Ted Cruz Challenges Trump To A One On One Debate

By William Teach January 27, 2016 – 7:54 am

Think Trump has it in him to stand toe to toe with Ted Cruz and discuss policies and political beliefs?

(CNS News) After Donald Trump announced that he will not take part in the Fox News debate scheduled for Thursday night in Des Moines, Iowa, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) challenged Trump to go one-on-one with him, with or without moderators:

Appearing on Mark Levin’s radio show Tuesday night, Cruz said, “If Donald is afraid of Megyn Kelly, I would like to invite him, on your show, to participate in a one-on-one debate, between me and Donald, mano a mano.

“Now we could do it a number of ways. We could have you moderate it, Mark. We could have Sean Hannity moderate it. We could have Rush Limbaugh moderate it.

“But you know what, if he’s afraid of Megyn Kelly, if he’s afraid of you, and afraid of Hannity and afraid of Rush — then we could do it without any moderators whatsoever.

“I’m happy to go an hour and a half, mano a mano, me and Donald, with no moderators, any time before the Iowa Caucuses. That’s what a candidate who actually wants to work for the people, wants to — to earn the support of the people will do, is you stand up and defend your record.

Cruz went on to say that Trump has been calling him stupid, so, Trump should have no problem debating, away from all those scary moderators. He went on

“If anyone wants to be president, you need to demonstrate the humility — this is a job interview. You need to be willing to answer the questions of the American people.

“And if Donald is afraid to defend his record, that speaks volumes. And if he thinks Megyn Kelly is so scary, what exactly does he think he’d do with Vladimir Putin? I promise you, Putin is a lot scarier than Megyn Kelly.

I’ll say right up front, I’m not a big fan of Megyn Kelly, something about her style and substance just rubs me wrong (nor do I care for Bill O’Reilly anymore, his constant interruption of guests is beyond annoying). But, if you can’t stand up to them, how are you going to stand up to other world leaders and America’s enemies?

Read: Ted Cruz Challenges Trump To A One On One Debate »

Posted in GOP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon Special Snowflakes Believe MLK Quote Not Diverse Enough, Considered Removing

By William Teach January 27, 2016 – 7:36 am

These special snowflakes are going to be in for a rude awakening when they graduate (with $50k or more in student loans debt) and find out the world tends not to coddle special snowflakes, and that few will tolerate those with Special Snowflake Syndrome

(Mediaite) Student leaders at the University of Oregon debated removing a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. from its student center, arguing that the quote was not inclusive enough for modern understandings of diversity.

Oregon’s Erb Memorial Union, which is currently under renovation, had the following famous King quote on the wall: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”

But as renovation continues, the Oregon Student Union seriously considered replacing that quote. “The quote is not going to change,”reports student paper Oregon Daily Emerald, “but that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.”

Their problem with the quite was that it wasn’t inclusive of gender identity, otherwise known as people of one biological identity who prefer to dress as the other. It’s a tiny fraction of the population that we are not only supposed to tolerate, but patronize and elevate over all others. Which I always find hilarious, since we’re told how strong they are, yet, they demand that they are afforded all sorts of liberties other groups aren’t, and Government needs to help and protect them.

“Diversity is so much more than race,” said one sophomore architecture major. “Obviously race still plays a big role. But there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that.”

This is a university that is almost 64% white, and just 2% Black. These little lilly white Social Justice Warrior Special Snowflakes actually believe that MLK is a microaggressor, that he’s not PC enough for today’s crowd. William A. Jacobson notes

There is an irreconcilable tension between Dr.King’s call to not base the evaluation of people on the color of their skin, and the modern progressive demand that skin color (and other immutable characteristics) be a central focus of everything.

It’s why Black Lives Matter protesters and supporters are infuriated by the counter-demand that All Lives Matter. And it’s enough to cause a near-riot or riot on campus.

The political left is enamored by identity politics, some because they are Special Snowflakes, some because they are just following the crowd, and some because they realize that identity politics leads to government intervention which leads to Progressive (nice fascism) policies which put innumerable controls on our private lives.

Oh, and to repeat, these kids are going to find that the world outside their college bubble is going to be less than tolerant of this activity, and companies tend not to hire candidates whose background and social media show that they would be a lawsuit waiting to happen, hence the reason why so many young people are unemployed or underemployed.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Oregon Special Snowflakes Believe MLK Quote Not Diverse Enough, Considered Removing »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Is Very Concerned Over Potential Ground War In Libya

By William Teach January 26, 2016 – 5:17 pm

And well they should be concerned about potentially putting boots on the ground in Libya. But, it is how the Editorial Board get to this that is hilarious and deluded

Opening a New Front Against ISIS in Libya

The Pentagon is ramping up intelligence-gathering in Libya as the Obama administration draws up plans to open a third front in the war against the Islamic State. This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.

Would it surprise you that the word “Obama” appears just once in the entire editorial? It’s almost as if the guy isn’t president. Why would Congress have a debate over something that most likely hasn’t been brought to their attention? Why would they want to take responsibility for trying to save face for an administration that didn’t bother consulting Congress prior to the initial Libyan airstrikes?

Administration officials say the campaign in Libya could begin in a matter of weeks. They anticipate it would be conducted with the help of a handful of European allies, including Britain, France and Italy. The planning is unfolding amid political chaos in Libya, which continues to reel from the aftermath of the 2011 civil war that ended with the killing of the country’s longtime dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The article fails to discuss the overthrow of Qaddafi due to intervention of military forces including those of the United States, as implemented by whoever the hell was president at the time. What was his/her name? Nor that the Unknown President failed to bring Congress into the discussion during the initial conflict. Nor that the failure to secure Libya post-deposal lies in the hands of the Unknown President and a bored grandma running for president.

There seems to be little interest in Congress to authorize the campaign against the Islamic State, which is predicated, preposterously, on the 2001 law passed to take action against the culprits of the Sept. 11 attacks. The prospect of a new front in the war should spur lawmakers to revisit the issue.

The White House has said it would be nice, but not necessary, for Congress to pass a new authorization for the use of military force. That stance has allowed Congress — which has primary responsibility under the Constitution to declare war — to sidestep an important war vote.

Isn’t it great how the Times’ Editorial Board is seemingly blaming Congress, rather than the administration of the Unknown President who helped create this mess in the first place?

Perhaps the Unknown President could actually go to Congress and ask for their input and blessing.

Read: NY Times Is Very Concerned Over Potential Ground War In Libya »

Posted in War On Terrorism | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 26, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible snow created by too much carbon pollution from Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on the German government ordering CCTV video of Cologne sex attacks to be erased.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Does This Video Suggest Hillary Shared Info Would Never Be On An Unclassified System?

By William Teach January 26, 2016 – 7:53 am

Regardless of what Democrats and Hillary supporters feel, Hillary has a real problem with her email server, and, let’s face it, if she was anyone else, she would certainly already have been indicted by a grand jury long ago, as there is more than enough information for a grand jury referral to have already taken place. Other people have been prosecuted, and convicted, of much less. Look at General David Patraeus. Former Navy Seal Matthew Bissonnette was threatened with prosecution unless he turned over his entire hard drive that contained exactly one photo of Osama Bin Laden after he was killed in the raid, a raid which Bissonnette was part of. Hillary had much, much more material, and that material is much higher security. Bissonnette is also now under investigation for working as a consultant will still a full time SEAL. Huh. What about Hillary and her use of her State Dept position to hook up the Clinton Foundation?

Anyhow, is this something?

(Fox News) A 2013 video, obtained exclusively by Fox News, raises fresh questions about how Hillary Clinton handled sensitive information at the State Department.

In the video, veteran diplomat Wendy Sherman reveals that in the interest of speed, Clinton and her aides would share information that “would never be on an unclassified system” normally.

The questions surround a 2013 speech in which Sherman compared the technology differences between serving at the State Department in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President Obama.

“Now we have BlackBerries, and it has changed the way diplomacy is done,” Sherman, who was undersecretary of state at the time, said in the 2013 on-camera remarks. “Things appear on your BlackBerries that would never be on an unclassified system. But you’re out traveling, you’re trying to negotiate something. You want to communicate with people, it’s the fastest way to do it.”

Now, you could say this is rather innocuous, because that’s the way the world works now. And, you’d be correct if the system Hillary was using was a secure State Department run system. Diplomatic material is considered, at a minimum, sensitive, and tends to be deemed classified afterwards. Much of Hillary’s communications along these lines have seen massive redactions as the emails were released.

The problem here is that not only was Hillary using a non-State Department system, but that it was also totally un-secured. Heck, the server didn’t even have a proper SSL certification. Have you ever run across the message “your connection is not private” while cruising the web? That’s what you would see when accessing clintonemail.com. The security is about the same as logging into Facebook. Do you want to put your personal finances behind your Facebook password?

Would you want all your private business to be kept on a server system that was easily hacked? Would you want to communicate over a system that was so unsecured? Would you be willing to send your social security number, your bank account number, or your credit card number across that system? Do you trust doing business on-line with one of the big companies that was hacked over the last few years? Those companies had much higher security than Hillary’s server.

“Despite her numerous protests, evidence continues to grow showing Secretary Clinton knowingly sent and received classified material using her private email,” Jeff Bechdel, communications director for America Rising, said in a written statement. “This new video again puts Clinton on defense, forcing the former Secretary of State to explain why she put U.S. intelligence at risk by exclusively [using] a private email account for government business.”

Former House Majority Speaker Tom Delay is claiming that his friends at the FBI say the FBI is ready to refer Hillary over for indictment. Say what you will about Delay, the man certainly has contacts. The only way Hillary avoids indictment is political cronyism, and, even liberals must admit that if Hillary was a Republican they’d be saying she should have been indicted long ago.

Read: Does This Video Suggest Hillary Shared Info Would Never Be On An Unclassified System? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bernie Sanders Says His Increased Taxation Plan Will Save People Money

By William Teach January 26, 2016 – 7:10 am

The Democrats held a previously un-scheduled town hall type event at Drake University in Iowa ahead of the caucuses, mostly in an attempt to shield Hillary from her falling poll numbers. Bernie Sanders said “We will raise taxes. Yes we will,” an explicit call for raising taxes on all. This was a big soundbite, but, what is the real deal? Hunter Walker at Yahoo News explains

Sanders made the comment when he was asked about his “Medicare for All” national single-payer health care program. Moderator Chris Cuomo that noted critics of Sanders’ health plan point out he will raise taxes to fund expanded social programs. Sanders said he does plan to increase taxes, but argued his health plan will save people more money than they spend on tax hikes.

“That is an unfair criticism for the following reason. If you are paying, now, $10,000 a year to a private health insurance company and I say to you, hypothetically, ‘You’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes — or actually less than that — but you’re not going to pay any more private health insurance,’” Sanders said. “Are you going to be complaining about the fact that I’ve saved you $5,000 in your total bills? So, it’s demagogic to say, ‘Oh, you’re paying more in taxes.’ Let’s all talk about — we are going to eliminate private health
insurance premiums and payments not only for individuals, but for businesses.”

“Just to be clear, you are going to raise taxes?” Cuomo asked.

“We will raise taxes. Yes we will. But also, let us be clear Chris, because there’s a little bit of disingenuity out there,” Sanders said, adding, “We may raise taxes, but we also are going to eliminate private health insurance premiums for individuals and for businesses.”

Democrats and their minions are forever calling to raise taxes, generally on That Guy. On Someone Else. A small percentage call for raising taxes on themselves, in terms of their earnings class, yet, refuse to write a check to the IRS, checks which the IRS will gladly accept. What we have here is Sanders mixing two things, raising taxes while promising a Single Payer healthcare system, for which he will supposedly save the citizens oodles of money.

In soundbite and talking points form, it sounds reasonable. Pay an extra $5000 in income tax, but since you aren’t paying the $10000 yearly premium, you save $5000. Hooray! Yet, when you dig in, you realize a few things. First, does this ever work out the way government says? Do you ever really save the money? Does this ever really benefit you? Second, the cost of living will spike, since businesses will also be taxed, and they generally tend to pass operating cost increases on to the consumer, especially when it is all business seeing a tax increase. Third, unless Sanders plans on forcing all medical providers to essentially be nationalized, their cost of doing business will also rise thanks to the tax increases, meaning consumers will pay more. Fourth, these providers will provide lesser quality of service if the reimbursement from Government is lower. They aren’t going to lose money providing service. Fifth, many medical providers will simply shut their doors, decreasing availability.

Of course, this is all immaterial to Democrats like Sanders. The main idea is to make the Citizens even more reliant on the federal government. If you look at almost everything Democrats do, it is simply about that notion. Reliance.

Breitbart has a nice “transcript” of the town hall.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bernie Sanders Says His Increased Taxation Plan Will Save People Money »

Posted in Democrats | 36 Comments | Trackback URL

What Say To Men Competing As Women In Olympics?

By William Teach January 25, 2016 – 2:28 pm

Remember the old jokes about Russian and Bulgarian men competing in the Olympics as women? About the female athletes having great 5 o’clock shadows? Not so much a joke

(Daily Mail) The Olympics are reportedly adopting a new policy that opens the field of competition to transgender athletes.

The International Olympic Committee received proposed guidelines in November from its ‘Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism’, which allow for broader policies that would include transgender athletes.

Olympic officials have not confirmed the new guidelines, which have already been adopted by other regulatory sports organizations, but the policy is available on the organization’s website.

The policy change would be in line with NCAA standards in the United States, which allow male-to-female and female-to-male transgender athletes to compete without having gender reassignment surgery, according to ESPN.

It’s not quite that simple, as the athletes would have to take hormones for a year before competing, but, no surgery would be required. Just more idiocy from the Social Justice Warriors, whereby athletes with dangly bits will compete against those without. I wonder if the same SJWs will have a conniption of the biological men wipe the floor with the biological women?

Read: What Say To Men Competing As Women In Olympics? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 25, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is methane producing moo cow ice cream causing so much warmth that it snows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on Monday feel good stories.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump Totally Defines “Conservative”

By William Teach January 25, 2016 – 10:15 am

If you’re guessing that his definition is lacking, well, you’d be correct

(CNS News) “What is your definition of conservative?” CBS’s John Dickerson, host of “Face the Nation,” asked Donald Trump on Sunday.

“Well, I think it’s a person that doesn’t want to take overly risks. I think that’s a good thing,” Trump responded.

“I think it’s a person that wants to — in terms of government I’m talking about — a person that wants to conserve, a person that wants to, in a financial sense, balance budgets, a person that feels strongly about the military. And I feel very strongly about the military.

While that certainly has a few thin points, it is not really a definition of an American Conservative, which has its roots in Classic Liberalism. Just yammering on about “conserving” and not taking risks are not correct. In Classical Conservatism, yes, conserving is big. Certainly, though, with it’s focus on unfettered economics, with government having almost no input in what is known as the Economic Core, risk happens.

I’m not going to write a treatise on what it means to be an American Conservative/Classical Liberal, I’ve done it before. But, let’s briefly note a belief in following the provisions of the Constitution, in law and order, in federalism, in limiting the scope and scale of government, particularly the federal government, in government at any level jumping in when it is absolutely necessary, in limiting government’s control of citizens, in freedom of speech and religion, and the primacy of the Citizens and States per the 9th and 10th amendments, among others. It should worry everyone that Trump is unable to answer what should be a simple question

Trump said when political opponents criticize  him for not being a consistent conservative, “I just evoke the name Ronald Reagan.

“I mean, Ronald Reagan was a fairly liberal Democrat, and he evolved over years and he became more and more conservative. And he was not a very conservative person, but he was pretty conservative. And he ended up being a great president.

“And I have evolved on many issues. And there are some issues, I’m very much the same. I have been constant on many issues. But I have evolved on certain issues, and I think evolved through experience and through, as you grow older, you see things, and you watch things, and you study things.

The type of “liberal Democrat” Reagan was in the past is very different from what a liberal Democrat is today. Reagan switched to Republican in 1962. Yes, over 50 years ago. Heck, John F. Kennedy would have almost no idea what happened to his Party. More importantly, Trump is still unable to define conservatism. A good question for the next debate would be “Exactly what are your political beliefs?”

Read: Trump Totally Defines “Conservative” »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Snow Is An Indicator Of Global Warming Or Something

By William Teach January 25, 2016 – 7:15 am

Why yes, the Cult of Climastrology is continuing its drumbeat where a warming world creates more snow. Even if true, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation

SNOW IS AN INDICATOR OF GLOBAL WARMING

For those of you out there who relished on the snow and starting using it as an example of why climate change theories are wrong, you should know that snow is an indicator of global warming. (snip)

The global warming theory dictates that burning fossil fuels lead to a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These gases, also called greenhouse gasses, attract more heat than others. This leads to a rise of the temperature worldwide. A warmer planets lead to the accelerated melting of the ice caps which can cause severe natural disasters as a very aggressive El Nino phenomenon or a sudden shift in the seasons, much warmer summers and much colder winters. So snow is an indicator of global warming. (snip)

Snow is an indicator of global warming as much as fever indicates an infection. People who don’t believe in climate change should only take a look at the numbers. 2014 was the hottest summer in history, and then 2015 was the hottest summer in history. A pattern is beginning to form and it doesn’t bring good news.

Again, warming is not proof of anthropogenic causation, especially from the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2. It just proves warming, which has occurred multiple times through the Holocene, much less throughout the 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around.

Furthermore, by the argument Warmists are making, that would mean that snow would be less prevalent during cool periods, which, of course, is a bunch of mularky. Warmists originally told us that a warming world would see less snowfall. When Mother Nature failed to cooperate with their prognostications via computer models and talking points, they decided to pimp the notion that warming causes cold and snow. Much like with a cult, they blame everything, no matter how contradictory, on their cause.

Read: Snow Is An Indicator Of Global Warming Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 22 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove