Obama's Power and its Limitations

Caroline Glick/ Townhall Columnist

US President Barack Obama's rapidly changing positions on Syria have produced many odd spectacles.

One of odder ones was the sight of hundreds of lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee fanning out on Capitol Hill to lobby members of the House and Senate to support Obama's plan to launch what Secretary of State John Kerry called "unbelievably small" air strikes against empty regime controlled buildings in Syria.

AIPAC officials claimed they were doing this because the air strikes would help Israel.

But this claim was easily undone. Obama and Kerry insisted nothing the US would do would have any impact on the outcome of the Syrian civil war. This was supposed to be the strikes' selling point.

But by launching worthless strikes, Obama was poised to wreck America's deterrent posture, transforming the world's superpower into an international joke.

In harming America's deterrent capabilities by speaking loudly and carrying an "unbelievably small" stick, Kerry and Obama also harmed Israel's deterrent posture.

Israel's deterrence relies in no small measure on its strategic alliance with the US.

Once the US is no longer feared, a key part of Israeli deterrence is removed.

Obama did not announce his intention to bomb empty buildings in Syria in order to impact the deterrent posture of either the US or Israel. He probably gave them little thought. The only one who stood to gain from those strikes - aside from Syrian President Bashar Assad who would earn bragging rights for standing down the US military - was Obama himself.

Obama wanted to launch the unbelievably small strikes to prove that he wasn't lying when he said that Syria would cross a red line if it used chemical weapons.

So if the strikes were going to harm the US and Israel, why did AIPAC dispatch its lobbyists to Capitol Hill to lobby in favor of them?

Because Obama made them.

Obama ordered AIPAC to go to Capitol Hill to lobby for the Syria strikes. He did so knowing that its involvement would weaken public support for AIPAC and Israel. Both would be widely perceived as pushing the US to send military forces into harm's way to defend Israel.

Then, with hundreds of AIPAC lobbyist racing from one Congressional office to the next, Obama left them in a lurch. He announced he was cutting a deal with Russia and had decided not to attack Syria after all.

What did AIPAC get for its self-defeating efforts on Obama's behalf?

Obama is now courting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the hopes of making a deal that Iran will use as cover for completing its nuclear weapons program. Such a deal may well involve ending sanctions on Iran's oil exports and its central bank - sanctions that AIPAC expended years of effort getting Congress to pass.

And that's not all. Monday, as Obama meets with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York, Vice President Joe Biden will become the highest ranking administration official to date to address the J Street conference.

J Street was formed in order to weaken AIPAC, and force it to the left. Sending Biden to headline at the J Street conference is an act of aggression against AIPAC. It also signals that Obama remains committed to strengthening the anti-Israel voices at the margins of the American Jewish community at the expense of the pro- Israel majority.

The question is why is AIPAC cooperating with Obama as he abuses it? Why didn't they just say no?

Because they couldn't.

AIPAC is not strong enough to stand up to the president of the United States, particularly one as hostile as Obama.

Not only would it have suffered direct retaliation for its refusal, Obama would have also punished Israel for its friend's recalcitrance.

In a recent interview with The Times of Israel, Eitan Haber, late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's closest aide, made the case that Israel is powerless in the face of White House pressure. Haber claimed that only when a person becomes prime minister does he understand "to what extent the State of Israel is dependent on America. For absolutely everything... we are dependent on America."

Haber noted that the US can collapse every aspect of Israel. From this he concluded that no Israeli leader can stand up to Washington.

Haber recalled a menacing conversation Rabin had with then-US secretary of state James Baker during which Baker became angry at Rabin.

"America is right even when it is wrong," Baker admonished the Israeli leader.

Haber warned that Israel cannot stand up to the US even when the US is behaving in a manner that endangers Israel. "It's possible that they don't understand the region and that they are naïve and stupid," he said, "But they are America."

Haber was right that that the White House can destroy Israel's economy, defenses and diplomatic position any time it wishes. In the past administration threats of economic sanctions or delays in sending spare parts for weapons platforms have been sufficient to make Israeli leaders fall into line.

For the past five and a half years Obama has dangled US diplomatic support at the UN Security Council over Israel's head like the Sword of Damocles.

Obama forced Netanyahu to make concession after concession to secure his veto of the PLO's request that the UN Security Council accept "Palestine" as a member state two years ago. Netanyahu's sudden support for Palestinian statehood and his 10- month long freeze on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria were the most public concessions he was forced to cough up.

The timing of the EU announcement that it was barring EU entities from forging ties with Israelis that operate beyond the 1949 armistice lines was revealing in this context. The EU announced its economic sanctions the day Kerry announced the start of negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

The message to Israel was absolutely clear: Do what we order you to or you will face economic sanctions far more damaging.

Obama won't negotiate with terrorists: talks with Iran's President Rouhani, snubs Republicans

From Jihad watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

After all, who are the real terrorists, as far as Barack Obama is concerned?

"It's a three-decade first: Presidents of U.S., Iran talk directly, if only by phone," by Chelsea J. Carter for CNN, September 27:

(CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama spoke by telephone Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani -- the first direct conversation between leaders in Washington and Tehran since 1979 -- raising the possibility a deal can be reached over Iran's controversial nuclear program. 

Describing the conversation as a starting point, Obama said he believes an agreement is possible regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions that could lead to better relations.

"While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution," Obama told reporters during a White House briefing.

Western leaders have expressed cautious optimism about Iran's more moderate tone under Rouhani, whose recent comments have raised hopes that a deal could be struckover the Middle Eastern nation's nuclear program.

Obama said he reiterated to Rouhani statements he made earlier in the week during the United Nations General Assembly, where he signaled the United States was open to negotiations with Iran provided real action is taken.

"So the test will be meaningful, transparent, and verifiable actions, which can also bring relief from the comprehensive international sanctions that are currently in place," he said Friday.

The conversation between the two men came at the end of the General Assembly, where conjecture abounded over whether Obama and Rouhani would meet in person and what that might mean for U.S.-Iranian relations.

Rouhani told reporters Friday that there wasn't enough time to plan such a face-to-face meeting.

The last time a U.S. president spoke with an Iranian leader was in 1979, when Jimmy Carter talked by telephone with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi before Pahlavi was overthrown.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that the administration was contacted by the Iranian delegation.

"Today, somewhat surprisingly, we were contacted by them to say that President Rouhani would like to speak to President Obama on the telephone on his way out of town, and we were able to make that call come together and it was a constructive conversation," she said.

The call lasted about 15 minutes, with translation, Rice said.

Rice characterized the call as "cordial and constructive."...

Op-ed:
A train wreck of a law upheld by 23 RINOS
By: Diane Sori 

Thank you Senator Ted Cruz for helping we true Conservative Republicans in our efforts to weed out the RINOS in both the House and Senate.

Yesterday, after last week’s 21-hour ‘non-filibuster’ filibuster by Texas Senator Ted Cruz…with a little help from his friends Senators Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul…the Senate reached a vote on the Republicans efforts to avoid a shutdown of the government and to defund the dreaded monstrosity known as ObamaCare.

Sadly, our side lost as 23 RINOS sided with the Democrats, and in a vote of 79 to 19 invoked cloture and formally ended debate on H.J. Res 59 (Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014), and helped put into place the funding mechanism to destroy America’s health care system, America’s jobs market, and according to leading economists...one-sixth of the American economy.

Requiring 60 votes for passage, even a straight party line vote would have Republicans still losing in the Democratic controlled Senate, but at least it would have shown a united front. Instead only 19 true Conservative Republican Senators stood strong… Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Charles Grassley (Iowa), Dean Heller (Nev.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rob Portman (Ohio), James Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), and David Vitter (La.).

And we thank them for that.

As Senator Marco Rubio said after the vote, “Today, we had an important opportunity to stand with America’s working class and defund ObamaCare before it continues to hurt people even more. That did not happen. I will continue to fight to stop ObamaCare in its entirety and replace it with an alternative that truly gives Americans more affordable high-quality health care options without hurting their jobs, incomes and current health plans they are happy with."

And hopefully, he will get all our support in that.

So back to the House the bill now goes and there will be a fight…a BIG fight…as Republican lawmakers in the House must pass a bill…any bill…and send it back to the Senate.  However, they have said time and time again that ObamaCare is a disaster for the middle class, and that they will NOT pass any bill that funds it…and remember that funding comes from the House. So by vowing to reject the restoration of funding, the Republicans may instead decide to send the bill back to the Senate again with more changes. But with a government shutdown hanging in the balance House leaders have NOT yet decided exactly how they will proceed.

But as our hero Senator Ted Cruz said, when the bill returns to the Senate, “I hope that all 46 Republicans are united against ObamaCare and standing with the American people.”

Unfortunately for 'We the People' with the now exposed for all to see RINOS in the Senate...led by the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham...that will probably NOT happen.

And at the heart of yesterday’s vote...of yesterday's betrayal...is the procedure known as ‘cloture’… the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill, thereby overcoming a filibuster and forcing a vote.  However, that only works in the Senate NOT for the House and some in the House have already hinted about a filibuster when the bill comes back to them.

But with that comes Barack HUSSEIN Obama's threat that if the House does NOT pass the Senate bill as is that the government will shut down early next week. In a televised statement from the White House after the Senate vote, Obama accused the Republicans of “political grandstanding” and said the GOP-controlled House now has the fate of a potential government shutdown in its hands.

Oh how that man loves to blame everybody but where the true blame belongs…with himself.

Bloviating that he will NOT negotiate with Republicans (but he will negotiate with Iranian terrorists) over the debt ceiling increase because he’s heard that a few Republicans have alluded that they might now tie the defunding of ObamaCare to the debt ceiling debate, Obama acts once again like a spoiled child stamping his feet as he whined, “My message to Congress is this: do not shut down the government, do not shut down the economy, pay our bills on time.”

Do NOT do this…do NOT do that…Obama does NOT understand that NO one takes his threats seriously…NOT after his ‘red lines’ fiasco, and Vladimir Putin proving himself to be more of a leader than he is.

And NO matter his bloviations Obama does NOT get that we could pay our bills on time if he had bothered to learn Economics 101…do NOT spend more than you take in…if he understood that the government being shut down is NO biggie as it’s been shut down many times before…if he accepted as fact that our economy would be so much better if he had even an inkling of how to run the ‘business’ of government…if he would admit that he has NO idea how to create jobs and put Americans (legal Americans) back to work…and if he and those who orbit around him would accept the fact that one being a ‘community organizer’ does NOT make for a successful president.

So in lieu of yesterday's vote the bottom line is this…more than half (57%) of the country wants nothing to do with ObamaCare and do NOT want it forced down their throats…more than half the country says NO to raising the debt ceiling...more than half the country knows that by Congress exempting itself from ObamaCare that in and of itself is an admission of how bad it is, and that 'We the People' will be the ones footing the bill for their private health care with our taxpayer dollars and they could care less.

And the 23 RINOS who voted ‘YES’ on cloture are now exposed for all to see for they knew full well that a vote to invoke cloture was indeed a vote for ObamaCare, and they knew full well that a 'YES' vote would allow ObamaCare to grow and thrive at the expense of the middle class who are hurting enough under this miserable excuse of a president and his equally miserable administration... and they voted for cloture  anyway.

So again many thanks to America's new shining star, Senator Ted Cruz, for standing strong against 'Prince' Harry Reid who wished he would have just shut-up and gone away, and to the 19 Republican Senators who were strong of conviction and courageous enough to join him and vote the will of their constituents…to vote on behalf of ‘We the People’…to vote 'NO' on a bill that is NOTHING but a nightmare come to life...and let the 23 RINOS who did NOT know that they will hear our voices loud and clear come their re-election day…a day that can’t come soon enough for me.

Iran declares victory over Obama, says U.S. "reached this conclusion that they can't challenge the powerful Iran"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Can't? Won't, as long as Obama and those who think like him are in the White House. "Iran Declares Victory Over Obama," by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, September 26:

A senior Iranian military leader said that his country’s “power and resistance” has forced the United States and President Barack Obama to kowtow to Tehran, according to reports in Iran’s state-run media. 

The senior military aide to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran has strong-armed Obama into accepting its nuclear rights.

“The Americans have sensibly chosen a type of flexibility and withdrawal vis a vis Iran,” Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted as saying on Wednesday by the Fars News Agency.

The United States “reached this conclusion that they can’t challenge the powerful Iran,” Safavi was quoted as saying.

The Iranian press celebrated Obama’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, describing it as a “different tone” and a “new path,” according to reports.

One Iranian newspaper even declared, “the time for change has arrived,” according to AFP.

Iranian military leaders such as Safavi claim that Obama’s shift from the rhetoric of war to that of peace signals Tehran’s arrival as a world power.

“It seems that the Americans have understood this fact that Iran is a powerful and stable country in the region which uses logical and wise methods in confrontation with its enemies,” Safavi told Fars in an interview.

“Mr. Obama as the U.S. president announced for the first time that ‘we are not seeking regime change in Iran and respect the Iranian nation’s right to access peaceful nuclear energy’ and this stabilized Iran’s right,” he said.

But while Obama’s attitude may be shifting, Iran intends to retain its hardline rhetoric, according to Safavi.

“Tehran will maintain its stance vis a vis the U.S.,” Fars reported, stating Iran “cannot forget the U.S. animosities throughout the last decades, including its support for the 2009 street unrests.”

Safavi also criticized Obama for speaking about the possibility of Iran’s further isolation by continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions and calling on Tehran to choose other ways in dealing with the regional and international issues.

America must immediately “remove the [economic] sanctions step by step and a mutual confidence is created, then we can be hopeful,” according to Safavi, who also called on “Americans to desist from their continued obstinacy against Iran and don’t follow the Zionist lobby.”

A top Iranian legislator echoed Safavi’s comments on Wednesday when he declared that Obama changed his tune “because of the resistance shown by the Iranian government and nation,” Fars reported....

Affordable Care Act Could Fund Over 100,000 Abortions

Christine Rousselle/ Townhall Columnist

Although the Hyde Amendment restricts the use of federal funds for abortion, with the exceptions of pregnancies caused by rape and incest, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, released a paper on Thursday that showed how Multi-State Plans created through the Affordable Care Act could result in taxpayers subsidizing up to 111,500 abortions each year.

Multi-State Plans (MSPs) are the Affordable Care Act’s version of the “public option” health insurance plan.

“Multi-state” is another word for “national” and the degree of regulation of plan content, control of medical-loss ratios, and other factors ensure that these plans will operate more like regulated utilities than truly private insurance.

MSPs will be gradually introduced through a four-year period. By 2015, 35 states are expected to have MSPs in place, and all 50 states will have MSPs by 2017. The plans are intended to create “competition” in state markets, but will have the advantage that their administrative costs will be taxpayer funded, unlike a private insurance company.

According to the Lozier paper, however, these plans could be the key to taxpayer funding of abortions:

What these advantaged plans will do with respect to abortion coverage is not yet fully clear. However, Section 1334(a)(6) of the ACA states that:

In entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director [of OPM] shall ensure that with respect to multi-State qualified health plans offered in an Exchange, there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i). (Emphasis added).

Currently, 27 states and the District of Columbia permit insurance plans to cover abortions. Only roughly 12 percent of abortions are paid for by private insurance, as women are often ashamed to report abortion to third parties.

According to Lozier Institute’s analysis, over 5.5 million women will potentially gain coverage for abortion under the Affordable Care Act.

If 2 percent of all women of childbearing age have abortions each year, an estimated 111,500 girls and women who will have abortions in coming years will have new coverage in effect for them. If only one third of the girls and women who are newly privately covered for elective abortions proceed and file for them, an additional 18,397 abortions will be paid for each year under ObamaCare’s exchange expansion. Publicly funded abortions, on the other hand, could rise by as much as 53,600 – with roughly half of that increase occurring in New York and California, two states with high existing abortion rates.

Floods! Shootings! Fire! Hurricanes! Obamacare!

John Ransom/ Townhall Finance Editor

Floods! Shootings! Fire! Hurricanes! Obamacare!

As my home state of Colorado rocks under the worst floods in 100 years, Obama has declared the state’s flooded areas a disaster area.

“Obama’s declaration makes federal aid available to supplement state and local recovery efforts in Boulder County,” reports The Hill. “That aid can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs or low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses.”

Estimates vary regarding the number of people missing. I’ve seen headlines put the number at between 500 and 1,000, but The Hill says it’s 200.

But what is a flood, in terms of life and limb, when Obamacare looms over the country as a whole? That’s not a rhetorical question either.

Obamacare has been likened to a “disaster,” a “trainwreck” and other implacable forces of nature or accident that gouge out the health, wealth and well-being of a community. The numbers of people affected just last week by the looming implementation of Obamacare easily numbers in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands.

Thousands of part-time employees at the boutique grocery chain Trader Joe’s, for example, were told last week that they’d be losing benefits in favor of a $500 stipend for exchange-based healthcare.

Some of those employees will pay more now for health insurance, some will pay a bit less. But however those employees make out, the rest of us will pay more as Obamacare costs start will pay more now for health insurance, some will pay a bit less. But however those employees make out, the rest of us will pay more as Obamacare costs start to mount. 

“Trader Joe's is essentially shifting the costs it used to pay for health insurance onto the federal government,” admits the Washington Post, one of Obamacare’s top proponents.

Trader Joe’s joins IBM, UPS, and the City of Chicago as the most high profile institutions that have shifted the cost of employee benefits to Uncle Same Ole, Same Ole.

But it’s not just costs that make it a disaster area.

Michael Cannon from Cato writes about a new book from David Goldhill, a Democrat, who has reexamined his belief in universal care after his experience with his father’s death convinced him that government healthcare killed his father.

“In 2007, David Goldhill’s father died from infections acquired in a hospital, one of more than two hundred thousand avoidable deaths per year caused by medical error,” says the publisher’s pitch for Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father--and How We Can Fix It. “The bill was enormous—and Medicare paid it. These circumstances left Goldhill angry and determined to understand how world-class technology and personnel could coexist with such carelessness—and how a business that failed so miserably could be paid in full.”

Suffice to say the book isn’t kind to Obamacare or government run healthcare.

“[T]he frustrating reality is that despite more than sixty years of government efforts – representing the work of both political parties,” writes Goldhill, “we are moving further and further away from what we want. Prices are higher, more people are excluded from needed care, more excess treatments are performed, and more people die from preventable errors.”

It’s that “more people die from preventable errors” part that should have all of us concerned. Preventable error is what the government is really good at. It’s also what designates Obamacare as truly a man-caused disaster area, just like other natural disaster areas.

There are a lot of good arguments against the implementation of Obamacare: it’s expensive, it erodes liberty, it is unduly intrusive, it’s subject to political influence, it’s inefficient, it kills jobs, it gives incentives to companies to offload benefits on to the government. These are all good and true arguments.

Liberals try to trump these arguments by saying their commitment to universal healthcare proves that they CARE more about people.

In fact, as Goldhill makes clear, the liberal- or shall we say statists’- commitment to universal coverage will kill more people in due time than all the flooding in Colorado from statehood to present day. It will kill more people than all the mass shootings will- ever. It will, just next year, kill more people than Hurricane Katrina; more people than the fire at the Seaside boardwalk in New Jersey, which casualty count now stands at zero, depsite the breathless press coverage.

But unlike the other disasters, the Obamacare disaster was a man-caused “Disaster of Choice” or a “Catastrophic Choice” to quote our current Secretary of State who seems to know a lot about catastrophic choosing. After all he helped pass the Obamacare law when he was in the Senate.

And it proves that high capacity legislation is much more dangerous than high capacity magazines are.

Democrats carefully chose this disaster.

Then they crafted it and created it just for you, and you, and you and you, with the belief that once imposed on all of us we may now rest in peace.

Obama’s ‘Please Kick Me’ Appearance At The U.N.

by Chip Wood / Personal Liberty Digest

PHOTOS.COM

Chalk up another embarrassing rebuff for a U.S. President at the Mecca of international socialism, the United Nations.

Barack Obama’s team let it be known that the President would be delighted to meet Iranian President Hasan Rouhani while the two were at the U.N. this past Tuesday. The two could shake hands, smile at each other and pose for an historic photo op.

They wouldn’t even have to discuss anything of substance, merely look like they were prepared to get along.

“Thanks, but no thanks” was the insulting Iranian response. At least their rebuff was announced before Obama was left standing alone, with his arm stuck out and a stupid smile on his face.

Guess Obama’s peeps didn’t learn anything from history. Back in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton offered the same opportunity to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, another supposed moderate. Khatami also nixed shaking hands with the President of the United States.

Wouldn’t you think that someone on Obama’s staff would have made sure he and Rouhani would be smiling together for the camera before leaking news about it to the media? This is not only sloppy diplomacy, Mr. President; it’s downright embarrassing incompetence.

Please note that Obama is so eager to negotiate with Iran that he’s even willing to put up with some egg on his face. And Rouhani isn’t the only nasty ruler he’s been willing to make nice with. Heck, we’re even willing to sit down at a conference table with the lunatics who run North Korea.

And don’t forget about all of those cozy chats with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who has been only too happy to step into the role of negotiator-by-proxy. No doubt Obama is hoping that the world will soon forget all that talk about military strikes, inviolable red lines and the need to see Bashar Assad kicked out of the Syrian presidency.

Is there anyone this President isn’t willing to negotiate with?

Yes, there is one group that is beyond the pale and one issue that Obama won’t discuss under any circumstances. Negotiate with Republicans over the fate of the U.S. economy? Not on your life!

Obama has made it clear he won’t give an inch over his demand that Congress raise the debt ceiling without attaching any conditions to it. No reduction in spending, no promise to balance the budget someday, no give-and-take under any circumstances. Here is the one issue on which he vows there will be absolutely no compromise whatsoever.

The President has the nerve to claim that this is how it has always been, that Congress has never attached non-budget items to legislation raising the debt ceiling. Here’s how he put it last week, when he spoke to the Business Roundtable:

You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt.

His claim, like so many other things he has said with such certainty, is total bunk. Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker for The Washington Post, didn’t have to dig very far to confirm that debt-ceiling legislation has been linked to such disparate causes as campaign-finance reform, Social Security, ending the bombing in Cambodia and voluntary school prayer.

A classic example occurred in 1980, when the House and Senate voted to repeal one of Jimmy Carter’s favored solutions to the energy crisis that existed then. Carter had demanded a fee on imported oil that would have raised the cost of a gallon of gas by 10 cents. Congress said “no way” in an attachment to legislation Carter very much wanted: authorization to borrow even more money he could spend.

When Carter vetoed the measure, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to override him. The vote was 335-34 in the House and 68-10 in the Senate. So much for Obama’s claim that such legislation was “never seen in the history of the United States.” Kessler rightly gives the president four Pinocchios for his duplicity on this one.

So what could be attached to a new debt-ceiling bill? For starters, how about a one-year delay in Obamacare? Obama has already agreed to a one-year delay for many businesses; how about giving the same break to the rest of us?

Yes, I know. The House has passed a bill to halt all funding for this healthcare monstrosity. But there is no chance that the Senate will agree. And even if by some miracle the bill’s proponents could find five or six Democrats who would vote with them (something I give a 0 percent likelihood of happening), does anyone think there are any circumstances that would persuade Obama to sign it?

Not on your life.

Looks like we’ll see another exciting game of Washington playing chicken, folks.

In the meantime, what did you think of Texas senator Ted Cruz’s dramatic, all-night speech on the Senate floor, listing all of the reasons to oppose funding Obamacare?

He talked about a lot more than the Affordable Care Act, of course. He narrated the classic Dr. Seuss book Green Eggs and Ham, described the incredible bravery of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and even compared conservatives’ efforts today to the rebel alliance in the “Star Wars” films. All in all, the freshman Senator put on quite a show.

Despite some catty remarks from his opponents (Senate Majority Leader Harry Read called the near-filibuster a “massive waste of time”) and much mockery in the mainstream media, I think Cruz scored a lot of points for his cause. The response on Twitter and other social media confirms that opinion. So congratulations to him and the other conservative stalwarts who had the courage to stand with him.

And speaking of Cruz’s fellow Republicans, shame on those who have been trying to stab the Tea Party favorite in the back. The latest example of their despicable behavior came last week. After Chris Wallace announced that Cruz would be interviewed on his “Fox News Sunday” program, the TV host described what happened next:

This has been one of the strangest weeks I’ve ever had in Washington, and I say that because as soon as we listed Ted Cruz as our featured guest this week, I got unsolicited research and questions, not from Democrats, but from top Republicans.

Wallace said the reason for slipping him the negative material was obvious: so he could “hammer Cruz” when he appeared.

Ain’t politics fun?

By this time next week, I expect that some sort of funding for the Federal government will be approved by Congress and signed by the President. It may just be for a few months, but I don’t think the Republican majority in the House will agree to a government shutdown. Not yet. Too bad; if we could control who got sent home and who kept getting a paycheck, it could be the best thing to happen to our country in years.

We all know that Obama and his henchmen would make any shutdown as painful as possible for as many of us as possible — just as the Administration did with sequestration, but a thousand times worse.

But don’t despair. This just one battle in a long-range war, my friends. And there is no doubt we’re getting more warriors on our side every day.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.