Bill Kristol has about had it with Ted Cruz.
In a radio conversation Thursday morning, the Weekly Standard founder and multi-platform pundit made sure to establish a base coat of respect, even admiration for the energetic and courageous conservatism of Texas’ freshman Senator.
But he grows weary of what he perceives as attacks from the Defund Obamacare chorus that anyone preferring another path must be an unfit warrior in the battle against the fraudulently-named Affordable Care Act.
The community distancing from the Defund movement contains people I have long respected, from Bill Bennett to Charles Krauthammer to Texas’ other Senator, John Cornyn.
All point to the near certainty that the defund effort will fail on the Senate floor, and succeed only in marginalizing the Republican party with another government shutdown PR disaster.
They have a point. And it’s probably not helpful to refer to them as members of a “surrender caucus.”
But rather than quibble over the word choices of Cruz, Utah Senator Mike Lee and others rallying around them, I prefer to examine why I will stand with the defund effort until it breathes its last.
Massive tyranny requires bold response. Obamacare is not just another big-government bad idea that can be whittled and trifled with by detail guys like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. It is a scourge of epic proportions, the most stunning hijacking of our economy and our liberties in modern times.
Parsing the poisonous pages of the Affordable Care Act gives the impression that this is just another in a series of noble pushbacks that Republicans will mount in the Obama era.
It is no such thing. It is an attack that necessitates a reply that reflects our outrage.
We all know it passed, and that it is “the law of the land.” Well, here’s another matter of law– Congress holds the purse strings, even to measures that have passed. If they can legally turn off the money spigot to fend off this nightmare, that is as legitimate an exercise of public will as its hasty, ramshackle passage in March 2010.
Now to the skeptics’ points:
Business: The CEO of Siemens AG, the German manufacturing giant, has been sent packing. Seems the board had it with his stewardship. Instead of making solid gains, he took the company down a green energy hole.
Peter Loescher was picked from Merck & Co. in May 2007 to lead Siemens out of a troubling time. What they got was an executive who made a bet on a trendy interest and didn’t get the results that were expected of him.
“This weekend,” Bloomberg News reported Monday, the company “lost patience after Loescher’s expansion into green energy and expensive acquisitions led to a fifth profit-forecast cut.”
Loescher was then dismissed on Wednesday.
He can’t say he wasn’t warned. He needed only to look at Spain, where attempts to create a green economy failed miserably.
Researcher Gabriel Calzada Alvarez at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos looked at the Spanish effort and found that for every green job that was created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed. Alvarez also discovered that for each green megawatt of energy brought on line, 5.28 jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy.
The country’s national debt is now so high, over $16.7 trillion, that if the figure was converted into $5 bills it would stretch almost to the moon.
According to the latest available data from the U.S. Treasury, the total public debt outstanding is $16,738,105,803,858.21, while the distance between the earth and the moon is 238,857 miles.
Since President Obama took office the figure has increased by more than $6 trillion, the largest increase to date under any U.S. president.
On January 20, 2009, the day President Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion.
The current national debt figure is also the highest since the end of the second world war. Every man, woman and child in the U.S. currently owes $55,091 for their share of the U.S. public debt.
Of the $5.1 trillion dollars of debt owned by foreign governments, nearly half is owned by China and Japan.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan famously said that a stack of $1,000 bills equivalent to the U.S. government’s debt would be about 67 miles high. In $5 bills that would only have reach 13,400 miles.
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT ALMOST REACHES TO THE MOON: HOW IT ALL ADDS UP
- The national debt currently stands at $16,738,105,803,858.21
- A dollar bill is .0043 inches in thickness
- $16,738,105,803,858.21 multiplied by .0043 equals 71,973,854,956.59 inches
- 71,973,854,956.59 divided by 12 is 5,997,821,246.38 feet
- A mile is 5,280 feet in length
- In $1 bills the national debt would stretch 1,135,951 miles into the air
- In $5 bills that equates to 227,190 miles
- The Earth is 238,855 miles from the moon
- Difference 11,665 miles
Attribution: Mail Online
by: the Common Constitutionalist
When one thinks of the poor in America, one might think of the welfare system, or government (section 8) housing, or maybe the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). You know, food stamps.
Actually, it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen anyone at the grocery store pull out a paper “food stamp”. Now it’s the EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card. You’ve seen it, even if you haven’t realized. The EBT card mimics a standard credit card.
So that’s what may come to mind when reflecting on America’s less fortunate. It certainly wouldn’t be J.P. Morgan, Xerox or eFunds Corporation.
Now why in the world would anyone think of these three large corporations in relation to the poor?
Well, you see, the federal government pays for the food stamp program, but it does not administer it.
Have you ever heard the term public/private partnership? Well, this is a classic example of its real-world application. It also sounds better than what it is; crony capitalism.
These three corporations hold the EBT contracts for the various states. J.P. Morgan has 24 state contracts alone. In other words, the government pays J.P. Morgan as the administrator of SNAP funds in almost half the states.
Have you heard that dopey saying, mostly uttered by socialists and other leftists: “they’re getting rich on the backs of the poor”?
Logically, that’s an impossibility except in this case, where corporate executives and investors are doing just that. It’s an ingenious scam and here’s how it works.
J.P. Morgan wins state EBT contracts. It in turn lobbies Congress and the White House. It pays particular attention to those of the Department of Agriculture and members of Congress that oversee the department’s budget.
Maybe Morgan might donate money to a politician’s election or reelection campaign, similar to the almost $1 million in donated in 2008 to the Obama presidential campaign. It’s just coincidental that shortly after taking office in 2009 Obama signed the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”. Buried in the Bill was a 13% increase in EBT benefits and also broadened acceptance into the program. In other words, allowing many more to enroll in SNAP.
My guess, you like me have heard the ads promoting food stamp enrollment. As more and more unfortunate Americans are forced into the EBT program, J.P. Morgan’s profit increases and investors reap the benefits. Investors such as Obama, which has invested upwards of $1 million.
They are the number 3 campaign contributor to Senate Agriculture chair Debbie Stabenow. Sen. Jay Rockefeller has invested over $50 million in J.P. Morgan.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for investment profits. Just not rigged profits. And that’s what they are. Companies like J.P. Morgan reap huge profits and increased stock value by manipulating political hacks. At the same time these political hacks reap profits by investing in the same companies they promote. That’s crony capitalism.
And with more and more people enrolling and the addition of the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program into the EBT system, the circle of profits and corruption will continue unabated.
Ben Bernanke has a message for Wall Street and Main Street: Don’t worry, expect no big changes in Fed policy — unless the economy changes in a major way. Don’t hold your breath.
No question, the nation’s top banker has a tough job convincing investors, producers and lawmakers he’s doing the right thing for the economy. The problem is, the Fed has a long track record of making big mistakes, but often doesn’t know until years later.
And it might be making one now.
While some speak of the Fed’s “success,” holding interest rates at zero and buying $85 billion a month in Treasuries — the Fed now owns more than $3.5 trillion in U.S. debt, up from $900 billion just a few years ago — this hasn’t brought us a normal economic recovery.
Indeed, despite the incredible stimulus, inflation remains below the Fed’s 2% target. GDP growth is averaging an anemic 1.7% in the past year.
All told, the economy is just 3% bigger than at the end of 2007, when the recession began. By comparison, in a normal recovery GDP is usually up 16% or more this far into a recovery.
Unemployment of 7.6% isn’t close to satisfactory. And since last year all of the net U.S. jobs created have been part-time positions; it’s obvious we’re in an unprecedented employment crisis.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Imagine this. You have been appointed Treasurer of an American state, a heavily populated one. One of your most important duties is looking after the states money. For most if not all states that can be millions or billions of dollars every year.
Well some of that money must be invested to achieve not only safety but growth. It’s an awesome responsibility. Invest the states money in the wrong vehicle and you could lose some or all of the investment.
States have guidelines and rules where and how such money can be invested. The state legislature normally sets the guidelines. Maybe they decide the treasurer can only place the money in historically safe and highly rated funds. They might decide the treasurer can only invest domestically or internationally with trusted allies. These rules are made so the treasurer’s don’t invest in blood diamonds or the Russian Mafia fund.
Most state treasures take this charge very seriously. Such it is with Josh Mandel, the treasurer for the state of Ohio.
By all accounts Mandel has done a pretty good job for the state. This state has earned a AAA credit rating on Ohio’s multibillion-dollar STAR investment fund. They have also achieved an upgrade in rating on their Enterprise Bond Fund. The first in a decade.
There’s only one problem. Josh Mandel is one of those dang “Jews”. And do you know what that “Jew” has been doing? He’s been investing the state of Ohio’s money in Israel Bonds!
He purchased $42 million of Israel Bonds just a few months ago. That brings Ohio’s total holding of Israel bonds to $80 million.
Some are not so pleased with his purchases. Can you guess who they might be? If you guessed radical pro-Arab Palestinian groups, you win the prize. Extra credit if you also guessed skinhead white supremacist groups.
The Palestinian groups sent off a letter to the state explaining how evil Israel is and that it is a human rights violator. The groups called Israel an Apartheid state that “humiliates Palestinian men, women and children… shames the state of Ohio and poorly reflects upon the character of its citizens”.
So investing in Israel has all of a sudden become a pox on the citizens of Ohio, despite the fact that the state has been investing in Israel bonds since 1993.
Oh, and did I forget to mention that Israel bonds have yields 3 to 4 times that of U.S. Treasuries.
Treasurer Mandel had a response to the pro-Arab letter: “In the Ohio treasurer’s office, we make decisions on what’s best for our taxpayers, not based on what radical Islamist groups want us to do.” Awesome! How many “public servants” would have the guts to say something like that? Very few.
“Unity of Nobility”, a white supremacist group simply stated that” Ohio Just Got Jewed”.
Maybe next go round Mandel can purchase shares of the Neo Nazi Trust or Hamas/Hezbollah Bond Fund with a yield of rockets and mortars.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
So Bill O’Reilly, great defender of folks is officially on the immigration bandwagon. Hooray! Another conservative bites the dust. Although I guess that’s not accurate. O’Reilly has never described himself as a conservative. I’ll second that. He’s not. But even if he had after coming out in favor of “immigration reform” he could no longer wear that moniker.
His claim is that if Republicans don’t line up behind the RINOs (my words, not his) and support the bill, all will be lost and Hillary Clinton will waltz into the White House in 2016. Of course he mentioned nothing of the importance of the 2014 midterms.
His lecture was in response to an e-mail from one of his viewers who was against the bill and said that Congress should make no concessions. In effect they must reject the entire bill.
Well bully for you Nettie the e-mailer. I agree 100%. Bill did not agree. He said: “When Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016, will you say the same thing, Nettie? Because that’s what’s gonna happen if the GOP does not begin to put forth smart solutions to the country’s problems.”
Well Mr. O’Reilly, I read the bill, or at least the long-winded summary and there’s not a single “smart solution” in it. Feel free to review my critique here.
At this point, as often happens, O’Reilly got on a roll. E-mailer Jim was his next victim. Foolish Jim had the temerity to suggest we merely adhere to and enforce current laws. Bill’s rebuttal: “So that means federal agents will begin forcibly rounding up millions of illegal people, entering their homes and removing men, women, and children, taking them to holding pens, where they will be awaiting deportation. Is that your vision, Jim? Because that’s what enforcing existing laws would mean.”
What an absurd statement Mr. O’Reilly. You just stated that if the government doesn’t care for a law or set of laws they just don’t have to enforce some. That is what you said, correct? Does that apply to us, or just the government? How ridiculous!
Of course now that I think of it, that’s what many administrations have done, the current being one of the worst offenders.
Whatever happened to the law is the law? There are many antidiscrimination laws on the books. If an employer won’t hire someone because he’s black or fire him for the same reason, would you be okay with that Bill? After all, the employer disagrees with the current law so why follow it.
As an aside, I would agree with the employer. It’s his business. He should be able to hire and fire whom he wants for whatever the reason.
But I’m sure Mr. O’Reilly meant that because current immigration law is “mean” it shouldn’t be enforced. I guess it’s all about being nice to the people that snuck into our country illegally.
No, actually it’s only about winning the next election. The ruination of America will be worth it to keep Hillary out of the White House.
Mr. O’Reilly, you and every other wrong thinking middle-of-the-roader will surely lose us the next election with cowardly acts like passing this bill.
O’Reilly stated: “For years I’ve called for a more secure southern border, you know that. And now it looks like the secure border is in reach. At least somewhat. So I hope this bill does become law.”
Has anyone actually read this bill? I reiterate, I’ve read what I needed of the bill and there is no more security in it! And how do you have somewhat of a secure border? Is that like being kind of pregnant?
It really sounds to me as if Republicans are so terrified of this issue they will pretend to see something that isn’t there.
And as I’ve stated before, we will not receive any more Hispanic votes due to its passage. In fact, if history repeats, as often happens, we’ll get less.
In 1980 Republicans received 38% of the Hispanic vote. In 1984 it was 37%. 1986 brought us mass amnesty. In 1988 Republicans garnered only 30% and in 1992 it was down to 29%. What a winning strategy and Bill wants a repeat.
Someone explain to me how the outcome will differ from post 1986, because I don’t see it. Putting aside the reality of the logistical and financial nightmare, politically, it’s suicide and like Jack Kevorkian, Bill is ready to assist.