /censorship, because, as their rules say, some comments are censored because they are offensive.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Bill H
November 17, 2014 12:12 am

“Good men who do nothing” is an oxymoron.

November 16, 2014 10:00 am

I would propose a new analytical tool for grading research papers on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate [insert current scary term here] along with “news” reports and government “studies.” Each claim and parameter in the body of the work (including graphics and imagery) is assigned a value from 0 to 100 where 0 is an accurate, truthful, scientifically supported statement or properly presented testable theory, and 100 represents an out-and-out wagon load of BS pulled by Unicorns that may be used to fleece taxpayers, destroy economies or further impoverish and oppress the world’s developing populations. The arithmetic mean of them is calculated and becomes a measure of the “truthiness” of the data. It will be called the CGI or “Climate Grubering Index” and all “peer reviewed” papers must be submitted to the “opposition” for grading and assignment of a CGI value. For public, taxpayer supported research the value will be converted into a percentage and will be used to calculate the amount of funding to be cut from the researcher’s budget in the next cycle. Values over 50 will be applied immediately to the funding stream with listed authors being required to pay back any salary already paid in excess of the adjusted budget. That should clear the fraud out of academia in a year or two and we might actually get some real, valid climate research in the bargain. Politicians and government employees will have the percentages removed from their pensions and government benefits. News media outlets will have the percentages subtracted from the ratings used to determine advertising rates.
I’m sure someone else has some better ideas, but this is offered as a starting point. Let’s all try to make MIT proud of Gruber… by making him the poster child, kind of the “Mr. Yuk” of bad research, in the much needed cleaning up of the good name of science.

Reply to  nielszoo
November 16, 2014 11:01 am

Wonderful start. I second the motion.

November 16, 2014 10:02 am

Too, think for a moment on the e-mails from and to Grouber.
Think of those from all the Grouber Cult on the whole of it.

Reply to  fobdangerclose
November 16, 2014 3:45 pm

I wonder what the Gruber / HHS emails looks like.

November 16, 2014 10:03 am

Related to Global Warming but off topic for this article.
I have been trying to find confirmation or a report that additional CO2 is effective in green houses to reduce the total energy costs. On the basis that it is supposedly such a major influencer of our climate by warming the atmosphere almost singlehandedly by only changing the atmospheric make up by a fraction to me it would stand to reason that when a green house operator increases the CO2 content inside the unit to 800-1000 ppm to improve growth of the plants there would also be a demonstrable reduction in energy required to warm the air inside to the desired temperature.
So far no such luck to find this confirmation other then that any search turns up the use of CO2 to stimulate plant growth.
If anyone here knows of such report I would appreciate it if a link can be provided.

Reply to  outtheback
November 16, 2014 9:01 pm

You’ll find no such report because that isn’t the way the GHE works.
The debate has gotten so off kilter than before we can debunk the theories of warmists, we first have to explain to the warmists what their side of the science actually is.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 17, 2014 8:04 am

Appreciate that.
The debate we can argue is about getting rid of carbon based fuel, AGW is the (wrong) message, which is a matter of opinion.
There are some overall long term health advantages in getting rid of carbon as fuel, but from my side just because there will then be more of it available as raw material for production. Which will also benefit all for a while as for some time the cost of a vast range of chemicals and plastics will drop quite a bit, until supply and demand have aligned themselves again.
I was interested in this to read how they had gone about it and what the findings were. We can introduce the incoming radiation lost through the glass and create extra outgoing radiation in the green house. If the theory were to be somewhat correct there can be major savings in that industry in particular. The lack of it can be seen as proof that the theory does not hold water let alone AGW.

Gunga Din
November 16, 2014 10:27 am

The worst part of the Grubering is that it didn’t happen to cover up after they were caught in lies but to cover up the lies so they could take effect.
Don’t let Obama do anything to make a “free and open” internet.
This is where the purpose of “Freedom of the Press” still lives, not in the MSM.

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 16, 2014 3:47 pm

I agree with that.

November 16, 2014 10:32 am

Let’s be honest, shall we? Both parties are guilty of Grubering. Manipulating the electorate. Outright lying. Nothing new.

Reply to  fumes
November 16, 2014 11:24 am

Yes, Let’s be honest.
Show me a Grubering by the right, the conservatives, the tea party. Show me.
I’ve had enough of this “both sides do it” as if that is self evident. It is not. You have bought into another falsehood.
Come on, show me something where a Republican said we got something pat because the American People are stupid. It should be easy… because THAT’ is something CBS or NBC would air constantly.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
November 16, 2014 11:59 am

The moment you’re open to a reply, history is replete with lies from both sides. But you’re defensive. If you weren’t so defensive and closed-minded, you wouldn’t even need my help. You would already know. Neither party is angelic. Or innocent. Remember to breathe!

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
November 16, 2014 8:02 pm

The Iraqi invasion comes to mind.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
November 17, 2014 1:14 pm

November 16, 2014 at 8:02 pm
“The Iraqi invasion comes to mind.”
To be a real Grubering there would have to be a bunch of videos showing Cheney and Rumsfeld telling an audience smugly how easy it was to fool the dopes.
THAT is the special quality of Grubering.

Reply to  fumes
November 16, 2014 11:31 am

… And on the odd chance you can find something from the conservatives….
Can you find FIVE?
By the same guy?
Who helped write a trillion dollar swindle?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
November 16, 2014 12:34 pm

And even if he could find something, should it be tolerated or excused? In the name of “the end justifies the means”?
No thanks.
Be honest about what you want to do. If I agree, I’ll support it. If I don’t, I won’t. Don’t trick me into supporting it.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
November 16, 2014 2:02 pm

Same guy: We must go in. We must go in now. Can’t wait another day and the oil will pay for the war. Well shock and awe it didn’t. Three guesses. First two don’t count.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
November 17, 2014 11:28 am

Re: Iraq war.
Not the same.
Show me the video where Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney, or Powell admits that they got the war approval because of the “stupidity of the American voter.”
We went into Iraq because of a very real Anthrax scare. To this day we don’t know who did it. At the time, MWD activities in Iraq were not far fetched. And I, for one, do not believe the trucks containing stainless steel vats, were used for the manufacturing of hydrogen for weather balloons.
So I repeat. The Bush Administration may have been wrong about going into Iraq. But show me the videos where their advisors gloated about getting their way past the “stupidity of the American voter.”

Reply to  fumes
November 16, 2014 6:51 pm

We can smell a Democrat. Every time a Democratic pol is caught lying or cheating, the Democrats say they all do it so, why bother about it. So, I guess all Democrats are liars, since they think it no big deal and they expect their pols to lie.

David S
November 16, 2014 10:34 am

Whilst grubering is being defined as targeting the ignorant masses it actually targets the ignorant academe, media and political class a gathering of some of the most gullible groups in society. They tend to be gullible because they actually want to believe in the integrity of people with whom they have something in common. Unfortunately they also tend to be some of the most arrogant groups in our society and rather than fess up and say I may have been mistaken they will do anything including lying rather than admit they are wrong. That is why none of these people will engage in debate. Students who disagree will be given fails on their papers, media refuses to show people that have an opposite view and politicians even ones who are sceptics are too afraid of public opinion to actually call out the AGW scare for what it is , a great big expensive lie.
Ironically I don’t believe it’s just about the money. If these groups who benefit from perpetuating this myth had no financial consequences to an admission of a mistake they still wouldn’t fess up . It’s human nature. No one likes to admit they were wrong especially if that showed they were also gullible and stupid . It really is the blind leading the blind . They have become so entrenched in perpetuating the myth they forget how it started in the first place. The rotation of classifying the Global warming myth now as the Climate Change myth is tantamount to an admission that they made a mistake but don’t want anyone to notice. Eventually liars run out of lies . At some stage they will throw up their hands and say ok I admit it , it was all a lie but until we can bring these activists to the confessional we are all going to have to suffer.

November 16, 2014 10:49 am

This is yet another shining example of the fact that for LEFTISTS, truth is not a value.
Truth, fact, reason, cost/benefit analysis, empirical data, the laws of physics and economics…….NONE of these matter. The end justifies the LYING means.
The very moment you understand this, you understand exactly how the Leftist media has created the religious belief system known as “global warming”, “climate change”, and (coming to a theater near you…) “climate disruption”.
We are up against Eco-Socialism, out to control free markets, capitalism, industrialization, and population growth – and to reset perceived global “inequities” caused by the first 3 – using energy as the means to do so. This is their tactic because they cannot achieve these ends via US election/legislation/Constitution ……even despite the environmental movement using 2+ decades of GRUBERISM to achieve its objective and the abrogation of science in the process.
Stop them or live under their rules. Simple as that. It starts with incandescent light bulbs (thanks Bush Energy Dept.) and ends up with $8/gallon gas and 80 cents/kw electricity, all for a difference in “climate” that cannot be differentiated from natural variability.

Ralph Kramden
November 16, 2014 11:01 am

getting loads of media coverage If a dog bites a man that’s not news but if a man bites a dog that’s news.

Reply to  Ralph Kramden
November 16, 2014 11:27 am

But nobody seems to care if the tail wags the dog…

November 16, 2014 11:17 am

To be Grubered is to have your dishonesty EXPOSED by bragging on VIDEO recording that makes it to air or goes viral.
By that measure, I don’t know that Climate Science has its own Gruber.
Gleick, Mann, Jones are contenders, and they may have exposed sufficient hubris on video tape somewhere, but it hasn’t gone viral.

November 16, 2014 11:18 am

Bravos to the many clever comments, four stars to Gary Pearse. I didn’t read the all, so I may have missed it, but how about SHICKLGRUBER?

November 16, 2014 11:28 am

I think it always amazes people in the rest of the developed world, that how many US voters will consistently vote against something that is in their own interests. Obamacare is a shining example. Would anyone outside the US really believe some of the absolute nonsense churned out by Fox news and the Tea bag party? Having given up news broadcasting they seem to have mutated into a purely political propaganda machine. We in the UK have our own oddballs such as UKIP, but they are in the main kept in check by the more sensible left and right of centre parties. In the US it seems every year that there are less and less moderate politicians fighting for the wellbeing of the American public, as opposed to their own narrow political ideals. It’s all so sad to see such a great nation slip into the rabbit hole of extremism. America was pregnant with promise and anticipation but ……………………………

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 16, 2014 11:43 am

Without knowing it, I think you have been Gruberized. Obamacare was in the voter’s interest? Why then the Gruber deceit about it? He helped write the law.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 16, 2014 2:08 pm

Your right is still pretty far left. US Democrats are definitely far right of UK conservatives.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 16, 2014 3:57 pm

That’s because you accept socialism in your country.
US Patriots don’t trust any big government control.
Big governments lie to their citizens.
We demand our liberty.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 16, 2014 6:57 pm

I am sure the people who had their policies cancelled, and now must pay more for insurance, would agree with you 100%. The President assured them they could keep their polices, repeatedly. I bet they feel bad.
If you think Obamacare is an example of how laws should be made, you are, alas, just wrong. Nobody who voted for the bill read the bill or knew what was in the bill. Is this your idea of democracy in action?
BTW, do you watch Fox news?
And, you know, Gruber was probably referring to people like you.

David S
November 16, 2014 11:30 am

Grubering bring s to mind an old word; crooks!

November 16, 2014 11:32 am

I love it. Ridicule is a powerful tool.

November 16, 2014 11:38 am

A house semi submerged into the ground so that only the roof showed was a common structure in early Saxon Britain. It was designed to cope with really nasty weather. It was called a 13 Nov 14 Gruben house.

November 16, 2014 11:39 am

ps, ignore the 13 Nov 14, problems with pasting. It called just a Gruben house.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 17, 2014 9:53 am

Well, Grube is German for hole in the ground. A Gruber would be someone who digs such holes. This is how those surnames came into existence.

Reply to  DirkH
November 17, 2014 9:54 am

…which leads one directly to the first rule of holes; when you’re in one, stop digging… Gruber didn’t. Power of names.

Larry Hamlin
November 16, 2014 12:54 pm

A classic example of “Grubering” is Obama’s meaningless “climate agreement” with China which requires China to do nothing over the next 16 years to reduced its huge and growing CO2 emissions while mandating high cost CO2 reductions in the U.S.
According to the 2013 Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook report data U.S. CO2 emissions peaked in 2007 at just over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 but have declined and stabilized since then. Meanwhile China’s CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since 2005 and are forecast to reach over 14 billion metric tons per year by 2030.
Obama’s proposed climate agreement gives China a pass on committing to any CO2 reductions for the next 16 years until after 2030 at which time China will supposedly establish a CO2 emissions cap.
Thus under Obama’s scheme China is allowed to increase its CO2 emissions by over 8.5 billion metric tons per year (which is more than 1.5 times the entire U.S. 2014 CO2 emissions amount) from 2005 levels through 2030 while the U.S. is mandated to reduce its emissions by between 24% to 26% costing tens of billions of dollars each year in higher energy costs.
The increase in China’s CO2 emissions allowed under Obama’s scheme is more than 5.5 times greater than the size of the entire reduction mandated in U.S. emissions. This is just plain crazy.
Obam’s war on coal which cost him dearly in the last national election is out of touch with energy reality here in the U.S. where coal use has significantly declined and stabilized at lower levels as shown in 2013 EIA IEO report data.
In sharp contrast to the declining and stabilized lower coal use here in the U.S. coal use in China’s which is now more than 4.5 times greater than here has skyrocketed and will continue to climb into the decade of 2030.
By the year 2030 China is forecast to be using more than 6 times more coal than the U.S. and yet it is Obama’s intent to impose massive energy cost increases on Americans to further reduce our already declined and stabilized lower level of coal use.
The Obama climate agreement schemes with China are out of touch with the energy use and emissions performance here in the U.S. and sharply penalize Americans while giving a monumental 16 year long pass to China to continue to significantly increase both the use of coal and its CO2 emissions. The Obama “climate agreement” is a really dumb deal.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
November 16, 2014 6:22 pm

Wait. Obama doesn’t have a “war on coal”. Just on use of the coal in the US power industry. While Obama blocks the Keystone oil project, his buddy, Warren Buffet is making millions shipping oil by rail car. But wait for it … at the same time good ol’ Warren is shipping US coal to CHINA by way of Washington State and the Twassen Coal Port in British Columbia, Canada. Don’t want to be seen shipping that nasty coal out of the US to China, so just railroad it over the border and ship it out from Canada. No one will notice the coal trains of death going through Delta, BC, will they???

November 16, 2014 1:11 pm

And on top of everything, Gruber himself is a denialist saying that “American voters were too stupid”. That is simply not true! Thousands and thousands of voters were shut out of democrat offices to discuss the bill back in 2009 recess. My own weasel / tax cheat / money launderer democrat rep at the time, John Tierney offered a “town meeting” on the issue – BY PHONE INVITATION ONLY. (when the phone don’t ring you’ll know it’s him…).
It was no different than what they say about CAGW, “the debate is over”. They don’t say that because they believe they won any debate, they say it for the same reason a dog licks ….”

Dave O.
November 16, 2014 1:12 pm

Jonathan Gruber – the most honest person alive today. He knew the people he was trying to persuade better than anybody – he knew the Democrats.

Nigel S
November 16, 2014 1:20 pm

Good to know that they’re using a grubber whilst having their evil way with us.

November 16, 2014 1:22 pm

Gruber is the poster boy of rent seeking seeking corruption using academia as a mantle of crediblity.
He just happens to be a corrupt rent seeker pushing faux medical “reform” and getting personally rich in the process.
We can see others pushing insane environmental policies, destructive unworkable political policies and of course climate alarmism all posing as academics.

November 16, 2014 1:27 pm

Interesting take on the situation from a US news source.
Was Gruber making a larger point here that we’re missing?
Definitely. If you can get past his condescending tone and insults, Gruber’s speeches actually offer some insight into how policy is impacted by politics.
“If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK?” Gruber said.
And while the (impartial) jury on the Affordable Care Act is still out, the law has lowered that national uninsured rate and, so far, the law is proving to be cheaper than expected.
Either way, Gruber has said he believes the U.S. is better off with Obamacare than without it.
And if less transparency helps implement better policy, he’s O.K. with that.
Sounds like Gruber is saying the end justify the means. I wonder if anyone else in politics has ever done that?

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 16, 2014 2:15 pm

I agree with your understanding. The media is covering a remark, not the real thing.
I took the time to listen to his entire presentation at the University of Rhode Island:

It is about 30 minutes of description of the ACA and the origin from Romney care, ideas taken from the Heritage Foundation and then what is politically feasible at the national level. First time someone explains to the public the intricacies of getting the ACA implemented.
The next 30 minutes, he is answering very specific questions submitted by the audience. Prof. Gruber is not Nancy Pelosi, he knows exactly what is in the ACA. He is also brutally honest, in answering the questions, that he does not know what the future hold for many of the issues involved in this new law. As he specifically said, we have to crawl before we walk. An experiment is under way.
Prof. Gruber knows more about health care issues and economic issues associated with such and can explain them and the process followed better than anybody.
As for your last question in your post, I think you know the answer!

Reply to  rd50
November 16, 2014 2:54 pm

“Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.”

November 16, 2014 1:36 pm

From Gruber to Schicklgruber, the grand tradition of Grubering.

David G
November 16, 2014 1:42 pm

Gruber’s statement is anything but a bombshell. Congresses and Presidents have been passing legislation
with benign and or misleading titles while deliberately obscuring their contents for eons. Democratic and Republican. How about the PATRIOT act? In reality, it’s the TYRANNY act.

Global cooling
November 16, 2014 2:04 pm

Remember the Greenpease principle. Plausibility is more important than the truth.
They know their supporters. If I show them a chart of a Hockeystick with the hidden decline or a chart describing the difference between observations and models, they ask about experts behind this. They say openly that they can’t read the charts and that they want experts’ opinion because of that.
This is why the claim of “97% support” is important to them. Because Who is the most important question, ad hominem attacks to the “deniers” is a relevant tactic.

November 16, 2014 2:13 pm

Keep in mind it was passed on Christmas Eve also. There were no Republican votes for it. However, the NRCC is totally worthless and systematically outspent and destroyed all Presidential candidates who were running against Obamacare in 2007. They are very frightened that a candidate will be nominated who opposes both Obamacare and Obamacore. Yes these same experts want to educate your children.
An interesting bit of history: recall that Chief Justice John Roberts also ruled it Constitutional by claiming it was a tax. It was not a tax.
The appointment of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts came after the political destruction of the Harriet Miers nomination – BY THE RIGHT.
How would Chief Justice Harriet Miers have ruled on Obamacare?

November 16, 2014 2:16 pm

The Grubing Gruber’s of climate lies are even worse as they have grown to believe their own “Grubering” aka lies.

Reply to  fobdangerclose
November 16, 2014 3:22 pm

Grab your Gruber’s step back 20 paces turn fire at will.

November 16, 2014 2:48 pm

Re Grubering 11/16/2014. Quoting Dr. Gruber:
We just tax the insurance companies. They pass it on [as] higher prices. That offsets the tax we get [formerly called premiums]. It ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.
Gruber isn’t like ordinary American people. He has the last laugh. It takes a Harvard PhD in econ to know that businesses pass taxes on to customers.
And they proposed it and that passed, because the American voter is too stupid to understand the difference. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know call it the stupidity of the American voter, whatever. But basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass. So what does this bill do? This bill takes what I call the spaghetti approach. Which is takes a bunch of ideas that might work and throws them against the wall and we see what sticks.
Dr. Gruber says it passed when the American people voted Aye — on what? On the referendum? When their representatives passed the law without ever reading it? Like Dr. Henry Lee testified for OJ, “something wrong here”.
If we made it explicit that the healthy will pay and the sick people will get money, it would not have passed.
Gruber knows better because without pre-existing conditions, it takes a Harvard doctorate to know that no one is going to buy health insurance before he gets sick. Only an expert can figure out that healthy people pay for the sick! And for the adult children living in the basement. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act without bothering to read it because they never suspected a Harvard econ PhD might sneak an individual mandate into Obamacare.
When is the good professor going to share his expert opinion that Obamacare nationalized the health insurance business, cleverly concealed by claiming to provide health care? When is Gruber going to admit that the premiums were kept to no worse than about double by tripling or quadrupling deductibles? That the deductibles make Obamacare catastrophe insurance? That the outlawing of catastrophe insurance was a cover for putting everyone but Congress on catastrophe insurance? That pulling the wool over the eyes of the public, its representatives, and the mainstream media would be as bad, say, as foisting off a Photoshopped birth certificate as if it were a photocopy. Oh, wait … !
So the President and the EPA are going to regulate CO2 emissions by claiming the climate is warming, and by claiming CO2 is the cause. Two gotchas for the price of one. The people, Grubered again, passed the Referendum. By not turning out, or when they did, by voting conservative, they delivered an overwhelming mandate to stay the course — full left rudder. It’s the 97% consensus. It’s as easy as taking polls.
This way, Occupiers. Solidarity, 99%ers. On two, fists, up. Gruber is with you! Nationalize the energy sector!

November 16, 2014 2:59 pm

I say some of the post herein were OK’d at high levels of the Grubering Cult, and paid Grubers are doing the Grubing herein within now. Not just the climate type, the high paid gofers of the elite cult of tax and spend.

November 16, 2014 3:04 pm

Chief Justice John Robers being told by VP Joe Biden he will rule on:
implanted radiofrequency micro chips, and brain scans to determine tendency to criminal behavior.
Obamacare also includes a Data Hub that unites dozens of state and federal files on every individual with his “health care” profile.
The Data Hub is hackable as well.
So what does the Adminstration have planned for this Christmas Eve? That is the only question.

Reply to  Zeke
November 16, 2014 5:28 pm

Wow…You guys are truly amazing. You have completely turned around what Biden was saying by taking it out of the larger context, which was Biden’s concern about the justice having too narrow a view regarding the Constitutional right to privacy. You can read the full transcript here:
I’ll give you a few some of the context here:

Judge, herein lies, in my view, the crux or the intellectual debate I referred to at the outset: whether we will have an ever- increasing protection for human dignity and human liberty or whether those protections will be diminished, as suggested by many in their reading of the Constitution that says there are no unenumerated rights — there is a very narrow reading of the Constitution.

And once again, when it should be even more obvious to all Americans we need increased protections for liberty as we look around the world and we see thousands of people persecuted because of their faith, women unable to show their faces in public, children maimed and killed for no other reason than they were born the wrong tribe; and once again, when it should be obvious we need a more energetic national government to deal with the challenges of the new millennium — terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, religious intolerance — once again our journey of progress is under attack.
And it’s coming from, in my view, the right. There are judges, scholars and opinion leaders who belong to this group of people, who are good, honorable and patriotic Americans. They believe the Constitution provides no protection against government intrusion into highly personal decisions like the Schiavo case, decisions about birth, about marriage, about family, about religion.

And, Judge, I need to know whether you will be a justice who believes that the constitutional journey must continue to speak to these consequential decisions or that we’ve gone far enough in protecting against government intrusion into our autonomy into the most personal decisions we make.

Like most Americans, I believe the Constitution recognizes a general right to privacy.
I believe a woman’s right to be nationally and vigorously protected exists.

Judge, if I look only at what you’ve said and written — as used to happen in the past — I would have to vote no. You dismissed the constitutional protection of privacy as, quote, “a so-called right.”

Michael 2
Reply to  joeldshore
November 16, 2014 7:50 pm

Joeldshore says (or quotes, it isn’t clear) “Like most Americans, I believe the Constitution recognizes a general right to privacy.”
Forget the “Like most Americans”. You do not speak for most Americans. *I* say the Constitution appoints some duties to the federal government and forbids some practices by the federal government but is completely silent on most “rights”, neither creating nor forbidding human behavior. Each state has a constitution and that is where you’ll find most “statutory rights” and prohibitions.
“I believe a woman’s right to be nationally and vigorously protected exists.”
Whereas I do not believe it. The 14th Amendment would seem to especially forbid making rights just for women since it requires equality of laws.
If it were actually the case that women were to be “nationally and vigorously protected” a good place to start would be to keep them out of harms way — no military service, no law enforcement, firefighting or any other dangerous job.
Biden: “when it should be obvious we need a more energetic national government to deal with the challenges of the new millennium”
What is obvious is that the Left has *always* wished for central government — with Democrats in charge of it. THE challenge of the new millenium is what happens when that national government is seized by the enemy? How did Hitler gain control of Germany? Easy — a central government and he became its chancellor. How did Lenin and Stalin control Russia? Same way. Big central government, dictator on top.
Big government was good for GPS and landing on the moon but it is sorta like having a wolf or a python for a pet — you never know when it is going to turn on you.

Reply to  joeldshore
November 16, 2014 8:19 pm

Obamacare is over 2,500 pages long and obviously addresses and permits the use of implantable devices for the purpose of medical identification, and there are also ink versions of RFIDs which can be permanently placed on the skin.
Some states have already passed laws that outlaw placing any mark or implantation on its citizens. For example, Wisconsin and North Dakota, I believe. These are real technologies which would work in certain radio frequency bands. These laws outlawing them are a response by states to known threats of imminent uses of these ID chips.
Any upcoming ITU-R (International Telecommunications Union for Radio Communication) regulations would clear the way for these frequencies to be reserved to rfids.
And Obamacare is to be enforced by the IRS, so this does include economic coercion. It is totally stupid to pass a bill that lengthy, which the Legislature did on Christmas Eve.
I ask again, what is the Administration planning for this Christmas Eve, 2014?

Reply to  joeldshore
November 17, 2014 4:55 am

Zeke says: “Obamacare is over 2,500 pages long and obviously addresses and permits the use of implantable devices for the purpose of medical identification”
Well, it is not so obvious to me. Could you point me to where in the law it discusses this?

Reply to  joeldshore
November 17, 2014 8:39 am

The appropriate sections deals with Class II devices which are implantable, life sustaining, or life sustaining, and the law says that their will be a national registry of these, for data retrieval.

Reply to  joeldshore
November 17, 2014 11:49 am

Veri chip advertisement

IBM “Chekout lines – who needs them?”

Reply to  joeldshore
November 17, 2014 11:51 am

IBM advertisement
Try again.

November 16, 2014 3:10 pm

IANAL; however, wondering if Jonathan Gruber runs afoul of 18 US Code §1001

November 16, 2014 3:17 pm

Jefferson would be turning in his grave.
Washington, Adams, and Hamilton wouldn’t.

November 16, 2014 3:57 pm

Iraq war 2 and Obamacare come to mind for Grubering… sell sell sell.
I’m surprised they have any soul left after all that selling. Maybe they never had one to begin with. That would explain a lot.

November 16, 2014 4:17 pm

To Zeke above: “Heritage did not invent the individual mandate”
Yes, I understand this and the other points you made.
Romney and Gruber certainly understood this also.

Reply to  rd50
November 16, 2014 4:19 pm

Yes sir.

November 16, 2014 5:16 pm

Question: So you must be a climate denier or skeptic?
Answer: So you are a climate Gruberer and believe in climate Grubering?
Question: What do you mean???
Answer: Go look up Grubering.

Surfer Dave
November 16, 2014 5:20 pm

Read Plato’s ‘The Republic’, the concept is called the ‘Noble Lie’ and the idea is that the elite have a responsibilty to lie to the ordinary people for the greater benefit of society as a whole. It is not a new idea…

Reply to  Surfer Dave
November 17, 2014 7:41 am

Rape and stealing are not new ideas either. The ends do not justify the means is not a new idea either. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is not new.
Nothing new under the sun does not justify bad behaviour.
Truth should not always be told, it should not be used to hurt people, like telling an unattractive person they are ugly. Lies do not seem to help anyone except those that told the lie as in your example the elite.
When non-elite lie they are scoundrels and prosecuted, when the elite lie, they are heroes and it is for the greater good. Nice to know climate science has globaly and warmly embraced this concept.

Reply to  Surfer Dave
November 17, 2014 9:29 am

Plato hated democracy, and wrote some of the worst invective about it. He preferred a caste system ruled by a philosopher king and a loyal aristocracy. He grieved that slavery was going out of style in Greece.
Plato said that he saw no effective difference between a well trained body guard and a dog.
There are only two systems: caste systems, with an unassailable and unchallengeable uber class, or total equality before the law.
Obamacare has garnished important support by granting waivers.
So it is unlawful for that reason. It creates laws that apply to some but not to all. Congress, unions, and public employees are excepted by waivers.

November 16, 2014 6:04 pm

Surfer Dave,
Try that Noble Lie in a cattle or horse trade in Texas surfer dave, we know it is the California way, but you better ready to hit the floor on your back hard here in Texas.
Just saying, we are not smart enough to know how to do it like Plato.

November 16, 2014 6:11 pm

From a book summarizing “Parkinson’s Law”:

According to some widely accepted studies, the UK would have been better off economically if the Chunnel had never been built. The boffins haven’t come up with a complete solution to the problem, but point to two important causative factors: ‘optimism bias’, a human tendency to expect unrealistically good outcomes; and ‘strategic misrepresentation’, which means deliberately distorting information, for example in budgets, in order to move a project forward.

Nigel S
Reply to  rogerknights
November 16, 2014 10:01 pm

Having travelled back and forwards by [..] splattered ferry for school I can assure you the tunnel is better.

Reply to  Nigel S
November 17, 2014 8:04 am

It sounds like a much better experience for people using it. Maybe not so much for people not using it, or using it but do not feel it worth the cost.
Budgets for projects are always a best guess, especially if it is for something not attempted before. The issue however is deliberate distortions in order to get a desired outcome.
Dishonesty as a virtue is what is coming out of governments these days. Can’t they just admit their dishonesty or at least continue to lie about their dishonesty like the good old days.

November 16, 2014 7:11 pm

“We now know that Grubering takes place — we see it laid bare in the Obamacare campaign. It was not strictly a “conspiracy”. Rather it was an arrogant belief that lying was necessary to persuade a “stupid” public to adopt the policy preferences of the politicians and the academics in their employ. ”
No, now we know they are still actually this stupid.
But this straight out lefty doctrine- it’s nothing “new”.
So Lefties have been in control of Dem party for couple decades. Reagan quit being Democrat
because of transformation from liberal party to a shrieking Lefty party, and and Dem leadership are all Lefties.
And of course, Obama was socialist, which is anyone, stupid enough to actually believe the Lefties are vaguely rational. Or worse, that their psychopathic behavior is not something to worry about or it’s “human advancement” as compare normal or rational behavior.
Now some may wonder whether Obama is Stalinist Lefty- but doesn’t really matter, the point is, he is surrounded by these psychopaths.

November 16, 2014 8:00 pm

Well, since we on the topic of very stupid people who probably should not be working anywhere
near anything important. Like so maybe they should picking trash on freeways or something.
“Chris Matthews was going on about how Obama needed to meet with John Boehner and really pressure him, ask him — “in public… on television” — “What is your opposition to this immigration bill?”
This same Matthews who got tingle in his leg. Now wants the President of the United State to do his [Chris Matthews] job as someone who works in the media.
In other words Matthews is such a loser, that he can’t interview John Boehner.
And thinks he need the tingle to do it for him.

Ian H
November 16, 2014 8:43 pm

Isn’t this just a US political slogan being used by one of your crazy political parties to beat up on the other crazy political party?

November 16, 2014 9:56 pm

Governments will always devolve into Guberments because absolute power always, always, always corrupts absolutely; it’s the nature of the beast.
As long as Guberment power ultimately relies on the barrel of a gun to keep the ruled class under submission, we’ll always have Guberments instead of limited governments constrained under a Constitution.
America’s Constitution was perhaps the closest model to create a limited government Republic, but since the Constitution is no longer adhered to, it now only exists as a historic relic in a hermitically sealed case in the National Archives in Washington DC…
Various government systems have been devised to prevent this Gubernization process, but they always eventually fail through: Judicial Review, bureaucratic mission creep, unconstitutional Guberment largess programs, voter apathy, and appeal to authority.
Perhaps a State-sponsored Constitutional Convention could be organized to pass amendments that would restore adherence to the Constitution, but failing that I see little recourse.
My ideas on the required Constitutional Amendments include:
1) A balanced budget amendment limiting Guberment spending to a Maximum of 10% of GDP.
2) Term limits for Senators and Congressmen: 2 terms and 3 terms respectively.
3) Rescinding the 17th Amendment and restore States appointing Senators.
4) Rescinding the 16th Amendment and establishing ONE national sales tax under the restrictions outlined in the balanced budget amendment and shutting down the IRS.
5) Abolishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and letting the market determine interest rates.
6) Each new law put to vote and Federal Department or Agency that exists must have a preamble clearly showing where specifically in the Constitution it’s power to exist is derived. If now such authorization exists, it must be shutdown or a Constitutional Amendment must be passed to allow its existence. Failing that, the power resides under State authority under Amendments 9 and 10.
7) Restoring a gold/silver monetary system and making fiat currencies unconstitutional.
Failing the above, I really don’t see Gubernization ever being corrected.

November 16, 2014 11:52 pm

The telling thing is that Jonathan Gruber is being attacked and shunned by his fellow Democrats for speaking the truth when he said, “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.” But Nancy Pelosi is not being shunned for saying, “There has never been a more open process for any legislation.” Neither is Barack Obama for saying, “this has been the most transparent government, most transparent administration, that we have seen in a very, very long time … But seriously, we very much believe in transparency and accountability.”
The fact that the truth-teller is the one who is embarrassed and shunned just goes to show that, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
November 17, 2014 12:27 am

Grubering is alive and well down under. But I will back the ordinary bloke to see through them and to see who they are and what they really stand for every time.

November 17, 2014 12:45 am

Conspiracy, contrary to popular perception, does not require that the conspirators all know and have met each other. It is possible to have wheel, chain and web conspiracies where most of the participants have never met or directly communicated. The essence is the agreement to participate in an unlawful, or in this case immoral, act.

November 17, 2014 1:47 am

or their segregates engage

Reply to  M Simon
November 17, 2014 9:38 am

Yes, its a typo on my part. I can’t fix it on my end.
Mods, can you correct this “segregares” –> should be “surrogates”

November 17, 2014 1:54 am

What is obvious is that the Left has *always* wished for central government — with Democrats in charge of it.
As opposed to the Right which has only wished for central government for about 70 years – with Republicans in charge of it.

Michael 2
Reply to  M Simon
November 17, 2014 1:57 pm

M Simon suggests “As opposed to the Right which has only wished for central government for about 70 years – with Republicans in charge of it.”
I wish I knew more about the Right so I could argue it with you, but I believe no such thing exists. The left is well defined and has had dozens of philosophers creating it; a type of secular religion, it even has a name: Humanism. It also contains more than its share of narcissists each imagining himself to be superior to everyone else and thus duty bound to impose his greatness on everyone else. (Plato, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so on).
What does the right have? Everything else. That is why Republicans are struggling to define what the word means. Right now it means “Not a Democrat” and that’s good enough for now.
Strictly speaking it ought to mean what the word says it means — people that prefer a “republic”, divided government, decisions for Wyoming made in Wyoming, almost no central government beyond national defense and interstate commerce (in other words, the original and only assuredly true purpose of central government).
Anyway, try again, use some big words, go for two sentences (or more).
For help with a theme, perhaps you could revisit the Parable of the Ant and the Grashopper from a leftwing perspective. It’s been done and is hilarious (but scary and tragic at the same time).
“The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.”
Follow the link to read the rest of the story.

Reply to  M Simon
November 17, 2014 4:05 pm

M Simon,
Wrong. What you call the “Right” are statists. The real right are libertarians — the ‘leave us alone’ types. Small government types.
Don’t just parrot the nonsense that the media tries to colonize your mind with; think for yourself.
Another grubering.

Leo Norekens
November 17, 2014 5:44 am

This is very reminiscent of how the European Union (EU) was born (Lisbon Treaty, 2007):
“The Treaty of Lisbon was all about avoiding referendums on the Constitution, avoiding dealing with legitimate complaints against the Constitution, confusing the electorate, excluding ordinary citizens from understanding the new documents and so excluding us from any ability to criticise what EU leaders were planning. It was about keeping the substance of the Constitution and moves towards further integration whilst pretending the Constitution has disappeared. [The] plan [of the EU leaders] was a move against democracy in the EU and therefore contrary to the declared policy of the European Union.”
“..Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?” (Jean Claude Juncker – former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and current President of the European Commission).
“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.” (Karel de Gucht, former Belgian Foreign Minister and European Commissioner)
“[It is] dangerous talk [to want] too much transparency and clarity [in the EU]”
“The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”
(Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Prime Minister of Belgium and co-author of the Treaty)
“[EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! (Giuliano Amato – former Prime Minister of Italy)
…and so on ….
We really didn’t need Gruber over here. Deceit has many names in the EU.

Reply to  Leo Norekens
November 17, 2014 1:01 pm

It acquired the name EU in 1994. It later gave itself the Lisbon treaty. It is approximately 90 years old. It was conceived by Coudenhouve-Kalergi in 1925. Its developmental stages were carefully preplanned.

Leo Norekens
Reply to  DirkH
November 18, 2014 1:05 am

We are familiar with the history of the development of the EU.
I should have added “in its current form” (meaning: since the Lisbon Treaty, 2007).
But that’s beside the point.

November 17, 2014 5:44 am

“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Steven Schneider
Who knew being effective required dishonesty.
Maybe we should teach this to our kids in school,”If you want to be effective, if you want to be successful, it requires a certain degree of dishonesty.”

Reply to  Alx
November 17, 2014 8:08 am

I thought that was what we were teaching them.

David R
November 17, 2014 9:06 am

Just on the point of ‘alarmism’, what constitutes an ‘alarmist’?
In the case of global surface temperatures, is any projection that forecasts future temperature change ‘alarmist’ or is there some threshold value?

Reply to  David R
November 17, 2014 10:04 am

The temperature, like the climate, is always changing. It’s only when a projection of global temperatures includes a forecast of “catastrophic” effects resulting from future temperature change that it becomes “alarmist.” Predicting that a modest increase in a trace gas will result in “runaway global warming” that will make the “oceans boil” or turn Earth into Venus are examples of alarmism. The Earth has been warmer in the past at times when life flourished. Saying that temperatures will change in the future is not necessarily alarmist. But saying that such changes will be harmful, when they could just as likely be beneficial, is where it crosses over into alarmism.

Reply to  Louis
November 17, 2014 2:17 pm

I hope simply to become clear on your intent. It seems to me you are allowing for the possibility that CO2 may contribute to a general warming of the climate but claim it is unclear that the result would be harmful rather than beneficial.
If your intent is simply to set a reasonable limit on the damage that might ensue, I agree with you. I think it totally unreasonable to claim the oceans will boil. Perhaps all here can come together on that one.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  David R
November 17, 2014 11:02 am

A climate alarmist would be anyone who believes that we have to “do something” to head off climate change, by which they mean “manmade climate change”. They have drunk the Klimate Koolade, in other words.

November 17, 2014 10:44 am

Do a Google search “Jonathan Gruber $5.9 million” you will find it enlightening and infuriating.

Reply to  alpha2actual
November 17, 2014 7:30 pm

Obama says he got his ideas from Gruber [25 seconds].

Michael m.
November 17, 2014 11:27 am

Sounds like the good old ‘agitprop’ 😉

Pat Frank
November 17, 2014 2:33 pm

Don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this, yet, but it’s not hard for any professional to obfuscate field-text so that non-professionals can’t understand it.
Being unable to understand a deliberately obscurantist professional has nothing to do with stupidity. It has only to do with lack of training in that particular field.
Gruber has triply offended. First, he betrayed his profession by deliberately obscuring his meaning. This shows a lack of integrity. To my mind, he deserves to be drummed out of his professional ranks.
Second, he has unfairly maligned ordinary people for being unable to decompose his obscurantist text.
Third, he has engaged a lie of commission. Deliberate obscurantism in order to mislead is a form of lying.
Apart from all that Gruber has displayed an insufferable arrogance by laughing at, and disparaging, his blameless victims.
And Gruber has displayed to all that he himself suffers from a profound social stupidity. He has publicly demonstrated that he entirely lacks the capacity to recognize his offenses. It seems a bit sociopathic.

November 17, 2014 2:48 pm

Grubering, noble lie, consequentialism….doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s not how things are supposed to be in this country.

Reply to  Mark Bowlin
November 18, 2014 11:05 am

Correct. Today Obama said he is furious with a low level bureaucrat [Gruber] ‘mis-stating’ what he and his Administration were discussing, as if he didn’t know anything about it.
As if. Obama lies like a child. Unfortunately, too many people still believe him.

November 17, 2014 3:26 pm
November 17, 2014 8:03 pm

Grubering? What is sad about all this is the fact that Obama was quite happy to deceive the American people. He is supposed to be working in the best interests of the American people not deceiving them. But then again, that’s been Obama throughout his presidency… lies, more lies and even more damn lies!

Julian in Wales
November 18, 2014 1:58 am

FUD “fear, uncertainty and doubt” is a word in common currency for political dishonesty. When politicians want to bury an issue they throw “FUD” at it. Here is the wikipedia definition “Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda.”

November 18, 2014 3:11 am

Grubering: Being lied to by college professors, who then smugly tell their colleagues in video recorded lectures how well the lying went, and when the public finds out about the videos, the colleges start deleting the evidence.
Meaning: Gruber acted with the knowledge and consent of his employers.

Reply to  DirkH
November 18, 2014 3:19 am

…there is no other reason why they would protect him.

November 18, 2014 8:52 am

Dbstealey, 11/17/2104, @ 4:05 pm replied to M. Simon, saying: What you call the “Right” are statists. The real right are libertarians — the ‘leave us alone’ types. Small government types. [¶] Don’t just parrot the nonsense that the media tries to colonize your mind with; think for yourself.
Repeated dialog with Libertarians, and research into Libertarism, about their creed has been fruitless. When confronted with the definition given by the Libertarian Party, they disavowed it. The only conclusion was that their credo is “We won’t define Libertarianism, but we alone know it when we see it. We know the handshake.”
The only conclusion available is that Libertarianism is a two-pronged ideal: strict isolationist outside the US borders, and strict anarchist inside the borders. Totally, as Dbstealey says, “leave us alone”. But not “small government”, that’s Tea Party. Libertarian is “no government”. Libertarians are the “real right” because there’s no room to the right of Libertarianism.
If Libertarianism is less than this ideal, perhaps Dbstealey will step up to clarify the matter.
The lesson of two World Wars and a Cold war is lost on the Libertarians. It is: intervene to stop evil empires. Appeasement, letting them fester, is always far more costly and inhumane in the extreme. The Pauls’ foreign policy is noticeably quite close to Obama’s, differing only in Rand’s current Gruberish campaign propaganda as he makes a run for President. Rand Paul is trying to do what Gruber did — conflate moderate Republicans with the People.
Domestically, laws and taxpayer funded infrastructure each are optimum neither at the maximum (Democrats/Marxists/Gruber) nor the minimum (Libertarian), but somewhere to the right of the middle.
The modern crop of traditional Republicans, called Moderates, are me-too Democrat/populists. They don’t want to just repeal Obamacare; listen to them — they want to replace it! They still want nationalized healthcare. They don’t want to put science into climatology. They are unaware that warming causes CO2. They still think CO2 causes warming, just not quite so much. Moderate Republicans want not quite so much spending, taxes, government, regulations, secrecy. Both want to nationalize the energy sector. The two, Democrats and traditional Republicans, agree in full on at least on item: lifetime terms in office.
Once the Libertarians go public with a platform, and once the Tea Party completes its hostile takeover of the Republican Party, we can look forward to a constructive two party system: (TP) Republicans and (defined) Libertarians.

Michael 2
Reply to  Jeff Glassman
November 18, 2014 8:42 pm

Jeff Glassman reheats a tired meme:
“Repeated dialog with Libertarians, and research into Libertarism, about their creed has been fruitless.”
Of course it is fruitless. It’s like studying the properties of “*” (the wild card). It has a single property — “liberty” in conjunction with pretty much every other property that is not directly rival with it, and sometimes even then. Libertarians otherwise come in all flavors and cannot reliably be predicted to vote Democrat or Republican — which ever one appears to have more “liberty” while not at the same time being stupid.
“Libertarian is ‘no government'”
Incorrect and it reveals you’ve been reading Huffington Post or some such thing which has been struggling to understand what is a libertarian, barely aware there is such a thing that is neither Democrat nor Republican and which may well be more numerous than either alone and maybe both together.
Anarchy is “no government”. Libertarian is “you choose for you, I choose for me” and together we may well choose a government so we don’t each personally have to be involved in such minutiae. Libertarian requires shared culture, intelligence and education or it becomes either anarchy or totalitarianism, usually both in that order (consider the French Revolution).
“The lesson of two World Wars and a Cold war is lost on the Libertarians. It is: intervene to stop evil empires.”
Wrong. The world wars were economic. All wars are economic. Sir Thomas More’ lays it out pretty well in “Utopia”. At any rate, WHY should I be involved in your desire to stop evil empires? All except our own of course. Please explain. Nothing in the United States Consitution (or that of any other nation so far as I know) appoints the United States to “stop evil empires”. It is a good thing to do of course but my military oath did not include “stopping evil empires”.
“Once the Libertarians go public with a platform”
Make it singular: Once a libertarian goes public with his platform you may notice that it is different than my platform.
“taxpayer funded infrastructure each are optimum neither at the maximum (Democrats/Marxists/Gruber) nor the minimum (Libertarian)”
In a perfect libertarian world there would be no taxes since I have no natural right to take the fruit of your labor, nor you mine. The Star Trek “Ferengi” culture seems to be a good-faith attempt to explore the functioning of such a thing. All infrastructure would be by subscription. It is nearly certain that no one would have stepped on the moon and GPS would not exist. Libertarian can be taken to an absurd extreme that hardly anyone wishes to see happen.
“They still want nationalized healthcare”
Some do, some don’t, but at least it would be Constitutional.

Reply to  Michael 2
November 19, 2014 10:38 am

Michael 2, 11/18/14 @ 8:42 pm
You’ve provided a fine example of the libertarian meme, the fruitless defense of their faith. Then you call it a tired meme! Confusing. Is the meme the fruitless libertarian defense, because it is tiresome, or is the calling of it fruitless the meme part? Either way, you agree: Of course it’s fruitless. You won’t get many converts with self-contradictory arguments.
You say, Libertarians otherwise come in all flavors and cannot reliably be predicted to vote Democrat or Republican. Want to place a wager? Where are the Ron and Rand Pauls of the left? The equivalent on the left of the throng of fresh-faced libertarian youngsters, barely in their 20s, who pack CPAC get-togethers? It may be the Libertarian strategy to belong to no political party, but it is the polar opposite of the Democrats.
You say,
“Libertarian is ‘no government’” … Anarchy is “no government”. Libertarian is “you choose for you, I choose for me” … .
So Libertarianism is not anarchy, not no government, it’s everyone do his own thing. A distinction without no difference.
You accuse me of reading Huffington, then write, The world wars were economic. Apparently having no strategy, Libertarians can copy freely from the Marxists. Apparently you believe that the problem with communism, the 3d Reich, and the Brotherhood is that the markets aren’t free enough.
You state and then rationalize that In a perfect libertarian world there would be no taxes. Even Gruber knows from his Harvard PhD in econ that no taxes yields no government. Ideally.
You say, Please explain. Nothing in the United States Constitution … appoints the United States to “stop evil empires”. It is a good thing to do of course but my military oath did not include “stopping evil empires”. And regarding “nationalized healthcare” … at least it would be Constitutional.”
Explanation: Conducting war is constitutional — Congress can declare it, the President can conduct it, and each State can too, if invaded, as in from Mexico. The Constitution places no constraints on the nature of the enemy, evil empire or a nasty virus, apparently.
The federal government can nationalize health care, but not under the Commerce clause. It can do so by its power to tax, according to Chief Justice Roberts> He found that the power to tax is the unlimited power to do anything, and not just what is expressly permitted by the Constitution. With a single stroke, CJ Roberts swept away the principle of a small federal government. And with it, not just libertarianism, that’s easy, but conservatism.
Your military oath was to defend and protect the Constitution, not to fantasize about what it says.
You say,
Libertarian can be taken to an absurd extreme that hardly anyone wishes to see happen. Indeed! That absurdity typifies libertarians, nicely exemplified by your post. If you had a membership drive, you’d drive out members.
What Libertarianism frees mostly is the mind — from the tedium of being literal, consistent, logical, pragmatic, rational. Obama leans on tactics with no strategy; Libertarians have a strategy, but no tactics. Each libertarian is free silently to define whatever it is he think he joined.

Michael 2
Reply to  Jeff Glassman
November 20, 2014 11:27 am

Jeff Glassman writes:
“What Libertarianism frees mostly is the mind”
A free mind is already libertarian.
(Speaking of George Orwell’s “1984”): “Before that — throughout nearly the whole book — Winston was a victim of tyranny — but not, apparently, without all of his freedoms: he retained what might be called the final freedom, or (better, perhaps?) the first freedom: the one that resides inside — the freedom to think. The freedom that makes him human. For lovers of political freedom, this mental freedom is the most precious of all because it is the one that an individual must ultimately call upon in pursuit (or recovery) of all other freedoms. ”
Freedom of mind is the antithesis of socialism. Even if you haven’t thought about it much, deep inside you *feel* it and shapes your entire argument: You FEAR people whose minds are free.
“Where are the Ron and Rand Pauls of the left?”
England and Germany for the most part.
“It may be the Libertarian strategy to belong to no political party, but it is the polar opposite of the Democrats.”
Mostly correct. Democrats are the party of “Everything not forbidden is compulsory”. Libertarians, with their free minds, tend not to accept either forbiddings or compulsion.
“So Libertarianism is not anarchy, not no government, it’s everyone do his own thing. A distinction without no difference.”
A government of the people, by the people, IS everyone doing his own thing. I work where I wish (and where my employer also wishes it), I buy what I wish, I sell what I wish, I travel where I wish. In so doing, I I move the economic engine of this nation. Some government is necessary; I choose it. National defense is necessary, I choose that, too; and gave 20 years of my life to the defense of this nation. What have you done that is commendable and which you chose?

Michael 2
Reply to  Jeff Glassman
November 20, 2014 4:20 pm

Jeff Glassman wrote: “Conducting war is constitutional — Congress can declare it, the President can conduct it”
Nothing in the Constitution compels “stopping evil empires”. That Democrats wish to do so, at the cost of millions of American lives, is indisputable (Vietnam war comes to mind).
Nothing in my oath compels “stopping evil empires”. My oath specifically states that I defend the Constitution of the United States. Evil empires are not my problem UNTIL they threaten the United States. The mere fact of being evil is insufficient to activate my military oath. Pol Pot was very evil (as I judge the matter anyway), but the United States did nothing. Likewise Rwanda. Likewise Chairman Mao.
“The federal government can nationalize health care, but not under the Commerce clause. It can do so by its power to tax, according to Chief Justice Roberts”
Agreed. What the feds probably cannot do is decree private healthcare illegal. However, if everyone paid tax and the feds produced a national health care system, the subsidy would drive all private healthcare out of business. Hillary Clinton’s version of Clintoncare actually did make private healthcare illegal with steep fines on doctors and patients for going outside the system.
“He found that the power to tax is the unlimited power to do anything”
Pretty much. That is why Democrats and tax go hand-in-hand.
“With a single stroke, CJ Roberts swept away the principle of a small federal government”
And you wonder why there’s been such a revival of Republicans.
“Your military oath was to defend and protect the Constitution, not to fantasize about what it says.”
Wrong. That oath includes a requirement to “obey lawful orders” — necessitating some “fantasizing” about what is lawful and what is not.

November 18, 2014 11:02 am

Jeff Glassman,
I’m not a libertarian [notice the small “l”]. So maybe I don’t understand everything about them.
I agree with a strong national defense, and for the U.S. to stand up for itself in the world. No isolationist here.
Aside from national defense, though, I still favor small gov’t. The smaller the better, because government is basically evil. The fire analogy is apt. Both can be used effectively, but they can also get out of control. I think we’re at that point now.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 18, 2014 12:12 pm

Libertarian can mean anything. For example, there are anarchists, agrarians, anarchist-agrarians, socialists, communists. It is a total catch-all. Wikipedia has a list of types of libertarians and it has every meaning you can imagine. So unless there is an honest adjective in front of the term, it is a slinking chameleon.

Reply to  Zeke
November 18, 2014 12:59 pm

You CAN rely on Wikipedia!

Reply to  Zeke
November 19, 2014 3:55 am

Wow. A ‘slinking chameleon’. We don’t want no slinking chameleons around here.
I’m glad I’m just a run of the mill Ivan the Terrible, Attilla the Hun, and a ‘bomb ’em until the rubble bounces’ rightwing fanatic. Don’t wanna be no slinking chameleon. No, Ma’am. ☹

Michael 2