Reasons I like Ted Cruz for POTUS

[Mojo2]

Muslim nation? Are you a birfer, your moron?

You bat for the other team, you impudent, America hating, ignoramus.

However, if i have misjudged you, I apologize. And from one truth seeker to another I bring this to your attention. There are plenty of expository sites like this one where one could find all kinds of proof and evidence, however, here is the thing: The ULTIMATE purpose or goal of Jihad is to help Islam grow and make progress.

Progress towards what?

Towards global domination.

Which includes defeating America.

How the Muslim Brotherhood Is Winning in America

Former FBI Agent John Guandolo: 'We're 5 minutes into the 1st quarter of the football game. The MB is winning 72-0.'

BY RYAN MAURO Sun, October 20, 2013

[SNIP]

Mauro: Do you believe the Islamists are capable of taking over the U.S. or soon will be? If not, then what is the threat this network poses?

Guandolo: It is clear they believe they have already won. They are waiting for the game clock to run out. Part of the problem in getting Americans to see the imminent threat is that they, like the U.S. security services, are completely focused on the kinetic stuff—bombings, shootings, etc. We need to worry about these, but it isn’t how they intend to defeat us.

The MB strategic plan says they are waging “Civilization Jihad” to destroy our civilization and that they will use our leaders to do their work for them (“by their hands and the hands of the believers&#8221. When the U.S. wrote constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan imposing sharia and created two Islamic Republics; that is civilization jihad by our hands.

When the MB launches a revolution, overthrows numerous governments and kills scores of people, our government calls it a “freedom movement” organized by “students on Twitter” and then proceeds to financially and materially support the MB in Egypt, and then Al-Qaeda/MB in Libya and Syria. That is “civilization jihad” by our hands.

When the Hamas and MB entities in America tell the White House they are “offended” over training about this movement and its doctrinal basis in sharia law and that training is shut down and replaced by training from MB organizations, that is “civilization jihad” by our hands.

I could go on, but I think your readers will get the point. As I see it, we’re five minutes into the first quarter of the football game. The MB is out on the field and they are winning 72-0. We are on the sidelines in baseball outfits wondering what inning it is.

The MB has a strategic plan and an operational plan to implement it. They are well-organized, well-funded and disciplined. They have thousands of organizations working daily to overthrow our governmental system and erode our society of the basic founding principles.

We cannot even speak about the threat for fear of offending our MB and Hamas advisers. Who do you think is going to win this war if it continues this way?

How the Muslim Brotherhood Is Winning in America | #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam

 

[Mojo2]

I agree to consider it sober and seriously. Please note that this will mean verifying sources and cross checking references. Sources that are biased or fail fact checking will be disregarded for the purposes of making a sober and serious assessment of what you provide since that would just be a waste of my time.

Fair enough?

Okay. Although, I think your FIRST priority would be to be fair to yourself and your country but if being fair with me will help you see yourself to the truth then all will be good in the final analysis.

Does the WAY the ACA biil was 'born' into being matter to you at all?

If it was created with the goal of being slipped past GOP objections using any legislative trickery necessary to get it passed and on to the Resident's desk to be signed, does that give you enough reason to object to its being implemented?

Let's take this step by step.

However onerous you and others on the right may have subjectively perceived the ACA to be, that subjective perception does not justify shutting down the government and threatening the economic well-being of the Nation.

The issue isn’t the merits of the ACA, the issue is the reckless and irresponsible tactics employed by the extreme, and indeed, radical, right.

This IS the issue. Or one of the issues. Obama has lots of issues here to distract and mesmerize!

Let's start with a very educational column by Thomas Sowell.

Who Shut Down the Government?

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/who-shut-down-the-government.html

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is Thomas Sowell | Home. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at Creators.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

That usually answers the most serious questions of earnest seekers of truth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Okay. Although, I think your FIRST priority would be to be fair to yourself and your country but if being fair with me will help you see yourself to the truth then all will be good in the final analysis.

Does the WAY the ACA biil was 'born' into being matter to you at all?

If it was created with the goal of being slipped past GOP objections using any legislative trickery necessary to get it passed and on to the Resident's desk to be signed, does that give you enough reason to object to its being implemented?

Let's take this step by step.

The ACA was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990's as an alternative to "Hilarycare". It was subsequently enacted into law in MA by Romney and was successful enough for him to be proud of that accomplishment. So if that is what you mean by "being born" then yes, it does matter. It demonstrates what can be done when both Republicans and Democrats work together to compromise a viable alternative to "HMO's Gone Wild".

Let's decide what the truth is on this point.

Did the Heritage Foundation 'invent' Obamacare?

The Heritage Foundation has THIS to say about what you've been told is the truth.

Don’t Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate

Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation?

In a word, no.

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

The fact that you believe this is likely due to your listening to the liberal media, specifically, the two individuals I've highlighted in red.

You are fixating on the individual mandate and ignoring the fact the HF did in fact invent all of the basic provisions of the ACA. Furthermore according to your own article the concepts of mandatory insurance purchases and of punitive taxation legislation were both in the original Heritage version.

I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through “adverse selection” (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage).

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid “with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.”

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.

So it looks like everything that you object to about the ACA was originally devised by the HF and endorsed by the GOP and conservative experts! That is the real truth according to your own sources.

 

[Mojo2]

The ACA was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990's as an alternative to "Hilarycare". It was subsequently enacted into law in MA by Romney and was successful enough for him to be proud of that accomplishment. So if that is what you mean by "being born" then yes, it does matter. It demonstrates what can be done when both Republicans and Democrats work together to compromise a viable alternative to "HMO's Gone Wild".

Let's decide what the truth is on this point.

Did the Heritage Foundation 'invent' Obamacare?

The Heritage Foundation has THIS to say about what you've been told is the truth.



Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

The fact that you believe this is likely due to your listening to the liberal media, specifically, the two individuals I've highlighted in red.

You are fixating on the individual mandate and ignoring the fact the HF did in fact invent all of the basic provisions of the ACA. Furthermore according to your own article the concepts of mandatory insurance purchases and of punitive taxation legislation were both in the original Heritage version.

I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through “adverse selection” (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage).

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid “with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.”

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.

So it looks like everything that you object to about the ACA was originally devised by the HF and endorsed by the GOP and conservative experts! That is the real truth according to your own sources.

If you are looking to be proven right you will glom onto the first shred of 'evidence' which suggests you are right.

If you are searching for the truth you will consider every new piece of pertinent info a treasure!

You grabbed onto the shreds of evidence that suggests you are right but you left these behind?

My idea was hardly new. 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.

Read more of Butler’s article and learn

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Try searching for the truth for a change and you will be on the right side, the winning side of most debates and not feel so desperate to be proven right all the time.

 

[Mojo2]

Unless you still have an issue with the Heritage Foundation, we'll move on.

Next, the Resident and Ms. Pelosi KNEW the ACA would meet with stiff resistance because the provisions of the Bill were so onerous.

To avoid having the bill even be subject to an informed vote here's what Ms. Pelosi did with assistance from the Resident.

Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?

Washington Examiner ^ | 02/10/10 | Mark Tapscott
Posted on 2/10/2010 305 PM by Mrs. Don-o

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's senior health care advisor has told Congress Daily that congressional Democratic leaders have settled on a strategy they believe will allow them to make changes in both Senate and House Obamacare bills, then send a single, revised version to President Obama for signature.

Congress Daily is a subscription-only publication, but LifeNews.com has these details:

"In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

"Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“'The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,' Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

“'There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,' he said."

The comments from Primus raise an obvious question: Since it is inconveible that Democratic congressional leaders are moving in this direction without the knowledge of the White House, why call a health care summit and challenge congressional Republicans to come with their best ideas when the plan is already in place to use legislative trickery to pass Obamacare?

The most logical answer would seem to be that the summit is part and parcel of a White House/congressional Democratic strategy to distract attention from what is about to happen on the Hill. It's the classic magician's trick of distracting you with the left hand while the right hand does the "trick."

Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?

Pelosi and Obama conspired to trick the Senate and Congress into passing ACA through without any significant debate. Senators were required to sign it without reading it.

Why?

Because they were trying to impose this onerous law on America and Americans without it being subject to our normal series and process of checks and balances.

This violated the spirit, if not the letter of the Constitution.

Did it not?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's decide what the truth is on this point.

Did the Heritage Foundation 'invent' Obamacare?

The Heritage Foundation has THIS to say about what you've been told is the truth.



Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

The fact that you believe this is likely due to your listening to the liberal media, specifically, the two individuals I've highlighted in red.

You are fixating on the individual mandate and ignoring the fact the HF did in fact invent all of the basic provisions of the ACA. Furthermore according to your own article the concepts of mandatory insurance purchases and of punitive taxation legislation were both in the original Heritage version.



So it looks like everything that you object to about the ACA was originally devised by the HF and endorsed by the GOP and conservative experts! That is the real truth according to your own sources.

If you are looking to be proven right you will glom onto the first shred of 'evidence' which suggests you are right.

If you are searching for the truth you will consider every new piece of pertinent info a treasure!

You grabbed onto the shreds of evidence that suggests you are right but you left these behind?

My idea was hardly new. 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.

Read more of Butler’s article and learn

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Try searching for the truth for a change and you will be on the right side, the winning side of most debates and not feel so desperate to be proven right all the time.

Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. The aspects you are claiming to be the "truth" do not nullify your allegation that the ACA was and still is largely is the brainchild of the HF and the GOP. If anything they prove the exact opposite. All of those aspects are in the ACA.

What is telling are your continued attempts to deny that the HF and the GOP are the genetic parents of the ACA. Why not embrace what you have done for this nation? Why not claim ownership and tout the benefits that you have provided to hardworking Americans?

Or will you only do that once the ACA is accepted as being a successful and beneficial part of American life?

 

[Mojo2]

You are fixating on the individual mandate and ignoring the fact the HF did in fact invent all of the basic provisions of the ACA. Furthermore according to your own article the concepts of mandatory insurance purchases and of punitive taxation legislation were both in the original Heritage version.



So it looks like everything that you object to about the ACA was originally devised by the HF and endorsed by the GOP and conservative experts! That is the real truth according to your own sources.

If you are looking to be proven right you will glom onto the first shred of 'evidence' which suggests you are right.

If you are searching for the truth you will consider every new piece of pertinent info a treasure!

You grabbed onto the shreds of evidence that suggests you are right but you left these behind?

My idea was hardly new. 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.

Read more of Butler’s article and learn

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Try searching for the truth for a change and you will be on the right side, the winning side of most debates and not feel so desperate to be proven right all the time.

Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. The aspects you are claiming to be the "truth" do not nullify your allegation that the ACA was and still is largely is the brainchild of the HF and the GOP. If anything they prove the exact opposite. All of those aspects are in the ACA.

What is telling are your continued attempts to deny that the HF and the GOP are the genetic parents of the ACA. Why not embrace what you have done for this nation? Why not claim ownership and tout the benefits that you have provided to hardworking Americans?

Or will you only do that once the ACA is accepted as being a successful and beneficial part of American life?

When HASN'T the GOP, Conservatives, Independents and clear thinking Liberals of all kinds, everyone who has discovered the objectionable aspects of Obamacare, been strenuously opposed to it?

We/they have always been against it and always would be against it AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS...and that's ANOTHER matter to deal with.

With so many changes Dear Leader has made to it, is the Affordable Care Act still a legally enforceable law at all?

He has made so many changes (which violate the boundaries of his Constitutional powers...he can't write or amend laws from the Oval Office, as he's arguably done) to the final version which he signed into law March 23, 2010, the former Lt. Gov. of the State of NY believes he has invalidated the law.

Try this article which enumerates the reasons we are, have been and will remain opposed to OBAMACARE but not to affordable health care.

REP. JOE PITTS: 10 reasons why I oppose Obamacare

By Rep. Joe Pitts, Guest columnist

POSTED: 09/30/13, 9:42 PM EDT | UPDATED: ON 09/30/2013

Republicans keep fighting against Obamacare, even after the President was reelected and after the Democrats maintained their majority in the Senate. The Washington pundit class doesn’t quite understand this. Major mainstream media giants like the Washington Post and New York Times think we should just move on and admit that it is the “law of the land.”

I stand firmly for efforts to repeal, defund, delay or dismantle the law not out of blind partisanship, but because I fully believe it is destructive to our nation’s health care system and our federal government. There are many reasons why I will keep up this fight, but here are ten of the biggest reasons why we need to repeal and replace the law.

First, workers are seeing their hours cut because of the new definition of part-time work as 30 hours a week or more. In the last year, Lancaster Newspapers has reported on two local school districts forced to outsource hourly workers because of these regulations.

Second, businesses are unable to hire new workers because of new mandates and rising insurance costs. I’ve spoken with employers across the district, many of them are holding off on hiring new employees because of the uncertainty created by all the new red tape and mandates to purchase government-approved insurance. Those who are near 50 full-time workers have frozen hiring to avoid going over the threshold where many of the new requirements kick in. Workers are finding it tough to find good, full-time jobs.

Third, many people are losing their current health insurance. Nationally, companies like Walgreens and UPS are eliminating or changing their health care plans to deal with rising costs. Locally, I’ve met with dairy farmers whose health insurance plans are threatened by new requirements.

Fourth, new taxes are burdening the economy and destroying good jobs. There are new taxes on pharmaceuticals, insurance companies and investment income in order to pay for new government subsidies. One of the worst of these new taxes is the one on medical devices. Pennsylvania has many leading medical device firms who are struggling to grow as the government cuts into their bottom line. Some are choosing to grow overseas rather than in the United States.

Fifth, the law will cause government spending and deficits to balloon. Over the next ten years, federal spending will increase by $2.6 trillion. As a result of the law, state governments will have increased burdens from Medicaid expansion and maintenance of new Obamacare exchanges.

Sixth, insurance premiums keep rising despite the President’s insistence that his plan would save families $2,500 a year. Nationwide, the average Obamacare plan will cost 24 percent more the plans available now. In Pennsylvania, they will average 39 percent more. The law isn’t helping to stem rising costs, it is contributing to them.

Seventh, a new mandate in the law will violate American’s First Amendment rights. Employers have to provide access to all forms of contraception and sterilization treatments, regardless of long-standing moral objections. Locally, Conestoga Wood Specialties is taking their case to the Supreme Court in order to protect their constitutional rights.

Eighth, the bill cuts Medicare and Medicare Advantage without instituting needed long-term reforms. The law cuts reimbursements to doctors and Medicare Advantage providers to pay for new subsidies. It also creates a new bureaucratic board to pass further provider cuts without the consent of Congress.

Ninth, it was the most sweeping partisan law in American history, passing over the opposition of every Republican and dozens of Democrats. Obamacare is a massive change in the responsibilities of the federal government. Typically, these type of bills pass with at least some bipartisan support. For instance, the laws creating Social Security and Medicare had both Republicans and Democrats voting in favor.

Finally, the American people simply don’t support the law. RealClear Politics keeps track of every single major poll. In the last year, only one out of 38 separate polls has shown more Americans supporting the law than opposing it.

Simply put, Obamacare is hurting people. We can do better. I’ve written many times about the good alternatives I support. The biggest obstacle to good reform is Obamacare, let’s end it and move forward.

Congressman Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.

REP. JOE PITTS: 10 reasons why I oppose Obamacare

And in another part of the linked online publication there's the following interesting headline!

DIANA WEST: What if Obamacare was never about our health?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no need to argue with Mojo2, who is the type of extreme elitists being minimalized by the superpacs.

 

[Mojo2]

Mojo2 is about to get schooled.

There is no need to argue with Mojo2, who is the type of extreme elitists being minimalized by the superpacs.

You just say everything that pops into your head, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP, as a consequence of his posts in this thread, has indeed demonstrated why Cruz would be a dreadful president.

Well done.

 

[Mojo2]

The OP, as a consequence of his posts in this thread, has indeed demonstrated why Cruz would be a dreadful president.

Well done.

Reasons I like Ted Cruz for POTUS

I will use this thread to point out the reasons I think Ted Cruz should be our next President.

Let's start with Sen. Cruz's masterful exchange with then Sen. Chuck Hagel in his Senate confirmation hearing for the position of Sec'y of Defense.

Ted Cruz Explains why he is against Hagel to his face in a masterful takedown on his nomination - YouTube

Here he is decimating Chuck Hagel at his confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of Defense by confronting him repeatedly with his past statements about Israel and about his agreement on Al-Jazeera that the United States is "in perception and reality" the "world's bully."

Hagel deserved being in the Hot Seat. He shouldn't have been confirmed.

I've done as I said I would.

And I may do more as the spirit moves me.

 

[Amelia]

Unless you still have an issue with the Heritage Foundation, we'll move on.

Next, the Resident and Ms. Pelosi KNEW the ACA would meet with stiff resistance because the provisions of the Bill were so onerous.

To avoid having the bill even be subject to an informed vote here's what Ms. Pelosi did with assistance from the Resident.

Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?

Washington Examiner ^ | 02/10/10 | Mark Tapscott
Posted on 2/10/2010 305 PM by Mrs. Don-o

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's senior health care advisor has told Congress Daily that congressional Democratic leaders have settled on a strategy they believe will allow them to make changes in both Senate and House Obamacare bills, then send a single, revised version to President Obama for signature.

Congress Daily is a subscription-only publication, but LifeNews.com has these details:

"In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

"Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“'The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,' Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

“'There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,' he said."

The comments from Primus raise an obvious question: Since it is inconveible that Democratic congressional leaders are moving in this direction without the knowledge of the White House, why call a health care summit and challenge congressional Republicans to come with their best ideas when the plan is already in place to use legislative trickery to pass Obamacare?

The most logical answer would seem to be that the summit is part and parcel of a White House/congressional Democratic strategy to distract attention from what is about to happen on the Hill. It's the classic magician's trick of distracting you with the left hand while the right hand does the "trick."

Pelosi aide says Dems have a legislative "trick" to pass Obamacare; So why have a summit?

Pelosi and Obama conspired to trick the Senate and Congress into passing ACA through without any significant debate. Senators were required to sign it without reading it.

Why?

Because they were trying to impose this onerous law on America and Americans without it being subject to our normal series and process of checks and balances.

This violated the spirit, if not the letter of the Constitution.

Did it not?

Gotta love the respect Democrats have for democracy.


/sarcasm

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you are looking to be proven right you will glom onto the first shred of 'evidence' which suggests you are right.

If you are searching for the truth you will consider every new piece of pertinent info a treasure!

You grabbed onto the shreds of evidence that suggests you are right but you left these behind?



Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Try searching for the truth for a change and you will be on the right side, the winning side of most debates and not feel so desperate to be proven right all the time.

Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. The aspects you are claiming to be the "truth" do not nullify your allegation that the ACA was and still is largely is the brainchild of the HF and the GOP. If anything they prove the exact opposite. All of those aspects are in the ACA.

What is telling are your continued attempts to deny that the HF and the GOP are the genetic parents of the ACA. Why not embrace what you have done for this nation? Why not claim ownership and tout the benefits that you have provided to hardworking Americans?

Or will you only do that once the ACA is accepted as being a successful and beneficial part of American life?

When HASN'T the GOP, Conservatives, Independents and clear thinking Liberals of all kinds, everyone who has discovered the objectionable aspects of Obamacare, been strenuously opposed to it?

We/they have always been against it and always would be against it AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS...and that's ANOTHER matter to deal with.

With so many changes Dear Leader has made to it, is the Affordable Care Act still a legally enforceable law at all?

He has made so many changes (which violate the boundaries of his Constitutional powers...he can't write or amend laws from the Oval Office, as he's arguably done) to the final version which he signed into law March 23, 2010, the former Lt. Gov. of the State of NY believes he has invalidated the law.

Try this article which enumerates the reasons we are, have been and will remain opposed to OBAMACARE but not to affordable health care.

REP. JOE PITTS: 10 reasons why I oppose Obamacare

By Rep. Joe Pitts, Guest columnist

POSTED: 09/30/13, 9:42 PM EDT | UPDATED: ON 09/30/2013

Republicans keep fighting against Obamacare, even after the President was reelected and after the Democrats maintained their majority in the Senate. The Washington pundit class doesn’t quite understand this. Major mainstream media giants like the Washington Post and New York Times think we should just move on and admit that it is the “law of the land.”

I stand firmly for efforts to repeal, defund, delay or dismantle the law not out of blind partisanship, but because I fully believe it is destructive to our nation’s health care system and our federal government. There are many reasons why I will keep up this fight, but here are ten of the biggest reasons why we need to repeal and replace the law.

First, workers are seeing their hours cut because of the new definition of part-time work as 30 hours a week or more. In the last year, Lancaster Newspapers has reported on two local school districts forced to outsource hourly workers because of these regulations.

Second, businesses are unable to hire new workers because of new mandates and rising insurance costs. I’ve spoken with employers across the district, many of them are holding off on hiring new employees because of the uncertainty created by all the new red tape and mandates to purchase government-approved insurance. Those who are near 50 full-time workers have frozen hiring to avoid going over the threshold where many of the new requirements kick in. Workers are finding it tough to find good, full-time jobs.

Third, many people are losing their current health insurance. Nationally, companies like Walgreens and UPS are eliminating or changing their health care plans to deal with rising costs. Locally, I’ve met with dairy farmers whose health insurance plans are threatened by new requirements.

Fourth, new taxes are burdening the economy and destroying good jobs. There are new taxes on pharmaceuticals, insurance companies and investment income in order to pay for new government subsidies. One of the worst of these new taxes is the one on medical devices. Pennsylvania has many leading medical device firms who are struggling to grow as the government cuts into their bottom line. Some are choosing to grow overseas rather than in the United States.

Fifth, the law will cause government spending and deficits to balloon. Over the next ten years, federal spending will increase by $2.6 trillion. As a result of the law, state governments will have increased burdens from Medicaid expansion and maintenance of new Obamacare exchanges.

Sixth, insurance premiums keep rising despite the President’s insistence that his plan would save families $2,500 a year. Nationwide, the average Obamacare plan will cost 24 percent more the plans available now. In Pennsylvania, they will average 39 percent more. The law isn’t helping to stem rising costs, it is contributing to them.

Seventh, a new mandate in the law will violate American’s First Amendment rights. Employers have to provide access to all forms of contraception and sterilization treatments, regardless of long-standing moral objections. Locally, Conestoga Wood Specialties is taking their case to the Supreme Court in order to protect their constitutional rights.

Eighth, the bill cuts Medicare and Medicare Advantage without instituting needed long-term reforms. The law cuts reimbursements to doctors and Medicare Advantage providers to pay for new subsidies. It also creates a new bureaucratic board to pass further provider cuts without the consent of Congress.

Ninth, it was the most sweeping partisan law in American history, passing over the opposition of every Republican and dozens of Democrats. Obamacare is a massive change in the responsibilities of the federal government. Typically, these type of bills pass with at least some bipartisan support. For instance, the laws creating Social Security and Medicare had both Republicans and Democrats voting in favor.

Finally, the American people simply don’t support the law. RealClear Politics keeps track of every single major poll. In the last year, only one out of 38 separate polls has shown more Americans supporting the law than opposing it.

Simply put, Obamacare is hurting people. We can do better. I’ve written many times about the good alternatives I support. The biggest obstacle to good reform is Obamacare, let’s end it and move forward.

Congressman Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.

REP. JOE PITTS: 10 reasons why I oppose Obamacare

And in another part of the linked online publication there's the following interesting headline!

DIANA WEST: What if Obamacare was never about our health?

Just so that I have the rules of your game straight this is how I see it. You claim that something is the the "truth". Then when you can't sustain that allegation you pull a "whack-a-mole" move and jump to something else instead.

That isn't how it works. If you expect others to take this seriously then you have to play by the same rules. You either defend your position on the first point or you concede it. Having failed to defend it this will be taken as your admission that your first point was NOT the "truth".

Do we still have an agreement in place?

 

[Mojo2]

Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. The aspects you are claiming to be the "truth" do not nullify your allegation that the ACA was and still is largely is the brainchild of the HF and the GOP. If anything they prove the exact opposite. All of those aspects are in the ACA.

What is telling are your continued attempts to deny that the HF and the GOP are the genetic parents of the ACA. Why not embrace what you have done for this nation? Why not claim ownership and tout the benefits that you have provided to hardworking Americans?

Or will you only do that once the ACA is accepted as being a successful and beneficial part of American life?

When HASN'T the GOP, Conservatives, Independents and clear thinking Liberals of all kinds, everyone who has discovered the objectionable aspects of Obamacare, been strenuously opposed to it?

We/they have always been against it and always would be against it AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS...and that's ANOTHER matter to deal with.

With so many changes Dear Leader has made to it, is the Affordable Care Act still a legally enforceable law at all?

He has made so many changes (which violate the boundaries of his Constitutional powers...he can't write or amend laws from the Oval Office, as he's arguably done) to the final version which he signed into law March 23, 2010, the former Lt. Gov. of the State of NY believes he has invalidated the law.

Try this article which enumerates the reasons we are, have been and will remain opposed to OBAMACARE but not to affordable health care.



REP. JOE PITTS: 10 reasons why I oppose Obamacare

And in another part of the linked online publication there's the following interesting headline!

DIANA WEST: What if Obamacare was never about our health?

Just so that I have the rules of your game straight this is how I see it. You claim that something is the the "truth". Then when you can't sustain that allegation you pull a "whack-a-mole" move and jump to something else instead.

That isn't how it works. If you expect others to take this seriously then you have to play by the same rules. You either defend your position on the first point or you concede it. Having failed to defend it this will be taken as your admission that your first point was NOT the "truth".

Do we still have an agreement in place?

Absolutely!

I didn't want to wait for you to have to show up and sign in just to tell me you didn't need to further belabor the first point.

I asked if you were ready to move on.

So, state your hang up. I'm willing to stay here as long as you are still abiding by the contract.

 

[Derideo_Te]

When HASN'T the GOP, Conservatives, Independents and clear thinking Liberals of all kinds, everyone who has discovered the objectionable aspects of Obamacare, been strenuously opposed to it?

We/they have always been against it and always would be against it AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS...and that's ANOTHER matter to deal with.

With so many changes Dear Leader has made to it, is the Affordable Care Act still a legally enforceable law at all?

He has made so many changes (which violate the boundaries of his Constitutional powers...he can't write or amend laws from the Oval Office, as he's arguably done) to the final version which he signed into law March 23, 2010, the former Lt. Gov. of the State of NY believes he has invalidated the law.

Try this article which enumerates the reasons we are, have been and will remain opposed to OBAMACARE but not to affordable health care.



REP. JOE PITTS: 10 reasons why I oppose Obamacare

And in another part of the linked online publication there's the following interesting headline!

Just so that I have the rules of your game straight this is how I see it. You claim that something is the the "truth". Then when you can't sustain that allegation you pull a "whack-a-mole" move and jump to something else instead.

That isn't how it works. If you expect others to take this seriously then you have to play by the same rules. You either defend your position on the first point or you concede it. Having failed to defend it this will be taken as your admission that your first point was NOT the "truth".

Do we still have an agreement in place?

Absolutely!

I didn't want to wait for you to have to show up and sign in just to tell me you didn't need to further belabor the first point.

I asked if you were ready to move on.

So, state your hang up. I'm willing to stay here as long as you are still abiding by the contract.

OK, so having conceded your first point what is the next specific point you want me to address?

 

[Mojo2]

Just so that I have the rules of your game straight this is how I see it. You claim that something is the the "truth". Then when you can't sustain that allegation you pull a "whack-a-mole" move and jump to something else instead.

That isn't how it works. If you expect others to take this seriously then you have to play by the same rules. You either defend your position on the first point or you concede it. Having failed to defend it this will be taken as your admission that your first point was NOT the "truth".

Do we still have an agreement in place?

Absolutely!

I didn't want to wait for you to have to show up and sign in just to tell me you didn't need to further belabor the first point.

I asked if you were ready to move on.

So, state your hang up. I'm willing to stay here as long as you are still abiding by the contract.

OK, so having conceded your first point what is the next specific point you want me to address?

See how you Liberals are?

You just tried to slip that past me.

Just like Pelosi and the Resident did when they slipped the ACA through Congress!

Legislative trickery on the local level.

You libs don't miss an opportunity to be sneaky, do you?



I haven't conceded a thing.

But if you have decided to hold the first point in abeyance until you read and hear more, tell me and we'll move along.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Absolutely!

I didn't want to wait for you to have to show up and sign in just to tell me you didn't need to further belabor the first point.

I asked if you were ready to move on.

So, state your hang up. I'm willing to stay here as long as you are still abiding by the contract.

OK, so having conceded your first point what is the next specific point you want me to address?

See how you Liberals are?

You just tried to slip that past me.

Just like Pelosi and the Resident did when they slipped the ACA through Congress!

Legislative trickery on the local level.

You libs don't miss an opportunity to be sneaky, do you?



I haven't conceded a thing.

But if you have decided to hold the first point in abeyance until you read and hear more, tell me and we'll move along.

Your first point has been debunked and you haven't provided anything in the way of a valid rebuttal. Until you can do so it remains as debunked.

 

[BDBoop]

OK, so having conceded your first point what is the next specific point you want me to address?

See how you Liberals are?

You just tried to slip that past me.

Just like Pelosi and the Resident did when they slipped the ACA through Congress!

Legislative trickery on the local level.

You libs don't miss an opportunity to be sneaky, do you?



I haven't conceded a thing.

But if you have decided to hold the first point in abeyance until you read and hear more, tell me and we'll move along.

Your first point has been debunked and you haven't provided anything in the way of a valid rebuttal. Until you can do so it remains as debunked.

Check and Mate.

 

[Mojo2]

See how you Liberals are?

You just tried to slip that past me.

Just like Pelosi and the Resident did when they slipped the ACA through Congress!

Legislative trickery on the local level.

You libs don't miss an opportunity to be sneaky, do you?



I haven't conceded a thing.

But if you have decided to hold the first point in abeyance until you read and hear more, tell me and we'll move along.

Your first point has been debunked and you haven't provided anything in the way of a valid rebuttal. Until you can do so it remains as debunked.

Check and Mate.

Well, that shows that you and Manti Teo (who clicked, "LIKE" to your post)after having been afforded a spoon feeding of knowledge STILL view this as a pissing contest rather than a quest for understanding.

Well, you take your little conquest and I will continue to search for and spread the truth and I will treat you two as those who should know better and who could've known better but you chose the dark side.

Not a pleasant thing, I'll warn you now.

You will be treated as hostile posters.

Good luck.

 

[Katzndogz]

As it turns out, a lot of people like Ted Cruz
Tonight Show Audience Cheers When Ted Cruz Says ?ObamaCare's the Biggest Jobs Killer in This Country? | NewsBusters