10/21/15

Selling Sanders, Socialism and Hypocrisy

Millionaire businessman Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream was on CNN last week talking about his presidential candidate, career politician and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a “social democrat,” not a socialist. For his part, Cohen said, “You know, I’m a capitalist, clearly, and I support the guy.”

Capitalism has certainly been very good to Ben & Jerry. Their Vermont-based ice cream business is an American success story. But in 2012, they sold out to the British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever for a purchase price of $326 million. The result was that Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield became members of the one-tenth of one percent that Sanders rallies against. Cohen and Greenfield each has a reported net worth of $150 million.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the top one-tenth of one percent consists of 160,000 families with net assets of at least $20 million.

Unilever is worth $129 billion, according to Forbes magazine. Sounds like one of the big corporations Bernie should rail against.

During the Democratic presidential debate, Sanders said, “We’re gonna win because first, we’re gonna explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of one percent in this country own almost 90 percent—almost—own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top one percent.”

He called for a tax on Wall Street but not ice cream to pay for the free college educations he’s proposing for students. But a Wall Street tax would affect the 55 percent of Americans who report having money invested in stocks.

A popular Bernie Sanders meme notes that while he claims to want to get money out of politics, he bribes people with the promise of government benefits in exchange for votes.

What is clear is that Sanders, a true socialist, believes Americans have too many choices, and that apparently the government must step in to regulate and determine what’s best for consumers. “You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,” he told CNBC. “I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on.”

Unilever, which owns Ben & Jerry’s, produces many different kinds of deodorants. Labeled “The World’s No. 1 Antiperspirant” featuring “body-responsive antiperspirant technology,” Degree is available in a range of formats for men and women. They include:

Degree Men Dry Protection
Degree Men Fresh Deodorant
Degree Men Adrenaline Series
Degree Men Clinical Protection

Sanders hasn’t said anything about too many choices of ice cream. According to published reports, there are about 40 varieties of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream available in pint form. There are reportedly 159 ice cream brands available nationwide.

One could easily argue that underarm deodorants and sneakers are more important than ice cream. But CNN’s Carol Costello didn’t make that point.

In fact, Cohen said his company has produced another flavor, a Bernie Sanders ice cream called Bernie’s Yearning. He told Costello that the giant chip on the top represents all the wealth that’s gone to the top one percent of the population over the past 10 years. “And the way you eat it is that you whack it with your spoon, then you mix it around,” he said. “That’s the Bernie Yearning.”

We are all supposed to have a good laugh about all of this. Except that in socialist Venezuela, which Sanders once praised for shipping fuel to New England, there is a shortage of toilet paper.

That doesn’t bother the Hollywood super-rich. Blogger Steve Bartin notes that dozens of “artists and cultural leaders” have signed up as supporters of Sanders’ socialist program, including comedian Sarah Silverman, once quoted as saying unborn children are “just goo.” Bartin cites a piece by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds in The Wall Street Journal which says that Hollywood gets about $1.5 billion in tax credits and exemptions, grants, waived fees and other financial inducements. His source was a liberal group, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which noted that the funds could otherwise have been spent “on public services like education, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.”

In other words, services that could benefit what Sanders calls “ordinary Americans,” if only the Hollywood elite weren’t taking advantage of the taxpayers.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is proud of the Hollywood support. It says the number of “major artists from all genres of music, comedy, acting, writing, and producing” in support of Sanders has reached 125. They have their own special section on the “Sanders for president” website. Dr. Cornel West, honorary co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), is listed under the category of “academic/philosopher.”

Sanders supporter and Hollywood director Adam McKay, who with Will Ferrell, co-wrote and directed the films “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers,” said, “As artists and citizens we believe it is time for government to once again represent the people and not just big money. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate speaking against the widespread legalized corruption that has handed our government to billionaires, large corporations and banks.”

Columnist Doug Powers commented, “I assume liberal celebs are pulling for Sanders’ style of socialism because he’s going to eliminate the tax credit programs for billion-dollar entertainment corporations? That story line would be too unbelievable even for Hollywood.”

Taking the personal hypocrisy one step further, leftist filmmaker Michael Moore has been quoted as saying that Sanders won the Democratic presidential debate because he questions “the core system” of wealth and power in the U.S. Moore’s net worth has been estimated at $50 million and he just went through a messy divorce, revealing that he had a 10,000 square foot lakeside home in northern Michigan once valued at $2 million.

Meanwhile, sniffing a story here, The New York Times has run a piece, “Bernie Sanders Has Fund-Raiser at Fancy Hollywood Home,” noting that the socialist finished up the debate and then raised money at the home of wealthy real estate operator Syd Leibovitch. The paper reported that tickets for the event sold for a minimum of $250. Those who spent the maximum, $2,700, or who raised $10,000, were invited to a special “pre-event reception,” the paper said.

It sounds like a special benefit for the rich and powerful.

The names on the host list included Marianne Williamson, the famous New Age spiritual teacher who has called for repealing Columbus Day. One of Williamson’s other political objectives being promoted by her Peace Alliance group is a federal Department of Peacebuilding.

Perhaps Sanders will promote that idea in the next presidential debate, after he bashes the rich and announces which brands of sneakers, deodorant and ice cream will go out of business under his administration.

When will the rest of the media follow the lead of The New York Times and expose this “man of the people” and his Hollywood backers as the phonies they truly are?

08/6/15

Ernest Moniz, Iran and the Imprimatur of Science

By: Benjamin Weingarten

Ernest Moniz

Watching the Obama administration trot out Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on the Sunday shows and in testimony to Congress following the consummation of what I believe will be a nuclear weapon-ensuring deal for not only the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad in Iran, but their Sunni counterparts, it should have been clear to all what a charade it was.

Moniz — an MIT physicist turned Obama administration shill — was there to provide the imprimatur of unimpeachable Science™ to the transparently deceptive deal. And who can fight with science, especially of the kind that is already settled?

In this light, I am reminded of a quote from an expert in financial markets and economic history, Jim Grant, he of the legendary Wall Street newsletter Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.

During an address delivered on June 2, 2015 to the Manhattan Institute in connection with his winning of the Hayek Prize, Grant stated:

In the 1960s, John Cowperthwaite, British governor of Hong Kong, refused to allow the collection of economic statistics lest the bureaucrats misappropriate that information in the service of governmental macroeconomic manipulation (the very word “statistics” derives from “the state”).

Such an act would be heresy today in a world in which the state, governing according to scientific principles, is the church for our progressive elites.

Cowperthwaite knew that politicians would conflate science and public policy to justify their agendas and grow their power.

For it is science that legitimates the Iran deal.

It is science that legitimates the disruption of human activity, and with it trillions of dollars in wealth through global climate regulation.

Indeed, it is science that legitimates any number of government intrusions into our daily lives.

Science ought to be celebrated. But politicians can manipulate it towards destructive ends.

Winston Churchill saw this early on when he expressed fears about the power of mass weaponry. Of course it is not the weapons that are the problem in and of themselves, but the prospect of evil people obtaining them and using them towards genocidal ends that ought to keep us awake at night.

Today America is aiding, abetting and enabling just these types of people.

In fact, as an aside, Ernest Moniz, again our Secretary of Energy, when asked about government findings on another mass weapon, electromagnetic pulse (EMP) during Congressional testimony — the use of which Iran has endorsed and for which we have yet to harden our grid — effectively pleaded ignorance.

Ernest Moniz is a fitting living embodiment of the fusion of science and state.

07/27/15

Ted Cruz – A Matter Of Honor [Video]

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Ted Cruz threw down the conservative gauntlet in the Senate this week. This was inspiring… it is something I have never seen happen before in my lifetime. He boldly and honestly called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar. It was long overdue and immensely satisfying. The straw that broke the elephant’s back was the vote on reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. McConnell went one lie too far this time.

Cruz voted for Obama’s Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) the first go-around in the Senate based on McConnell’s word and he famously turned against the fast-track trade authority later. Because it was based on lies.

From the AP:

In a stunning attack on a leader of his own party, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of lying to him and said he couldn’t be trusted.

Cruz, a Texan who is running for president but ranks low in early polling, delivered the broadside in a speech on the Senate floor, an extraordinary departure from the norms of Senate behavior that demand courtesy and respect.

At issue are assurances Cruz claimed McConnell, R-Ky., had given that there was no deal to allow a vote to renew the federal Export-Import Bank – a little-known federal agency that has become a rallying cry for conservatives. Cruz rose to deliver his remarks moments after McConnell had lined up a vote on the Export-Import Bank for coming days.

“It saddens me to say this. I sat in my office, I told my staff the majority leader looked me in the eye and looked 54 Republicans in the eye. I cannot believe he would tell a flat-out lie, and I voted based on those assurances that he made to each and every one of us,” Cruz said.

“What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was a simple lie.”

A spokesman said McConnell would have no response. The majority leader was not on the Senate floor when Cruz issued his attack.

“Today is a sad day for this institution,” said Cruz with a heavy heart. “What we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing.” Betrayal always is, especially from someone you really, really want to believe in. Cruz made his statements after McConnell set up a procedural vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which expired last month. Democrats claim McConnell agreed to allow a vote on attaching the Export-Import Bank to “must-pass” legislation to win support from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) for a trade package earlier this year.

When Cruz approached McConnell on the floor in a private conversation, McConnell, with biblical overtones, denied to him three times that there was such a deal. “The majority leader was visibly angry with me that I would ask him such a question,” Cruz said. “The majority looked at me and said ‘there is no deal, there is no deal, there is no deal.'” The good senator’s staff tried to warn him about McConnell, but Cruz just couldn’t believe that McConnell would lie to his face and to every other conservative out there like this. He was wrong and learned of McConnell’s treachery the hard way. But then Ted Cruz did something that no one in my memory has done… he called McConnell out for his lying ways on the Senate floor. McConnell’s errand boy say’s he has no response. Maybe not verbally, but Ted Cruz has made a very powerful and evil enemy. You know what? I don’t think he cares. Good.

Cruz pointed out that McConnell’s move to allow the Export-Import Bank vote shows that he does not always mean what he says – that he’s dishonest. “Well, we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment that he is willing to say things that he knows are false,” Cruz added. He also pointed out that it could have ramifications down the road. That’s an understatement. We now have open warfare in the Senate and that is a good thing. “That has consequences for how this body operates,” Cruz said. “If you or I cannot trust what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other legislation, as well as on how this institution operates.” Plainer and truer words have never been spoken.

It doesn’t end there. Cruz also berated McConnell for using a procedural maneuver to prevent other amendments from being offered to the Highway Bill. That’s the vehicle that will be used for the Export-Import Bank vote. In a breathtakingly hypocritical move, McConnell “filled the tree” just as Harry Reid frequently did. This was to stop amendments when Democrats had a Senate majority. Of course, when McConnell did it, Reid screamed to the heavens. McConnell also set up a vote on repealing ObamaCare. That particular maneuver was a faux move to appease conservatives – it would not have succeeded and McConnell knew it, so it was safe to set up the vote. Cruz is a smart guy and saw right through McConnell’s machinations. “I agree with Senator Reid when he said the ObamaCare amendment is a cynical amendment. Of course it is. It is empty showmanship,” Cruz added.

This is a bitter fight between the GOP leadership and conservatives and it’s about to get real. While Donald Trump is excoriating the media and bringing illegal immigration to the forefront, Cruz is in the Senate stirring the pot and calling out the Washington Cartel. Joining Cruz in the political brawl are Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

From the Conservative Review:

McConnell has avoided one procedural blockade. The Senate Majority Leader has attached the highway bill to an unrelated bill from the House to make sure that he does not violate the Constitution.

Leader McConnell called up a House passed bill and added the text of the highway bill to it, then he called up an amendment that allows the Export-Import Bank to continue. This married an unrelated House bill to the highway bill and EX-IM. But then Senator McConnell did something that was unexpected.

Next, Senator McConnell offered an amendment for a full repeal of Obamacare. This seemed to be an attempt to intimidate the Tea Party faction in the Senate to take the vote on a full repeal of Obamacare and walk away from the fight over EX-IM. The problem is that nobody believes the Obamacare amendment to be anything other than meaningless vote.

McConnell then proceeded to use a parliamentary maneuver, abhorred by many conservatives and Senate procedure strict constructionists, to block all other amendments to the bill. This tactic, known as “Filling the Amendment Tree,” enraged many members of the Republican caucus who wanted to offer their own amendments to the bill. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) ran the Senate he frequently filled the amendment tree as a way to block Republicans from ever offering amendments. This obstructionist tactic still rubs many conservatives the wrong way and is still considered by many to be an abuse of power.

Enter Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz took to the floor and offered an amendment to condition the Iran deal on Iran recognizing the right of Israel to exist and calling on Iran to release Americans held hostage. The Cruz amendment violates the Senate’s rules, because, under the current scenario, only certain amendments are allowed.

Do you see the shady dealings that McConnell is engaged in here? It’s dirty political pool. All meant to reinstate the Export-Import Bank by whatever means necessary. It’s a slap in the face to conservatives and furthers crony capitalism in the ranks.

This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party between Progressives on the Right and Constitutional conservatives. As Reagan did, the conservatives are trying to reform the Republican Party from within. The fight will be bloody and definitive. If the Progressives win, a third party will be born and the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. Marxist rule will most likely prevail in America for the foreseeable future if that happens. If the conservatives ascend, then the GOP will take a much needed sharp turn to the right and the Tea Party and other conservatives will become the new face of the GOP. It will mark the beginning of the war to return the US to its Constitutional roots and freedoms.

From The Daily Signal:

Conservatives in the U.S. Senate are gearing up to challenge Republican leadership today, setting their sights on a plan to repeal Obamacare with 51 votes—a measure that will easily pass if the 54 GOP senators support it.

The move comes after several contentious days of fighting over the GOP leadership’s priorities. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., allowed a vote Sunday to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank despite his stated opposition. It passed, 67-26, but drew a sharp rebuke from conservatives.

“The American people elected a Republican majority believing that a Republican majority would be somehow different from a Democratic majority in the United States Senate,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. “Unfortunately, the way the current Senate operates, there is one party, the Washington party.”

Mike Lee and Ted Cruz couldn’t get anywhere over the weekend in the Senate on their Planned Parenthood and Iran amendments. Both were denied a roll call vote, a maneuver Senate experts said was highly unusual. Cruz called it an “unprecedented” plot by McConnell and Reid. And that is exactly what it was.

“What we just saw a moment ago is unprecedented in the annals of Senate history,” Cruz said. “It consisted of the majority leader and the minority leader denying members the ability to have votes on their amendments and indeed the ability even to have a roll call vote.” Mike Lee will be making his move for an amendment on repealing Obamacare shortly and we can only hope and pray that it goes through, but I doubt it. The Export-Import Bank measure easily passed Sunday with unanimous Democrat support. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell renewed funding for the Export-Import Bank despite previous promises. Then McConnell blocked defunding Planned Parenthood and Ted Cruz’ Kate’s Law, which mandates that undocumented aliens who are deported and return to the United States would receive a mandatory five year sentence in a federal penitentiary upon conviction. That piece of legislation arose after Trump turned a spotlight on Sanctuary Cities – specifically San Francisco where Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien criminal who had been deported five times. Tell me again whose side McConnell is on?

Ted Cruz was predictably rebuked by McConnell’s henchmen: Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. All because he exposed the backroom deals of Mitch McConnell and the fact that he’s a prolific liar. McConnell is sooo busy with his backroom deals, bribes, schemes and illicit doings that he can’t bother with being subtle anymore. I guess he figures Americans are either too stupid to get it or just aren’t paying attention. We’re broke as a nation – utterly bankrupt. Yet, McConnell is for more and more taxation and deficit spending. He doesn’t care what the fallout is down the road… he’s in it for the here and now and how much power, control and wealth he can amass personally. Constitution and America be damned. There is no difference between what Mitch McConnell does and what the Marxist Democrats do – none.

In the end, this also benefits not only McConnell, but Obama’s minions, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce. Cruz has criticized politicians on both sides of the aisle for this type of complicity and corruption. He has stood for principle and the Constitution unfailingly. McConnell despises him for it as do his cronies.

Ted Cruz defended himself in a special session against charges that he broke Rule 19 of the Senate rules by calling Mitch McConnell a liar concerning what he had promised him personally. Cruz says there is nothing wrong with telling the truth on the floor. There certainly isn’t and it takes courage to do so. He went on to say, “I entirely agree” with Hatch’s call for civility. But says “speaking the truth” is “entirely consistent with civility.” I couldn’t agree more.

Ted Cruz has set his sights on the Washington Cartel. He means to take them down with his band of conservatives. I believe Reagan would approve and this is a fight that must happen. It’s what I have been waiting for and I roundly applaud Cruz for leading the fight in the Congress and Trump for taking on the media and rallying the grassroots. This is a brilliant divide and conquer technique playing out. I don’t know who will be president in the end, but I can tell you this… when the dust settles, the GOP will never be the same. And I suspect standing in the midst of victory will be a man of honor – Ted Cruz.

06/24/15

Expect A Wave Of Consolidation In The Oil Industry

As stated previously, asset monetization by small E&P operators will start in earnest in the second half of this year out of cash flow necessity. Most, if not all, smaller market capitalization companies, public or private, are still free cash flow negative (operating cash flow less capital expenditure) and only a few of the larger ones are now, or will be, based on guidance. The point is, with volumes languishing (and probably poised to decline) tied to a flat oil futures price curve and with economics marginal at $60 per barrel, many E&P operators find themselves running through hedges in 2015 and still in need to finance their already reduced capital spending.

With Wall Street unwilling to lend anymore and prospects of fall credit line redeterminations looming, further reducing liquidity, it is likely small E&P operators will turn to either mature producing asset sales or, more likely, to undeveloped assets which require more capital spending. We are seeing this being factored into stock prices as we speak, as small cap E&P valuations have collapsed to 4-6 times the Enterprise Value/Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EV/EBITDA) from 6-8X EV/EBITDA. This not only reflects solvency risk but also the natural course of bringing assets to a price more in line with their underlying sale value.

Wall Street is famous for getting public prices at levels that magically make deals happen and, with better funded E&P companies trading at substantial premiums vs. the leveraged ones, this is what is occurring. Take the collapse of Goodrich Petroleum (GDP) as a prime example as to what is now taking place and what will continue through the latter half of this year. Here is a company with $100million in liquidity but who continues to be free cash flow negative on current strip pricing in 2015 & 2016. However, it has a capital spending budget of $100 million for 2015 and 2016 and a free cash deficit of $60 million-$80 million in each of 2015 and 2016 depending on asset price assumptions. To plug the hole it hopes to sell its Eagle Ford assets this year.

This isn’t intended to make a case on GDP but to demonstrate the quantifiable ongoing stupidity of perpetuating models that aren’t self-funded which were being fueled by easy money from the Federal Reserve. This also demonstrates how the OPEC strategy of maintaining an oil price ceiling is affecting U.S. E&P companies, forcing a consolidation which I believe will be unprecedented in size and scope. This will eventually improve the industry cash flow break even points, based on improved cost and scale and, as a result, cast doubt over the long term viability of the OPEC strategy. It appears the Saudis, despite being educated here in the US, have neglected their capital market & economic classes as we are witnessing the E&P model self-correcting itself. State run oil companies don’t do this very well and usually fail to adjust to price movements while free market capital-based societies do.

The revival of the US oil industry will occur after the upcoming consolidation and will reduce the number of cost inefficient players as well as the short selling in group while ultimately, self-healing the industry by improving cash flows, given the likelihood of oil remaining below $100. I fully expect valuations to expand in 2016, once the wave of asset sales starts in the months ahead. These operators with plenty of cash will be the biggest beneficiaries.

On a final note, listening to the Federal Reserve yesterday it was clear that the pressure on the dollar rise is being lifted as they now realize that, despite attempts to fudge economic statistics, the US economy is in recession and rate hikes are a farce based on hope and little else. Expect the dollar to weaken considerably, breaching the 2015 lows thus supporting oil prices now and into 2016. This reality is not baked into expectations and the 1-2 percent dollar correction which took many by surprise is only the beginning.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Expect-A-Wave-Of-Consolidation-In-The-Oil-Industry.html

By Leonard Brecken of Oilprice.com

04/13/15

Conservative Writer: Liberalism Is ‘Totalitarianism Masquerading As Tolerance’ [VIDEO]

By: Ginni Thomas
The Daily Caller

With millennial support for President Obama dropping from 58 percent in 2009 to 34 percent last December, Benjamin Weingarten, 26, demonstrates confidence as a foe of secular progressives.

Weingarten prides himself for studying those who don’t value our founding principles while studying at Columbia University and living in New York and New Jersey. Nineteen months ago, he left a promising career on Wall Street to join Glenn Beck’s The Blaze to influence the cultural and political debates of our time.

By interviewing authors of provocative books, doing podcasts and appearing on Beck’s programming, Weingarten is engaging the culture to reclaim traditional American ideals. In New York and New Jersey, he admits he basically “gets push back every time he opens his mouth.”

In this wide-ranging video interview with The Daily Caller, Weingarten discusses the troubling phenomenon of “totalitarianism masquerading as tolerance.” He finds it curious that the secular left refuses to defend the free speech of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — who left her Muslim faith after horrendous personal harm and at great risk. Weingarten says, the “left is tolerant of people who take their viewpoint. And, no matter what your identity, if you disagree with their viewpoint, you are the enemy.”

On the Iran deal, Weingarten said “if there were ever a case where the devil was in the details, this would be it.” Surveying international reactions, Weingarten commented, “If the French are taking a harder line against the Iranians than America, then something is seriously rotten in our national security establishment and in the Executive Branch.”

As for the administration’s allies calling Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his Republican colleagues “traitorous” for merely reminding Iran that the Senate must ratify any binding treaty, Weingarten says, “when it serves their interest, the left would like to have nothing to do with Congress.”

Progressives, he mentions, push their agenda by any means necessary. After November’s elections, Obama, Weingarten says, is “un-tethered from constitutional authority,” “brazen,” “audacious” and “dangerous.”

The Obama foreign policy doctrine, driven by the progressive worldview, is, he says, “to spit in the face of our allies and coddle our enemies.”

Our adversaries, according to Weingarten, are Russia, China, Islamic extremists and Iran. As for the Muslim Brotherhood allies in America who now advise the Obama national security team, we have “foxes guarding the henhouse.” He thinks “we are willfully blind” and seem overdue for another catastrophic act from terrorists.

As for the record of House and Senate Republicans, Weingarten is underwhelmed, calling them “derelict.”

Weingarten lays out criteria — such as amnesty, common core, and liberty — to judge the growing field of nominees posturing to run for president in 2016. Two vulnerabilities for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, according to Weingarten, are the calamitous and mistaken Russian reset, and the entire Libyan debacle. Clinton’s toppling of the Libyan leader with its horrendous consequences should be something she is held responsible for, Weingarten believes.

WATCH:

For more on Benjamin Weingarten and his work at Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze Books, see his author page and his personal Twitter account, as well as TheBlaze Books podcast, and TheBlaze Books page, Twitter and Facebook.

02/13/15

Warring Factions Threaten Clinton White House Bid

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Ongoing rivalries and dissension among Clinton loyalists have percolated up through the mainstream media, even The New York Times—whose own investigative reporting may have set off the latest salvo. It seems despite the president-in-waiting status often accorded to Mrs. Clinton, there might not be enough money to go around, evoking harsh internal criticisms.

David Brock, founder of the far-left Media Matters, “is a cancer,” argued John Morgan, a Florida lawyer connected to both President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton, according to recent reporting by Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick at the Times. Brock made headlines earlier this week, when in response to their reporting, he sent out a letter that alleged “current and former Priorities officials were behind this specious and malicious attack on the integrity of these critical organizations” and “resigned from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action,” according to Politico’s Kenneth Vogel.

Brock is considering a return to Priorities USA, The Washington Post noted shortly thereafter. “People are starting to worry that Priorities could be a weak link,” one strategist told Vogel for his February 10 story about how this super PAC is “struggling in its early efforts to line up cash toward a fundraising goal of as much as $500 million.”

But one wonders whether the criticisms expressed in the media will sabotage Brock’s and other loyalists’ peacemaking. “If you care about your party and our country, you just do what you are asked,” said Morgan, according to Confessore and Chozick. “If you care about yourself, you take your toys and go home.” Morgan is apparently “close” to the co-chair of Priorities USA Action, Jim Messina. Messina served as President Obama’s campaign manager in 2012.

Confessore, a liberal writer/editor transplanted from Washington Monthly to The New York Times, seems to have access to a considerable circle of influential Democrats connected to the Clintons. After all, he sat down with John Podesta in 2003 and 2005. And his August 2013 exposé on mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation, co-authored with Chozick, included interviews with “more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family”—most unwilling to speak on the record.

Like the 2013 piece, Confessore and Chozick report for the Times on February 10 that “most people interviewed for this article declined to speak on the record for fear of angering either the president or the woman who hopes to replace him.” But these persons are willing to speak to the Times about their frustrations.

“The Hillary people were more in it for themselves,” said Jonathan Alter, MSNBC political analyst, when he appeared on the February 10 Ed Schultz show on MSNBC. Alter was referring to the 2008 Democratic primary campaign against Obama. “If we get a repeat of that this time, she won`t have the passion and a genuine commitment that she needs to go the distance.”

“…what this is about is that is that there was a fundraiser who raised millions of dollars for these different groups including David Brock`s, but she was taking a 12.5 percent commission,” Alter said. Democratic strategist Bob Shrum described Mary Pat Bonner’s reported 12.5% commission as “way over the top.”

Confessore and Chozick cast this Democrat infighting differently. They describe the latest meltdown among Clinton movers and shakers as a conflict between two worlds: former Obama staffers who have been imported as strategists for Clinton, and long-time Clinton loyalists. But these writers aren’t the only ones with conflicted interests. The reality appears to be that many in the liberal media, including some reporters at The Washington Post and New York Times, want to tear Hillary and the Clintons down for being too close to Wall Street. But on the other hand, they realize that Mrs. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to get the Democratic nomination, meaning they will undoubtedly support her when it comes down to her vying against any Republican candidate.

As I’ve reported in the past, The Washington Post—even amidst Mrs. Clinton’s “worst week in Washington” and her tone-deaf comments about being “dead broke” after leaving the White House—still gave her favorable coverage in order to ensure that a Democrat would retain the presidency. “The Post has issued wall-to-wall coverage of this subject, but most of it is about ensuring Hillary’s chances,” I wrote last July.

But when Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) launched her populist offensive in the Senate, hope sprang anew among die-hard liberals and some in the media that Mrs. Clinton, with all her baggage, might not be a shoo-in. The Post’s Paul Kane practically salivated over Sen. Warren’s presidential chances back during the December revolt. Sen. Warren has said she’s not running, but the Post continues to run articles like this: “Democrats suffering from Clinton fatigue say they’re ready for Warren.” Chozick recently described Sen. Warren as “an effective tool in moving Mrs. Clinton off message” whom Republicans favor as a candidate to create dissension within the Democratic primary.

Accuracy in Media has argued in the past that the Times’ David Kirkpatrick piece on Benghazi was a way of inoculating Mrs. Clinton while trying to make the definitive case supporting the Obama administration’s actions and justifications for Benghazi. But that obviously didn’t work, and revelations confirming the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi’s conclusions continue to break, implicating Mrs. Clinton not only for poor security preceding the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but her blind push to intervene in Libya in the first place. When Mrs. Clinton most likely appears before the Select Committee on Benghazi, an even greater spotlight will shine on her role in these attacks.

It looks like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is very tempted to run against Mrs. Clinton from the left, and former Virginia Senator James Webb might run more or less from her right. The sharks are circling this establishment candidate; will Mrs. Clinton successfully fend them off?

And clearly others at the Times aren’t so interested in inoculating her. But in the meantime, the left is having a catfight, and it may be that some reporters are interested in stirring the pot for dramatic effect—and to cause some angst for Mrs. Clinton from their end.

Confessore’s bio from the Times states that he covers the “intersection of money, power and influence.” A visit to his Twitter page reveals that he, like many liberals, doesn’t like the Citizens United ruling very much. His twitter feed recently stated, “Thanks to Citizens United, we can now have campaign infighting without the campaign.” He also has tweeted about the Clinton Foundation’s $81 million received from “clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.”

He also wrote an article with Chozick in July of last year which stated, “Few political families are closer to Wall Street than the Clintons … And the Clintons often interact with the titans of finance on the Manhattan charity circuit and during their vacations in the Hamptons.”

Could it be that at least one New York Times staffer doesn’t favor Mrs. Clinton for her entrenched, big-money establishment ties much, either? Or perhaps it’s just that Confessore, Chozick, and the Times itself want to go around poking sleeping tigers before an election to see what they can stir up.

These aren’t Mrs. Clinton’s only problems. She also has what might become known as a “Brian Williams problem,” meaning she “misremembered” coming under sniper fire on a runway in Bosnia, and she repeated the story on more than one occasion, yet there were plenty of eyewitnesses who knew it was a complete fabrication. It cost Williams his esteemed position, and a lot of money. Will Hillary pay a similar price?

Plus, former President Bill Clinton is becoming a problem again based on his being linked in the media to a sex scandal involving a good friend of his who is a convicted pedophile. It’s certainly never dull when the Clintons are involved.

12/17/14

Jeb Bush sets his sights on the Oval Office

By: Richard Cameron
RedState

The only obstacles in his path are conservatives and Jeb Bush’s progressive agenda.

Jeb Bush spiffing up his globalist bonafides with the World Affairs Council

Brace yourself – Jeb Bush will run in 2016.

Although he’s still dancing around it and acting coy, Jeb Bush has already decided to run for the GOP Presidential nomination next year. A sure sign of this is a puffed up portrait of his term as Governor of Florida planned for release next Spring. It won’t be a hardcover, but an ebook – which indicates that since no one but hard core Bush-bots are likely to read or purchase it, the ebook will be used as a marketing piece, or what others including myself, would term campaign propaganda.

The reason Bush is sitting tight until next year to announce, is the same reason presidential candidates on both sides of the dual party aisle are holding back; he doesn’t want to make himself a target this soon. It doesn’t matter. He’ll be a target (not a literal one), before, during and after his official announcement.

It’s hard to discern what broad appeal Jeb Bush will have to anyone who is not an admirer of the Bush family political dynasty, the endless wars they’ve presided over, the imperialist behavior of their presidencies, or the violence they’ve inflicted on the Constitution. He certainly is not a conservative.

It’s not as though Jeb did anything more than pay lip service to reductions in government spending. In fact, Florida’s budget expanded by 27 percent during his terms in office. And if you liked the federal bailouts of the Banksters on Wall Street in 2008, you’ll surely be impressed with Jeb Bush’s personal financial dealings, one of which is outlined by Gary W. Potter, PhD. Professor, Criminal Justice at Eastern Kentucky University:

Jeb Bush had a role in yet another Savings and Loan fiasco when he defaulted on a loan from Broward Federal Savings and Loan. Broward Federal loaned $4,565,000 to J Edward Houston, a real developer in February, 1985. The loan was secured only by Houston’s personal guarantee. On the same day, one of Houston’s company lent the same amount to a partnership made up of Jeb Bush and Armondo Condina for the purpose of purchasing a building in Miami.

The Bush-Condina partnership was required to repay the loan only if revenues from the building were sufficient to cover the repayment. Bush and Condina made no payments on the loan at all and in 1987 Houston defaulted on the loan and the Bank sued both Houston and Bush-Condina. In a sweetheart settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bush and Condina only had to repay $500,000 of the $4.5 million loan and got to retain ownership of the building which had been the collateral on the loan.

In 1991, the FDIC sued the officers and directors of Broward Federal charging that the loan ultimately used by Bush and Condina was an example of the bank’s negligent lending practices. The Bush-Condina loan played a key part in the failure of Broward Federal which cost taxpayers $285 million.

Needless to say, Jeb had no problem with defining the 2008-2009 Fed bailouts as being necessary.

Jeb Bush has proven to be all over the map with just about every matter of public policy. For starters, he was against gay marriage, before he was for it. He was opposed to corporate welfare until he saw the opportunity and campaign donations that come with supporting it.

He touts a goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025 (a complete absurdity), but claims to champion a free market approach to national energy policy. Jeb Bush contradicts himself on the question of immigration reform. He opined in the Wall Street Journal in January 2013:

“A practicable system of work-based immigration for both high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants — a system that will include a path to citizenship — will help us meet workforce needs, prevent exportation of jobs to foreign countries and protect against the exploitation of workers.”

But a few months later in March, he said:

“I think there has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally. It’s just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”

Bush is another in the warfare state Amen chorus of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)49% and Rep. Peter King (R-NY)35% – men who see the military as a hammer and every potentially adverse situation internationally as a nail. Jeb Bush, who never so much as donned a military uniform, unhesitatingly proposes that the United States risk a hot war with Russia by aggressively rattling sabers in their backyard.

He was also supportive of the idea of invading Syria to overthrow Assad’s government, thus paving the way for ISIS to establish Damascus as the capitol of their desired world Caliphate.

Michael Brendan Dougherty in The Week, sums up a position that Jeb Bush fiercely defends and that puts him at odds with a large swath of GOP voters:

The George H.W. Bush style of domestic policy that both his sons inherited is one of giving liberal programs half the funding and authority liberals want, but dolloping on so much conservative-branded “accountability” that it can be sold to the right. Poppy pushed “standards-based reform.” W. did No Child Left Behind. And Jeb is the leading GOP advocate for what’s become of Common Core. Whatever the merits, being identified so closely with a Bill-Gates subsidized education scheme hated from the right wing to Louis C.K. will prove costly.

Jeb Bush is in sync with the oligarch investment class, but finds the conservative base of the GOP incomprehensible. Jamelle Bouie writing in Slate explains why:

Since leaving office, Bush has lived in the realm of corporate philanthropy, where wealthy executives give huge sums for a variety of unconservative causes, like climate change and Common Core. It’s a world of vocal centrism, where Michael Bloomberg is esteemed and the fights are for gun control and calorie labeling, not traditional values and the repeal of Obamacare.

In fact, Bush has participated as a board member on corporations such as Tenet Healthcare and Inno-Vida, both of which have been beneficiaries of the crony capitalism aspect of Obamacare. Jeb believes Obamacare is lucrative, which explains his attacks on conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)95% who are focused on unraveling it legislatively.

Cementing this is his recent comment dismissing efforts to repeal Obamacare, “We don’t have to make a point any more as Republicans. We have to actually show that we can, in an adult-like way, we can govern, lead.”

At the end of the day though – what should be the Silver bullet against any realistic chance Bush has at claiming the nomination – is his insistence on promoting amnesty, despite the clear evidence that the election we just had in November was a repudiation of ‘immigration reform’.

Bush touts Hispanic ‘Family Values’ as being essentially superior to those of Americans. Remember the “Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love”, quote? Jeb is not relenting:

“If we are going to be young and dynamic and aspirational, we have to control the border. Most people that come to this country come for their families, plain and simple. So, they break the law, there should be penalty — they pay a fine, they should get back of the line, they should learn English, they shouldn’t get government subsidies. They should work. All those things are the price to pay for coming illegally.”

At the same time, Bush warned not to “ascribe evil motives for people wanting to put food on the table for their families.”

Of no interest to Bush are the millions of Americans that have been displaced in the job market by this invasion of locusts. And as I have pointed out in considerable detail, Bush has to know he’s lying about the conditions he outlines for the path to citizenship.

No illegal will ever pay any fine, be denied any government subsidies, get in the back of any line, be required to learn English or pay any back taxes. This is all complete fiction. Best summing up why a Jeb Bush candidacy should be a non-starter are Bush’s own words:

“If you run with big ideas and then you’re true to those ideas, and get a chance to serve and implement them and do it with passion and conviction, you can move the needle. … And that’s what we need right now in America. I have no clue if I’d be a good candidate, I hope I would be. I think I could serve well as president, to be honest with you. But I don’t know that either. I think you learn these things as you go along. I know a Republican can win, whether it’s me or somebody else.”

Jeb, you may be uncertain of your qualifications, but we aren’t uncertain of your lack of them. Sorry Jeb, but unless Sheldon Adelson has his way, it will be “someone else”.