Make sure to take time today to contemplate why you are thankful.
This Thanksgiving I am feeling especially thankful for the family and friends with whom God has seen fit to bless me.
I am also very thankful that our forefathers were wise enough to establish a nation under God and provide for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
As I've written before, the traditional Thanksgiving story is that some time in the fall of 1621, the settlers at Plymouth, Mass., held a feast to thank God they'd survived their harrowing first year in the New World.
They invited neighboring Indians, who had taught them agricultural skills critical to their survival. Together they celebrated their good fortune with a three-day feast.
There is a problem with the traditional story - no one invited the Indians.
The settlers threw the party for themselves. Members of the local Wampanoag tribe arrived only after hearing the English firing their arms in celebration. This view may be more historically accurate.
A firsthand account of the original Thanksgiving is provided in "Mourt's Relations," a series of letters written in 1620 and 1621, primarily by settler Edward Winslow.
He writes of a harvest celebration, "at which time amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor."
Actually, the harvest of 1621 wasn't great at all. The barley, wheat, and peas the Pilgrims brought with them from England had failed. Fortunately, the corn did well enough that they were able to double their weekly food rations.
The Pilgrims were thankful to be alive: The previous winter had wiped out 47 people--almost half their community.
What people are thankful for changes from year to year.
On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress. His "Four Freedoms" offered a vision in which the American ideals of individual liberties were extended throughout the world:
Four Freedoms We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world.
A new national NBC News/SurveyMonkey online poll finds that Ted Cruz has moved up 8% as Ben Carson dropped 8% leaving them tied for second place at 18%. Donald Trump, who was tied for the lead with Carson at 26% in the last NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, is now in the lead at 28%. Marco Rubio also moved up 2%, to 11%, and remains in fourth place. The rest of the Republican candidates remain at 4% or less. The two point moves by Trump and Rubio fall within the poll's 2.9% margin of error.
Other interesting findings from new the NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll include:
Carson is losing his support among evangelicals. He is now backed by just 25% of this group while Trump and Cruz have 23% and 22% respectively.
Cruz now has the highest level of support among those who identify as very Conservative, with 40%, overtaking both Carson and Trump.
Carson, Cruz, Rubio and Trump receive nearly equal levels of support among those with college degrees.
The upward movement of Cruz could be attributed to his organizational efforts with politically active church goers. And some credit should surely go to his response to the Paris terror attack we reported on here and here.
Don't take this new poll too seriously. There are still more than two months before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. That's a very long time at this stage of a presidential campaign.
I recognize that Barack Obama does not wish to defend this country. That he may have been tired of war, but our enemies are not tired of killing us. -- Senator and presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz 11/14/2015
Yesterday we reported on the terrific response Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz had to the Daesh terror attack in Paris. Today the Cruz for President campaign released a video highlighting Ted Cruz’s response and his plans for defeating radical Islamic terrorism, as he laid it out during his Saturday appearance on Fox and Friends.
Senator Cruz's response stands in stark contrast to President Obama's failed strategy to take on radical Islamic terrorism. As well as Obama's naïve and incorrect assertion, made just before the Daesh terror attack in Paris, that we have contained ISIL.
In Cruz's new video, "Our Enemy: Radical Islamic Terrorism," Cruz notes that we cannot defeat radical Islamic terrorism with a President who refuses to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." That is a strong counter point to Hillary Clinton, who during last night's Democrat debate refused to call our enemy what it is just like Obama does.
Victoria Coates, senior advisor for foreign policy for the Cruz campaign summed up the contrast between the judgment of Senator Cruz, and that of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
The horrific ISIS attack on Paris is an unmistakable demonstration that the Islamic State is no more "contained" as the President claimed Friday than they were the J.V. eighteen months ago. Over and over again, the Obama administration has dismally misjudged the enemy we face. Just last night Secretary Clinton doubled down on this error when she declared war on "violent extremism." This twisted rhetoric would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Our enemy is radical Islamic terrorism, in this case ISIS, and their goal is nothing less than the destruction of the free world. The sooner we have a leader who understands this elementary truth the sooner we can start taking the necessary steps to protect ourselves from this evil.
Cruz calls for the United States to stop bringing in refugees from Syria as long as our intelligence cannot determine who may or may not be a terrorist. Cruz has also repeatedly called for the passage of his bill, the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which will rescind citizenship from any American that travels abroad to join ISIS:
Transcript of Cruz’s words in the video, excerpted from his recent interview on Fox and Friends:
We stand in solidarity with the people of France, with President Hollande, with the families of all of the victims of these acts of horrific terrorism.
These attacks underscore that we are facing an enemy who is fierce, who is relentless, who is at war with us even if our own president doesn’t understand that it is at war with us.
As long as we have a Commander-in-Chief unwilling even to utter the words radical Islamic terrorism, we will not have a concerted effort to defeat these radicals before they continue to murder more and more innocents.
And they're getting stronger. Every region on earth has gotten worse under the Obama-Clinton foreign policy.
I recognize that Barack Obama does not wish to defend this country. That he may have been tired of war, but our enemies are not tired of killing us.
This will be coming to America. ISIS plans to bring these acts of terror to America.
It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not.
Congress needs to pass immediately the Expatriate Terrorist Act legislation that I’ve introduced that says that any American that travels abroad, that joins ISIS that takes up arms and wages jihad against America, they immediately forfeit their citizenship.
We need a commander in chief who says we will defeat radical Islamic terrorism. Let me tell you what that would look like.
In a Cruz Administration we would be using overwhelming air power and the Kurds as our boots on the ground, and it would be clear to any militant on the face of the earth if you go and join ISIS, if you wage jihad against America, you're signing your death warrant.
I feel for the French. I remember how I felt on 9/11, and for quite a while afterwards. Following the terror attacks in Paris, I feel that way again. Only now I am far less optimistic that our leaders will do what is necessary to protect us and to defeat the evil doers.
Yesterday morning before the Daesh terror attack on Paris, ABC broadcast part of an interview with President Obama in which he says we have contained ISIL:
I don’t think they’re gaining strength, What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave, but you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.
No, we don't see a "systemic march by ISIL across the terrain." We see a horrific terror attack in Paris after an ongoing Islamic invasion of Europe, which Obama wants to extend here by transporting tens of thousands of Syrian War "refugees" to the U.S.
We could see this coming. In February DAESH (Islamic State) threatened to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a psychological weapon to cause chaos. We saw it first in Greece as the migrants started landing on Greek islands, in all sorts of water craft, after hundreds had died trying to cross the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy. Shortly thereafter it was the chaos in Calais as thousands of the migrants tried to storm their way into the Chunnel to get to Britain. Next the migrants began to storm police lines to cross into Macedonia from Greece. Then by the hundreds of thousands they continued to break all kinds of barriers and go wherever they choose. Instead of intercepting the so-called refugees at sea and returning them to their point of origin, European leaders welcomed them.
Today I read that U.S. political reaction to the Paris terror attack is split along party lines. According to NPR's Domenico Montanaro, Democrats' responses were generally to thoughts and prayers policy specific intimating that what's being done — and been done in the past seven years by President Obama — to keep the country safe is not enough:
They [Republicans] are calling for increased U.S. footprint in the Middle East, including "boots on the ground," a halting of plans to increase the numbers of Syrian refugees to the U.S., and an increase in the role of the National Security Agency in surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz has the best response. In the statement he issued in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris he suggested the following:
Consult closely with our NATO allies who may be targeted for additional attacks.
Immediately declare a halt to any plans to bring refugees that may have been infiltrated by ISIS to the United States.
Redouble our efforts to prevent ISIS agents from penetrating our nation by other means.
Recognize that our enemy is not 'violent extremism.' It is the radical Islamism that has declared jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life.
Make it crystal clear that affiliation with ISIS and related terrorist groups brings with it the undying enmity of America—that it is, in effect, signing your own death warrant.
You can read the full Cruz statement below.
In an appearance on Fox and Friends this morning, Cruz had more to say about the terrorist attacks in Paris:
These attacks underscore that we are facing an enemy who is fierce, who is relentless, who is at war with us even if our own president does not understand that it is at war with us, and who will not stop until it is defeated. That enemy is radical Islamic terrorism. As long as we have a Commander-in-Chief unwilling to even utter the words radical Islamic terrorism, we will not have a concerted effort to defeat these radicals before they continue to murder more and more innocents, whether Europeans or Israelis or Americans.
Cruz explained more about why we should stop the plans allow Syrian Muslim refugees into the U.S.:
You know President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s idea that we should bring tens of thousands of Syria Muslim refugees to America is nothing less than lunacy. If you look at the early waves of refugees that have flooded into Europe one estimate was that 77 percent of those refugees were young men, that’s a very odd demographic for a refugee wave. The director of national intelligence here in America has said of those refugees in Europe, it is clear that a significant number of them may well be ISIS terrorists.
It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be bringing in refugees who our intelligence cannot determine if they are terrorists here to kill us or not.
Asked whether he would apply military force against ISIS, Cruz replied he would use overwhelming military power against the evil doers:
Let me tell you what that would look like. That would look like number one, using overwhelming military power, particularly air power. You know in the first Persian Gulf War we had roughly 1,100 air attacks a day. Obama right now is doing 15 to 30 attacks a day. It's pinprick, it's photo op foreign policy.
Number two, we should be arming the Kurds. The Kurds are on the ground fighting ISIS. They are fierce allies of ours. They're out armed, and yet they are our the boots on the ground and Obama for political reasons, he doesn't want to upset Baghdad so he won't arm the Kurds.
In a Cruz Administration we would be using overwhelming air power and the Kurds as our boots on the ground, and it would be clear to any militant on the face of the earth if you go and join ISIS, if you wage jihad against America, you're signing your death warrant.
You can watch the entire Cruz on Fox and Friends here. And you can read the full Cruz statement below:
America must stand with our allies against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism. This is an evil that does not discriminate between French, German or American, Christian, Muslim or Jew, soldier, football player, or concert goer. Their only goal is to murder those who do not submit to their vicious, totalitarian ideology. Our deepest condolences go out to our French allies, and I know the government of the United States stands by to offer any assistance necessary.
We must now face the facts. Between the downing of the Russian jet over Egypt and this massive coordinated attack on Paris, we are seeing an unmistakable escalation of ISIS’ ambitions and the scale of their terrorist attacks outside Syria and Iraq. Even as chaos rages in Paris, we need to take immediate, commonsense steps to preserve our own safety. We need to consult closely with our NATO allies who may be targeted for additional attacks. We need to immediately declare a halt to any plans to bring refugees that may have been infiltrated by ISIS to the United States. We need to redouble our efforts to prevent ISIS agents from penetrating our nation by other means.
Such steps, however, are defensive reactions to an enemy that will continue to try to attack us until they succeed once again. We must immediately recognize that our enemy is not 'violent extremism.' It is the radical Islamism that has declared jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life. We must make it crystal clear that affiliation with ISIS and related terrorist groups brings with it the undying enmity of America—that it is, in effect, signing your own death warrant.
We must engage and destroy the radical Islamic evil doers that continue to wage war against us.
The congressional jockeying over legislation that would block a federally recognized Indian nation from opening a Las Vegas-style casino on reservation land in Arizona reached a disturbing crescendo last week. Senior advisers to a group of House Republican lawmakers misled columnists and reporters about the measure's projected cost to taxpayers.
Aides to Arizona GOP Reps. David Schweikert, Paul Gosar, Matt Salmon, and Trent Franks took umbrage with an October 26th RedState column, "The Billion Dollar Bill No One Is Talking About," in which H.R. 308, a narrow Indian gaming bill with an outsized price tag, was criticized for its potentially billion dollar impact on taxpayers, as forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office earlier this year.
The quartet's aides, which included chiefs of staff and legislative directors, argued the CBO scoring was inaccurate. By way of proof they repeatedly made reference to an alleged review of the proposed legislation's scoring by Congressman Tom Price, the Georgia deficit hawk who chairs the Budget Committee.
Congressman Schweikert's chief of staff, in the first of a stream of emails complaining about the column, made reference to "Chairman Price's updated zero score." Others, including the legislative director for Congressman Gosar wrote, "I am told that Chairman Price has updated the score and concluded it is zero."
Those comments mirror what Congressman Franks' office told the Phoenix, ArizonaDaily News-Sun days later. In part, the paper reported that, "Franks' office pointed out a separate House Budget Committee analysis [that] concluded there would be no financial impact if the casino were prohibited from going forward."
Asked repeatedly to share the Budget Committee analysis, the aides demurred, saying only they understood that the report existed and that it concluded the legislation would invite no additional expenses for the taxpayers.
But, no such report exists. A senior Budget Committee member confirmed Wednesday in an email that the panel had not made the determination that the legislation would cost nothing.
There are a great many nuances where this legislation is concerned, but the Congressional Budget Office’s score is not among them. And neither is the tribe’s uninterrupted winning streak in federal courts, which stands, as of this week, at 18 positive judgements.
Congressman Schweikert, Gosar, Salmon, and Franks rate among the most Conservative members of the House delegation. But they're wrong on this legislation. And their staff members are willfully deceiving the press and wrongly trading on the impeccable credentials of Rep. Price.
It was quite clear that Sen. Marco Rubio won last night's Fox Business GOP Debate. It is not surprising. Rubio has the best political skill set of any of the presidential candidates. He is charismatic, optimistic, very knowledgeable about the issues and can communicate complicated concepts more articulately and succinctly than anyone.
Most participants in a Fox News focus group conducted pollster Frank Luntz thought Rubio won the debate describing Rubio as "eloquent," "passionate," "young," "very articulate," "inspirational," and "fresh." Some participants said they changed their support from Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, to Rubio.
I was lucky enough to have met Marco Rubio seven years ago during the first RedState Gathering in Atlanta. I just happened to be standing at the right place and had a few minutes one on one with him. I was very impressed -- not just with his charisma, but how well he communicated. Ever since then I have been telling anyone who asked that someday Rubio will be president.
You don't have to just take my word on it. Even Andrew Breitbart thought Rubio could be president. You don't have to take Breitbart's opinion either. As a matter of fact you should make up you your own mind. Watch the following compilation of what Rubio had to say during last night's debate. I know its asking a lot, but invest the 13 minutes required to watch the whole thing and decide for yourself.
CAVUTO: Senator Rubio, you called the recent Democratic debate in Las Vegas a night of giveaways, including free health care, free college and a host of other government-paid benefits. Since you aren’t a fan of all they’re giving away, tell us tonight what you would take back.
RUBIO: Well, let me begin by answering both the first question and this one, because they’re related. As I’ve said many times before, my parents were never rich people. My father was a bartender. My mother was a maid. They worked for a living. But they were successful people, because, despite the fact that they weren’t well educated and had those jobs, they made enough money to buy a home in a safe and stable neighborhood, retire with dignity, leave all four of their children better off than themselves.
We call that the American dream, but in fact, it’s a universal dream of a better life that people have all over the world. It is a reminder that every country in the world has rich people.
What makes America special is that we have millions and millions of people that are not rich, that through hard work and perseverance are able to be successful.
The problem is that today people are not successful working as hard as ever because the economy is not providing jobs that pay enough. If I thought that raising the minimum wage was the best way to help people increase their pay, I would be all for it, but it isn’t. In the 20th century, it’s a disaster.
If you raise the minimum wage, you’re going to make people more expensive than a machine. And that means all this automation that’s replacing jobs and people right now is only going to be accelerated.
Here’s the best way to raise wages. Make America the best place in the world to start a business or expand an existing business, tax reform and regulatory reform, bring our debt under control, fully utilize our energy resources so we can reinvigorate manufacturing, repeal and replace Obamacare, and make higher education faster and easier to access, especially vocational training. For the life of me, I don’t know why we have stigmatized vocational education. Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.
(APPLAUSE)
If we do that — and if we do this — if we do this, we will be able to increase wages for millions of Americans and we will be able to leave everyone better off without making anyone worse off.
CAVUTO: Thank you, Senator Rubio.
[. . .]
BAKER: Senator Rubio, Senator Rubio, let me — let me take you to a question that I think gets to the root of a lot of the anxiety that people have in this country. The economy is undergoing a transformation through information technology. Americans are anxious that the new economy isn’t producing higher-paying jobs. Many are concerned that the new wealth seems to be going mainly to innovators and investors.
Meanwhile, with factories run by robots and shopping done increasingly on smartphones, many traditional jobs are just going away. How do you reassure American workers that their jobs are not being steadily replaced by machines?
RUBIO: Well, you know, that’s an excellent question, because what we are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn. We are living through a massive economic transformation. I mean, this economy is nothing like what it was like five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20 years ago.
And it isn’t just a different economy. It’s changing faster than ever. You know, it took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. It took Candy Crush one year to reach some 100 million users.
(LAUGHTER)
So the world is changing faster than ever, and it is disruptive. Number one, we are in a global competition now, and several of the candidates have said that. There are now dozens of developed economies on this planet that we have to compete with. And we lose that competition because we have the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world, because we have regulations that continue to grow by the billions every single week, because we have a crazy health care law that discourages companies from hiring people, but because we’re not fully utilizing our energy resources, that if we did, it would bring back all kinds of growth, especially in manufacturing, and because we have an outdated higher education system.
Our higher education system is completely outdated. It is too expensive, too hard to access, and it doesn’t teach 21st century skills. If we do what needs to be done — tax reform, regulatory reform, fully utilize our energy resources, repeal and replace Obamacare, and modernize higher education, then we can grasp the potential and the promise of this new economy. And we won’t just save the American dream. We will expand it to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. And then truly this new century can be a new American century.
(APPLAUSE)
BAKER: Thank you.
[. . .]
BAKER: Senator Rubio, your tax plan includes a large expansion of child tax credits to raise off (ph) the tax incomes for low-income parents. A similar tax credit that you previously proposed in the Senate was estimated to cost as much as $170 billion a year, according to the Tax Foundation.
Isn’t — isn’t there a risk you’re just adding another expensive entitle program to an already overburdened federal budget?
RUBIO: The most important job I’m ever going to have, the most important job anyone in this room will ever have, is the job of being a parent. Not the job of being president, or the job of being a senator, or the job of being a congressman.
The most important job any of us will ever do is the job of being a president (sic), because the most important institution in society is the family. If the family breaks down, society breaks down.
You can’t have a strong nation without strong values, and no one is born with strong values. They have to be taught to you in strong families and reinforced in you in strong communities.
And so when we set out to do tax reform, we endeavor to have a pro-family tax code, and we endeavor to do it because we know how difficult it is for families in the 21st century to afford the cost of living.
It is expensive to raise children in the 21st century, and families that are raising children are raising the future taxpayers of the United States, and everything costs more. In 35 out of 50 states, child care costs more than college.
There are millions of people watching this broadcast tonight that understand exactly what I’m talking about. They don’t know how they’re going to make that payment every month, and if they can’t make it, they can’t work, because someone needs to watch their kids during the day. They don’t know how they’re going to save for their kids’ future, to go to college.
And so, yes, I have a child tax credit increase, and I’m proud of it. I am proud that I have a pro-family tax code, because the pro- family tax plan I have will strengthen the most important institution in the — in the country, the family.
[. . .]
RUBIO: So let me begin with this. I actually believe — first of all, this is their money. They do pay. It is refundable, not just against the taxes they pay to the government, but also the — on their federal income tax, it’s refundable against the payroll tax.
Everyone pays payroll tax. This is their money. This is not our money. And here’s what I don’t understand — if you invest that money in a piece of equipment, if you invest that money in a business, you get to write it off your taxes.
But if you invest it in your children, in the future of America and strengthening your family, we’re not going to recognize that in our tax code? The family is the most important institution in society. And, yes...
[. . .]
RUBIO: I know that Rand is a committed isolationist. I’m not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world.
PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco! Marco! How is it conservative, how is it conservative to add a trillion-dollar expenditure for the federal government that you’re not paying for?
RUBIO: Because... PAUL: How is it conservative?
RUBIO: ...are you talking about the military, Rand?
PAUL: How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting new programs that you’re not going to pay for.
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: We can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe. There are radical jihadist in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians. A radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, the Chinese taking over the South China Sea...
(APPLAUSE)
RUBIO: ...Yes, I believe the world is a safer — no, no, I don’t believe, I know that the world is a safer place when America is the strongest military power in the world.
[. . .]
RUBIO: I need to add a couple of points to this. The first is, I’ve never met Vladimir Putin, but I know enough about him to know he is a gangster. He is basically an organized crime figure that runs a country, controls a $2 trillion economy. And is using to build up his military in a rapid way despite the fact his economy is a disaster.
He understands only geopolitical strength. And every time he has acted anywhere in the world, whether it’s in Ukraine or Georgia before that, or now in the Middle East, it’s because he is trusting in weakness.
His calculation in the Middle East is that he has seen what this president has done, which is nothing, the president has no strategy, our allies in the region do not trust us. For goodness sake, there is only one pro-American free enterprise democracy in the Middle East, it is the state of Israel.
And we have a president that treats the prime minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the ayatollah in Iran. And so our allies in the region don’t trust us.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
Vladimir Putin is exploiting that weakness, for purposes of edging the Americans out as the most important geopolitical power broker in the region. And we do have a vested interest. And here’s why.
Because all those radical terrorist groups that, by the way, are not just in Syria and in Iraq, ISIS is now in Libya. They are a significant presence in Libya, and in Afghanistan, and a growing presence in Pakistan.
Soon they will be in Turkey. They will try Jordan. They will try Saudi Arabia. They are coming to us. They recruit Americans using social media. And they don’t hate us simply because we support Israel. They hate us because of our values. They hate us because our girls go to school. They hate us because women drive in the United States.
Either they win or we win, and we had better take this risk seriously, it is not going away on its own.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BAKER: Thank you, Senator.
[. . .]
RUBIO: Can I just add what — he’s right on point there. Do you know why these banks are so big? The government made them big. The government made them big by adding thousands and thousands of pages of regulations. So the big banks, they have an army of lawyers, they have an army of compliance officers. They can deal with all these things. The small banks, like Governor Bush was saying, they can’t deal with all these regulations. They can’t deal with all — they cannot hire the fanciest law firm in Washington or the best lobbying firm to deal with all these regulations. And so the result is, the big banks get bigger, the small banks struggle to lend or even exist, and the result is what you have today.
And in Dodd-Frank, you have actually codified too big to fail. We have actually created a category of systemically important institutions, and these banks go around bragging about it. You know what they say to people with a wink and a nod? We are so big, we are so important that if we get in trouble, the government has to bail us out. This is an outrage. We need to repeal Dodd-Frank as soon as possible.
(APPLAUSE)
[. . .]
BARTIROMO: Welcome back to the fourth Republican presidential debate.
Senator Rubio, Hillary Clinton is the clear front runner for the Democratic nomination. If she is indeed the nominee, you will be facing a candidate with an impressive resume.
She was the first lady of the United States, a U.S. senator from New York, and secretary of state under Barack Obama. She has arguably more experience, certainly more time in government than almost all of you on stage tonight.
Why should the American people trust you to lead this country, even though she has been so much closer to the office?
RUBIO: Well, that’s a great question, and let me begin by answering it.
(LAUGHTER)
This election is about the future, about what kind of country this nation is gonna be in the 21st century. This next (ph) election is actually a generational choice. A choice about what kind of nation we will be in the 21st century.
For over 2.5 centuries, America’s been a special country, the one place on earth where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything, a nation that’s been a force for good on this planet.
But now, a growing number of Americans feel out of place in their own country. We have a society that stigmatizes those that hold cultural values that are traditional.
We have a society where people — millions of people — are living paycheck to paycheck. They’re working as hard as they ever have, but they’re living paycheck to paycheck because the economy has changed underneath their feet.
We have young Americans who owe thousands of dollars in student loans for a degree that doesn’t lead to a job. For the first time in 35 years, we have more businesses dying than starting, and around the world, every day brings news of a new humiliation for America — many the direct response — direct consequence of decisions made when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of the — of state.
And so here’s the truth: this election is about the future, and the Democratic Party, and the political left has no ideas about the future. All their ideas are the same, tired ideas of the past. More government, more spending. For every issue for America, their answer is a new tax on someone, and a new government program. This nation is going to turn the page, and that’s what this election should be about, and, as I said at the first debate...
(BELL RINGING)
RUBIO: ...If I am our nominee, they will be the party of the past, we will be the party of the 21st century.
(CHEERING)
[. . .]
CAVUTO: Senator Marco Rubio?
RUBIO: Ours — the story of America is an extraordinary story. It is the story of a nation that for over two centuries each generation has left the next better off than themselves. But now, because Washington is out of touch, for the fault of both political parties, for the first time in our history, that is in doubt.
And that is what this election must be about, because if the next four years are anything like the last eight years, our children will be the first Americans ever left worse off by their parents. This election is about making a different choice, about applying our principles of limited government and free enterprise to the unique issues of our time. And if we do, we will not just save the American dream. We will expand it to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. And the 21st century can be a new American century.
So tonight, I ask you for your vote and I ask you to join us at my website, marcorubio.com.
Jonathan Gruber is trying to blame the increasing the cost of health care on new drugs to treat hepatitis, instead of ObamaCare.
You Remember Gruber – one of ObamaCare’s chief architects? He helped draft ObamaCare while being paid nearly $400,000 by the Department of Health and Human Services. He is also the guy who admitted the Obama administration’s successful passage of the law was due to the "stupidity of the American voter."
In 2009, Gruber knew that ObamaCare would lead to increases in the cost of health care. At the time, Gruber even admitted that the only way to control costs is to effectively deny treatment. Nevertheless, he continued to claim the law would lead to lower premiums.
It’s wise to take anything Jonathan Gruber says or puts his name on with a grain of salt and to fact check his claims. This is after all the man who once said the “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” and boasted the Democrats relied on, “basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter” to pass the ObamaCare.
You can watch Gruber make all these outrageous admissions in the following video:
JONATHAN GRUBER, OBAMACARE ARCHITECT: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay. So it was written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law that said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in sick people get money it would not have passed. Okay.
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting the thing to pass, and, you know, it's the second best argument. And I wish Mark was right, we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. So there are things I'd wish I could change, but I'd rather have this law than not.
Now Gruber is making new claims, this time as a member of the Governing Board of the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI). HCCI recently released its 2014 Health Care Cost and Utilization Report, the headline-grabbing finding of which is that life saving prescription medicines are increasing the cost of health care. The organization is backed by the insurance industry and uses insurance industry data. Its Data Integrity Committee, a group tasked with ensuring the completeness of the data it uses, is led by an insurance executive, Ted Prospect. But that hasn’t stopped the media and some in Congress from taking the report at face value.
In an obvious attempt to set up a future denial to patients of the benefits of the expensive, new drugs, Gruber’s HCCI report blames brand name prescription drugs like breakthrough medicines that cure Hepatitis C, as the principle culprit for the sky rocketing cost of health care. HCCI highlighted the new Hepatitis C drugs in its press release:
Hep C Drugs Drove Higher Spending on Brand Prescriptions
In 2014, spending grew fastest for brand prescriptions, with an increase of 8.2 percent ($45)–the largest increase in spending on brand prescriptions in recent years. By comparison, in 2012, spending on brand prescriptions declined by $3. Hepatitis C antiviral drugs accounted for $29.40 of the $45 increase. The average price per filled day (not including rebates, discounts, or coupons) of Hepatitis C drugs was $983.30, compared to $38.30 for all other brand anti-infective medications. There were 30 filled days of Hepatitis C drugs per 1,000 individuals in 2014.
To make sure you get the point, in an apparent afterthought, there is something titled, "Trend to Note: Hepatitis C Drugs and the National ESI Population," which again hits the cost of the three named drugs.
I'm no more a fan of expensive drugs than the next guy, but even the New York Times Editorial Board recognizes the value of these recently approved expensive Hepatitis C drugs:
The drugs are sorely needed. The hepatitis C virus caused nearly 20,000 deaths in the United States in 2013, many in patients who were also infected with H.I.V., the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS, a double whammy that triples their risk of liver disease.
[. . .]
The benefits of these new drugs are undeniable. They can essentially cure the infection in eight to 24 weeks. Older medications are not nearly as effective and often produce disabling side effects. Curing the patient decreases by more than 80 percent the risk of liver cancer, liver failure and the need for a liver transplant, thus saving money in the long run.
The Times also reports that most state Medicaid programs, in an effort to control costs, have placed restrictions on making the drugs widely available:
These include requiring that patients have advanced liver disease before they can get the drug, requiring patients to abstain from alcohol or illicit drugs for at least a year before treatment, and requiring that the drugs be prescribed only by specialists like infectious disease experts or gastroenterologists.
According to the Times' editorial the restrictions run counter to guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
One doesn’t need to be an MIT economist – indeed one could just be a stupid American voter – to see that Gruber and the HCCI are trying to "control costs" by effectively denying treatment. Don't forget that Gruber admitted in 2009 that this is the only way to control health care costs.
It’s definitely wise to be suspicious when Jonathan Gruber is involved in health care policy.
The new National Tracking poll conducted by Morning Consult finds Donald Trump's level of support has dropped nine points or 22.5 percent in the last two weeks. Morning Consult's poll released on October 20, 2015 found Trump's support at 40 percent. The poll released today finds Trump's support down to 31 percent. Even though Trumps level of support has dropped significantly for two consecutive weeks, he still leads the Republican field:
Trump takes 31 percent of the vote, while Carson clocks in at 21 percent. Cruz takes third place, at 9 percent of the vote, just ahead of Rubio and Bush, who tie at 7 percent. No other contender tops 5 percent of the vote.
The new poll had more bad news for Jeb Bush's failing campaign, finding that Jeb's favorability numbers are lower than any of the other 13 candidates vying for the nomination. Only one third of registered voters see Bush favorably, while half see him in an unfavorable light. Among Republicans, 47 percent see him favorably, and 42 percent view him unfavorably. Chris Christie comes close to matching Bush’s unfavorable numbers with 29 percent favorably and 46 percent unfavorably. Among Republicans, Christie has 43 percent favorable, and 37 percent unfavorable.
The Morning Consult National Tracking poll has a margin of error of ±2%.
The latest NBC/Survey Monkey poll conducted October 27 through 29 and included some interviews taken before the infamous CNBC debate found Trump and Carson leading the race for the Republican nomination tied at 26 percent with Senator Ted Cruz third at 10 percent. No other candidates earned double-digit support in the poll which has a margin of error of 2.3 percent.
The Real Clear Politics average for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination still has Trump leading, nut only by 1.3 percent.
Recent Comments