Ann Coulter "heartbroken" that loss deprives America of President Romney

November 08, 2012

Writer

Ann Coulter has been one of the most vocal personalities in the media in the months and weeks leading up to the election. A staunch Mitt Romney supporter, she told Glenn on radio this morning that she was heartbroken that America was denied a Romney presidency, believing the candidate would have found solutions to a lot of problems facing the country. However, in the interview she addressed two key reasons for his defeat: the power of incumbency and the immigrant vote. You can read a rough transcript of the interview below and watch it in the clip above.

Below is a rough transcript of the interview:

GLENN: Let's see we couldn't get Ann Coulter to call the fat bastard the fat bastard from New Jersey last time. At least admit that the pictures of Chris Christie, and Barack Obama walking down the tarmac together look like Larry the cucumber, and Bob the tomato. Now --

PAT: You're a veggie tails fan.

COULTER: Huge.

GLENN: We thought Larry the cucumber. Archibald the asparagus he kind of looks like Barack Obama. If Barack Obama would use a monocle, and Bob the tomato, that's who they are.

COULTER: I'm really enjoying this today.

COULTER: I will put in an emergency call to Chris Christie to find out if it's true that he wept when he met Bruce Springsteen. That may be the first thing that's going to knock it down.

GLENN: Say it.

COULTER: But I do have an important update for you.

GLENN: You have a Chris Christie problem. Say it he's a fat bastard. I think that the hurricane hurt with or without Chris Christie.

PAT: Chris Christie certainly didn't help.

COULTER: And I think it's the real problem and I certainly hasn't thought about it. That was the whole reason I was so wild about Chris Christie midway through Obama's term, and famously if we didn't run Chris Christie, and we'd win Romney and I was wrong about that. Romney was the best candidate we could have run this time. But the reason --

GLENN: But he did lose.

COULTER: I do know that. I think Chris Christie would have lost by more. I hope I'm wrong about that because we may run him in four years. It's almost impossible to take out an incumbent. Republicans have done it in 80 years and that was Ronald Reagan. I thought Chris Christie was the galvanizing star. I know so many people that have never worked in politics. And I would say half of them if that man ever runs for President I'd come and work for him. He was exciting like Ronald Reagan. I don't think Sandy made a huge difference. And but incumbency was the main thing of all. One important update I have because neither Chris Christie is not going to be our President at least today, and Obama is, and he did Obama did the same thing with the Michael Bloomberg. That's why he wrote that endorsement in the "New York Times". I got that tip from insiders in New York. That was a shakedown for an endorsement playing with federal relief disaster funds. Why I said Chris Christie invited Obama in. He had to care about New Jersey. He needed federal disaster relief funds, and as quickly as possible. And if you read Bloomberg's story in the "New York Times" after Sandy hit get down to the last paragraph, and see if that sounds like a ringing endorsement.

GLENN: I got news for you the Chris Christie is even less the man he is. Believe me I've seen the picture. He's quite a man. What I like about Chris Christie when he standing in front of people, and he knows what he believes and he says it. He stands in front of the cameras, and I'm sorry that's just the way it is. He's real. I love that. But if folded --

COULTER: I think he knew what happened when he became governor the first time. At the beginning of the Obama Department of Justice said no no no left child funds for you because you didn't produce the October 2006 numbers.

GLENN: There's an difference between an education number that nobody can get your arms around, and Chris Christie getting on television. The one thing he's good is the television camera. But I didn't kiss Romney's butt either, and Obama's butt. And our state was affected by it. I think people would have lined up to help him.

COULTER: It's very hard to prove that the government is being more incompetent than it is. When they're working hard it's difficult to tell the difference that they're purposefully getting there slowly.

STU: That's a good government that states shouldn't be dependent on federal funds.

COULTER: Yes. That's why $1 million I'm heartbroken that Romney was going to be our President. He was going to fix so many things. To have America deprived of having this President who could have fixed so much that is broken is heartbreaking. But I do think we'll -- we're going to work hard. Not only do you have the law of the incumbency President. The other side of the is 2004. It didn't occur to me until two nights ago because I thought John Kerry was a jackass. And yet still two years later Republicans were wiped out in the congressionally Lexis. Which suggest that Americans were not thrilled with Republicans. Yet they voted to reelect George Bush. This is all segment of the society including us what we ended was the exact same President, and basically the same Senate, and basically the same house. Nothing changed after all this, and how powerful incumbency is. But the other flip side to reelect the other side the power comes roaring over. And no more Sharron Angle's, and Todd Akins. When it comes time to pick a President. I think Romney was hurt. And sometimes this is inevitable. It wasn't inevitable to have that the primary go on and go. It definitely hurt Mitt Romney. Obama was spending money denouncing Romney as a rich elitist out of touch Country Clubber in Ohio. He always knew that Ohio was in play. Even more than them I loved Herman Cain, and 999 but if you haven't won a major election and not just in a little house seat you're probably never going to be President so you shouldn't run.

PAT: I like that.

PAT: So no former pizza skew tiffs, and no other members.

COULTER: Nobody has won an election. I think preferably for governor. I don't think that a house member can do it.

PAT: Governor or Senator.

GLENN: Ann, take a deep breathe.

COULTER: But that probably won't be until 2024.

GLENN: Take a deep breath. Remember you're the one that like Bob the tomato. You remember this. -- this country is split right down the middle, and everybody everybody on the right is saying maybe we should be more moderate. Are you out of your mind.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: I'm so sick of this, and John Boehner, John Boehner I have to tell you. What a fat bastard that guy even though he's not fat. He's growing in size in my mind every single day. What is wrong with that guy.

COULTER: You have to keep the pressure on these guys. I would like to think that he was saying that for media consumption.

COULTER:

GLENN: No he's not. Even "The Blaze" is running this. Everybody is publishing their list who can run in 2016. If somebody tells me one more time Jeb Bush I'm going to hang myself.

COULTER: Thank you. And he and his rotten family, and the "Wall Street Journal".

GLENN: You say that about the Bushes and but you won't call Chris Christie a fat bastard which is half true.

COULTER: One teeny tiny mistake he made. All of these Republicans who have telling us all this time don't worry immigration. Illegal immigration it's fantastic we're going to turn the Hispanics into Republicans just like the Italians. When the Italians came here. This is back in the 20s 30% of them went back home because they didn't make it. We got the creme de la creme. You get here, and the Democrats immediately start giving you government assistance. Thus I was in despair for the first 16 hours after the election results came in. Because we are heading for a tipping point. Whether we hit that in this election or not. It was all 1965 Teddy Kennedy's immigration act. 60% of the legal immigrants come from the third world, and government gets them on assistance, and they have automatic democratic voters. Maybe we can get them in 100 years. But it's too late. They vote by race. And a white person could vote nor a Democrat or Republican, and no one will say you voted for the Democrat. How could you vote against your race. That is sad to immigrants from Senegal, to blacks and Mexicans and Hispanics. There is this ethnic voting, and Democrats have gotten them, and it has nothing to do with the economic opportunity. We ought to get as many as we can. I think Mitt Romney was right in the first debate. We can appeal to them by offering them freedom.

GLENN: I have news for you. I think if the Republicans if they don't change their behavior in this 2-year period they're not going to have anybody left. They're not going to have anybody left. I don't care about these guys.

COULTER: There was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney's position on things. It wasn't like he was John McCain.

GLENN: I think Mitt Romney was the best candidate we have run since Ronald Reagan.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: You know you don't know anybody anywhere. But I thought.

COULTER: He was a little that way with Reagan though he had spent a lot more time in public life, and but he didn't run as the caricature as the liberals portrayed him as.

GLENN: No, he didn't. He was a great candidate. I thought he was a great candidate. The thing though is in four years from now this country is going to be -- either this Utopia works or we're a full-fledged fascist nation or we are coming into because executive orders exist, but we could get into the 2015 and this nation has been pounded into the ground because we did nothing for four years except make it worse, and if we're still standing, I'm sorry but the John Boehners of the world are not going to be it. You're going to look for somebody like Rand Paul. And Rand Paul may not be strong enough at that point.

COULTER: I love Rand Paul. The only thing I'd say about him. It reminds me one of my points what we need to avoid, and that is I think people saying we need to be more conservative. I think they're fighting the last war. Mitt Romney was plenty conservative. He was the most conservative on issues like illegal immigration, on tax reform and on government. He was the most conservative is and fact that he was presentable, and attractive, and didn't call Obama a Kenyan anti-colonialist, and demanding some form of the poorism that isn't related to the issues. The poorism in craziness.

GLENN: But we're getting to the point. We have three Supreme Court justices that are going to die in the next three years.

COULTER: We've got to pray for them.

GLENN: Look how that worked out. So we've got three Supreme Court justices. The principle thing that the only thing that will save us in four years will be the constitution. We will be so far off the rails in four years. There won't be anything left in four years. Other than there's somebody making stuff up outside of the margins.

COULTER: Which is why we can't be running -- I think there are no Rockefeller Republicans any more. There are no liberal Republicans who're pro choice as they say whoever run as a President as a Republican anymore. I think that the problem is more the poorism issue. Rand Paul it was the same thing. It is the same thing with poorist libertarians. Berry Goldwater contrary as I describe him, Barry Goldwater nearly destroyed the Republican party by his civil rights act. He wiped Republicans out.

GLENN: You know how I feel about progressivism. You have to take it step by step. You can't eat the whole thing. It won't work. But you've got to start moving in that direction.

COULTER: Yes. And demanding purity or crazy positions -- we can't do any of this unless our candidates get elected. They talk about their positions that are popular, and not suppress the ones that are unpopular.

GLENN: I'll come your way if you just say he is a fat bastard.

COULTER: Good to talk to you.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

BIAS ALERT: MSNBC’s Katy Tur pressures Texas AG to ‘promise’ school safety

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

OVERREACH: These presidents are the worst ‘executive order offenders’ — here’s why

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Holding T-bills now pays 30x more than your bank savings account

Sharon McCutcheon/Unsplash

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at PeakProsperity.com.

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)

'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:

(Source

That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.

TreasuryDirect

For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with PeakProsperity.com's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: PeakProsperity.com does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.

Glenn's Show Prep