Saturday, October 31, 2015

'I do, I do, I do:' Brazilian female trio get hitched (and now it begins)

AFP ^ | 10/30/15 | Laura Bonilla 

Three's a crowd? Not in Brazil, where three women have defied deeply conservative trends in Congress and wider traditional mores by celebrating a polyamorous civil union.

The happy trio, who reportedly have shared a bed for years and say they want to raise a child, took an oath of love in early October in the presence of Rio de Janeiro notary public Fernanda de Freitas Leitao.
"This union is not just symbolic," because it defines "how they intend to have children," attorney Leitao said.

The lovers -- a businesswomen and a dentist who are both 32 and a 34-year-old office manager -- have been together for three years and wish to remain anonymous. Despite salacious media speculation about their supposed love life, they are in fact shy, their lawyer said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

You’ll Never Guess What Inspired the 2nd Amendment ^ | Russ Hepler 

You’ll Never Guess What Inspired the 2nd Amendment!!!

It is one of Americans’ fundamental rights – the right to “keep and bear arms.” It has kept America free from tyranny, both foreign and domestic for over two centuries.
The 2nd Amendment is under assault across the board today from liberals, socialists, Democrats, and the national media.
But, where did our Founding Fathers come up with the idea for the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights? The idea of average citizens being armed was foreign to European countries. So where did the concept come from?
William J. Federer has the surprising answers: This followed the example of the earliest known militia in history – Ancient Israel, where every man was armed and always ready to defend his community.
Denver University Law Review, July 15, 2013 published an article Ancient Hebrew Militia Law, by David B. Kopel, in which he wrote:
” New Englanders intensely self-identified with ancient Israel-from the first days of settlement in early 17th century (Israel in the wilderness) to the days of the American Revolution, when New England’s ‘black regiment’ of clergymen incited the Revolution as a religious duty,
and described the thirteen American colonies as the modern version of the twelve confederate tribes of Israel.
Thus, ancient Hebrew militia law is part of the intellectual background of the American militia system, and of the Second Amendment…
Every male ‘from the age of twenty years up, all those in Israel who are able to bear arms’…were obliged to fight, to go forth ‘armed to battle.’ Men who failed this duty ‘sinned against the Lord.’
Although God may work miracles…the righteous…may never force God’s hand by demanding a miracle-putting good people in danger and expecting God to protecting them…”
Yep, that’s right! Our Founding Fathers looked to ancient Israel from the pages of the Old Testament in the Bible as their basis for developing the idea of local militias with everyone armed to defend and protect their families, homes, and communities.

Now, don’t expect to hear this from some liberal college History professor; or from the national media.
But, the more we dig into American History, the more examples we find that the Founding Fathers used principles from the nation of Israel – God’s chosen people – to build America upon.
The concepts of private property ownership, local representative government, universally applied laws of justice, and other guaranteed rights not given by government all come from the pages of the Old Testament and found their way into our founding documents.
William J. Federer provides more info:
David B. Kopel continued:
“Israel’s military system was ‘based on the duty of every able-bodied male to bear arms and serve.’
Israel relied on a militia, in which citizen soldiers would spend most of their time cultivating their farms, or engaged in other economic production, and would fight only for limited periods (ideally, after the harvest), and only when necessary.
Similarly, during the American Revolution, most men served in their state militias, rather than the Continental Army. Thus, they were most able to keep their farms in production, and other economic activity in progress.
This was an important reason why the United States was able to economically sustain a war that lasted eight years…”
And it is not just modern historians who have this perspective. According to William J. Federer, there is ample evidence from the colonial period to prove these facts.
In September of 1774, Dr. Joseph Warren wrote the Suffolk Resolves.
British statesman Edmund Burke cited the Suffolk Resolves as a major development in colonial animosity, which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence.
The Suffolk Resolves stated:
“That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity,
by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died,
and to hand them down entire to future generations…
and that the inhabitants of those towns and districts…do use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and do, for that purpose, appear under arms at least once every week.”
Wow! When was the last time we read about that in public school history books?
William J. Federer adds more:
Massachusetts citizen soldiers drilled on the parade ground, many times led by a deacon or pastor, then went to church for exhortation and prayer.
The Provincial Congress issued a Resolution to Massachusetts Bay, 1774:
” Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual…
Continue steadfast, and with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
Maybe this explains why President Obama and his gaggle of atheist socialists hate the 2nd Amendment – it comes from Israel and from God!

Climate Change Is A Religion, Not Science!

Right Wing News ^ | 31 Oct, 2015 | William Teach 

Ted Cruz sat down with Glenn Beck Thursday, and had this to say on the subject of ‘climate change’

RWW News: Ted Cruz Says That 'Climate Change Is Not Science, It's Religion' (video)
“You know part of the reason he (the president of the Sierra Club) didn't know the facts? Because climate change is not science, it's religion.
Look at the language where they call you a "denier" Denier is not the language of science. Look, I'm the child of two scientists. My parents are both mathematicians, computer programmers. My dad was self-taught geophysicist. The essence of the scientific method is to start with a hypothesis, and then look to the evidence to disprove the hypothesis. You're not trying to prove it, you're trying to disprove it. Any good scientist is a skeptic, if he's not, he or she should not be a scientist.
But yet the language of the global warming alarmists, "denier" is the language of religion, it's heretic, you are a blasphemer.
The response from the Sierra Club, "We have decreed this is the answer, you must accept it." And so he didn't know his facts because he just knew his religion.
Of course, this has made Warmists very mad. EcoWatch calls it an “alarming video”. And, for Warmists, it is, because it exposes the fallacy and insanity of the ‘climate change’ movement. I’ve listened to Cruz speak on the subject before, and he sort-of steals my line in calling it a political movement and “It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.”
Roe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress is also very upset, and writer Samantha Page spins madly, highlighting that this is not science
The data he is referring to is very specific. Cruz is looking only at satellite data - not ground-level data or oceanographic data - and he does not say "18 years" just as a random number.
Would this be the same data that the NOAA is refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena over? The data that has received massive adjustments, all upwards? The same data that is biased towards warming due to UHI/land use? Yes.

Ninety- seven percent of published, peer-reviewed climate science papers concur that man-made climate change is occurring.
If you’re throwing out “consensus”, especially from an utterly debunked study, you’re talking politics, sociology, and even religion, not science.
He also seems to not have seen any of the data showing that the world is hot and getting hotter. 2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record. 2016 will likely beat it.
Except, at most, it would only be hundreds of a degree, and this is prognostication before the facts. We already know how this worked out for the 2014 claim. They’re already telling us what the data will say, and they’ll make darned sure that the data says that.
My only disagreement with Cruz is that this is not really religion, it is a cult.

Obamacare Is A Disaster: Co-Op Insurers Across America Are Collapsing, And Now There Is Fraud!

Zero Hedge ^ | 30 October 2015 | Tyler Durden 

Two weeks ago we reported that in what at the time was still a rather isolated incident, Colorado's largest nonprofit health insurer (aka co-op), Colorado HealthOP is abruptly shutting down, forcing 80,000 Coloradans to find a new insurer for 2016.
At the time, we said that the health insurer had been decertified by the Division of Insurance as an eligible insurance company because the cooperative relied on federal support, and federal authorities announced last month they wouldn't be able to pay most of what they owed in a program designed to help health insurance co-ops get established.
In other words, one of the 24 co-ops funded with Federal dollars and created to give more policyholders control over their insurers - especially those who wished to stay away from various corporate offerings, had failed simply because the government was unable to subsidize it: the same government that spends $35 billion in global economic "aid" but can't support its most important welfare program.
Fast forward to today, when we learn that another co-op, this time New York's Health Republic Insurance - the largest of the nonprofit cooperatives created under the Affordable Care Act - is not only shuttering, but was engaging in fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Friday, October 30, 2015

Your Child


Gun Laws

Bullshit protector



Stay the course!



Turn your clocks back!

Donald Trump Rights Ship on Immigration: On Disney and slams H1-Bs. Must read! ^ | oct 29th | by Stephen K. Bannon & Alexander Marlow 

DT: Day one. This is why I got into this race. Because the everyday working person in this country is getting screwed. Lobbyists write the rules to benefit the rich and powerful. They buy off Senators like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to help them get rich at the expense of working Americans by using H-1B visas–so called “high tech” visas–to replace American workers in all sorts of solid middle class jobs. If I am President, I will not issue any H-1B visas to companies that replace American workers and my Department of Justice will pursue action against them.
BNN: What do you think of Rubio’s bill?
DT: It’s a disaster. It would allow any company in America to replace any worker with cheaper foreign labor. It legalizes job theft. It gives companies the legal right to pass over Americans, displace Americans, or directly replace Americans for good-paying middle class jobs. More than 80 percent of these H-1Bs are paid less than the average wage. Senator Rubio works for the lobbyists, not for Americans. That is why he is receiving more money from Silicon Valley than any other candidate in this race. He is their puppet.
BNN: Do you think agree with Senator Rubio that there is a shortage of talented Americans?
DT: Rubio is dead wrong. America produces the best and brightest in the world. It’s time to stand up for own students–many of whom are racked with terrible, terrible debt and facing a disastrous job market. We are graduating two times more students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) than find jobs in those fields every year. We have a surplus of talented Americans and we need them to get jobs first.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Immigrants caught at border believe families can stay in US

AP via Yahoo News ^ | 10/30/15 | ALICIA A. CALDWELL 

Hundreds of immigrant families caught illegally crossing the Mexican border told U.S. immigration agents they made the dangerous journey in part because they believed they would be permitted to stay in the United States and collect public benefits, according to internal intelligence files from the Homeland Security Department.
The interviews with immigrants by federal agents were intended to help the Obama administration understand what might be driving a puzzling surge in the numbers of border crossings that started over the summer. The explanations suggest the U.S. government's efforts to discourage illegal crossings may have been unsuccessful. Its efforts have included public service campaigns in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to highlight the dangers and consequences of making the trek across Mexico to cross illegally into the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...



Take it like a man!


Is the tea Party dead?


Double Standard








Mega Merger




Her Age!




NoBody Like Ted




What Difference?


We Won!


Hillary's Help




Thursday, October 29, 2015

NOAA refuses to comply with House subpoena for documents on climate ^ | 10/29/2015 | Rick Moran 

It shouldn't surprise us that the NOAA refuses to release data on how they reached the conclusion that the earth was, indeed, warming. It is the only study showing an increase in temps over the last 15 years, thus any debunking would be injurious to the climate change cause.
Aside from the shocking arrogance in defying a subpoena from Congress, it's pretty obvious that the NOAA doesn't want to release the data because it will either show they cooked the books, or, as they've done in the past, misinterpreted the data. Smith can go to court, but by the time the issue is adjudicated, the next Congress will be sitting.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Three takeaways from the latest GOP presidential debate

American Irony ^ | 10-29-15 | The Looking Spoon 

Even though the CNBC GOP debate was something of a trainwreck – thanks to the the childish combativeness of the moderators – it was probably the best debate yet because it was so close to how the general election is going to go.
Other people will get different things out of this, but my three big takeaways were...
1. You would have to be either a moron or a liar to deny a media bias against conservatives. Marco Rubio's youth, missed voting record, and personal finances all were brought up in this debate.
These duplicitous jerks weren't calling Barack Obama a "young man in a hurry" when he was running in 2008, he was 46 years old (only 2 years older than Rubio is now), he was only half-way through his first/only term in the Senate (Rubio is near the end of his term) and he missed more than twice as many votes percentage wise during his run than Rubio has thus far.
If that isn't bias then these memes aren't really satire. Even Think Progress knows CNBC screwed this pooch.
2. This election may be a game changer for how the GOP starts to handle a media that is hostile to it. These candidates (the ones that mattered at least) didn't take any crap from the moderators, who were the real opponents last night. Terrible and false premises were rejected, the candidates asserted themselves over their efforts to move on from important fiscal issues to...marijuana and *cough* fantasy football...which did not last long after being ridiculed for it. Even the audience at times let the moderators know what kind of asshats they were being.
3. Liberalism is totally intellectually bankrupt, and it's getting harder to hide it. This isn't a new revelation by any means, but if people are consuming these debates, and remembering and processing them over time then they would see this immutable truth. The pathetically weak-kneed performance of the moderators in the Democratic debate was summed up not only by the softballs they tossed at Hillary, but the few times she was "challenged" Anderson Cooper started the challenge "with all due respect." Those four words were never uttered to the other Dem candidates much less anyone on the GOP side.
That attitude isn't just one that is withering for an exchange of ideas or for the ability for a campaign to be sharpened, it's indicative how totally bereft of intelligent thought the left is in the first place. Ted Cruz NAILED them on it too:
"This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions -- Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues," Cruz said to commanding applause from the audience.
Then, Carl Quintanilla got booed for asking Ben Carson if he lacks judgment when other people use his likeness without his permission.
That liberals who lead major televised events think these are mic-drop questions that would "destroy" people who are clearly much smarter than they are, when precisely the opposite occurs, and they keep trying to do it to do it, proves how dumb they truly are.

As Crime Spikes, Obama Pushes Police To ´De-Escalate´ Arrests, Hand Out Ice Cream!

Investor´s Business Daily ^ | 10/28/15 | Editorial 

War on Cops: Even as violent crime spreads like wildfire across U.S. cities, President Obama advises police to "de-escalate" encounters with suspects and find "alternatives to arrest." Spoken like a man with a protective detail. Not to mention a radical agenda impervious to reality.

On Tuesday, the president spoke to the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Chicago. There, he and his attorney general handed out a guidebook published by his Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The 30-page guide, titled "Moving from Recommendations to Action," is designed to help local police departments implement his "criminal justice reforms." Under the section...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

This Is Not a Drill. Ted Cruz Is Well Positioned in the GOP Presidential Race!

The Dallas Observer ^ | October 28, 2015 | Stephen Young 

Anyone who predicted last spring that donors to Texas Senator Ted Cruz's then-nascent presidential campaign were setting their money on fire is probably feeling pretty foolish right about now. Yep, that was a boneheaded move right there. In the six-plus months between Cruz's presidential announcement at Liberty University and Wednesday night's third GOP presidential debate, his campaign has been both adeptly run and increasingly lucky. About 90 days out from the February 1 Iowa caucuses, Texas' junior senator is looking good. Well, not him so much, but his campaign.
This week, especially, has been fun for Cruz. Monday, he picked up the endorsement of Texas' most powerful elected official, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, joining forces with someone who supported one of Cruz's opponents during Cruz's 2012 Senate campaign.
"Senator Cruz is the prescription for what ails the Republican Party and this country," Patrick said. "This country has been in malaise for eight years. Our party has been asleep for more than eight years."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research!

The Hill ^ | October 28, 2015 | By Timothy Cama 

The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.
Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.
At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report.
Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.
Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, vehemently disagreed with the study’s findings. He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading to charges from Democrats that he was trying to intimidate the researchers.
Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.
NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.
“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CNBC moderators, press crushed by the Boulder debate!

Washington Examiner ^ | 10/28/15 | Eddie Scarry 

If the Republican presidential candidates at CNBC's Wednesday debate had to pick the event's biggest loser, it would probably be the news media.

In answer after answer, the candidates targeted the news media, often CNBC itself, for asking what they considered to be hostile questions and making unfair criticisms.

It climaxed with Ted Cruz taking a question about the debt ceiling and using the full length of his allotted response time to bash the three moderators of the debate. "The questions that you've asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media," Cruz said to thundering applause from the audience.
He then accused moderators of focusing only on the negatives, like Sen. Marco Rubio's skipped Senate votes and Jeb Bush's falling poll numbers, and accused them of trying to quiz Ben Carson on his tax plan to see if he can "do math."

"This is not a cage match and you look at the questions: Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?" Cruz said. "Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues people care about?"

The audience roared with approval.

When Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was asked to respond to a newspaper from his home state that called on him to resign from the Senate over missed votes in Congress, he said it was proof of a "double standard" in the mainstream press.

"[I]n 2004, John Kerry ran for president, missing close to 60-70 percent of his votes. I don't recall — in fact, the Sun-Sentinel endorsed him," Rubio said.

Later, Rubio said the "mainstream media" acts as "the ultimate Super PAC" for Democrats.

The audience didn't seem warm to the moderators either, and booed the several times over various questions, including one about Ben Carson's "judgement."

"See, they know," Carson said, turning the jeers to laughter and applause.

At one point, the moderators changed the subject to fantasy sports gambling, which is unregulated by the government. Chris Christie shamed them by belting out, "We have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us and we're talking about fantasy football?"

The attack on the news media seemed to go from start to finish. Each of the candidates were given 30 seconds to offer a closing statement at the end of the debate, and Mike Huckabee began his with a final jab.

"I know to a lot of people in the media this is just a big game and we're the players," he said.

On social media, reaction to the CNBC moderators was also strong.

"Boy, CNBC moderators are having a woeful night," Geoff Skelly, a staffer at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said on Twitter. "Not saying it's easy, but they're going to get it for this."

"The CNBC debate isn't a debate," tweeted Politico reporter Marc Caputo. "It's a dull public interview being conducted between moderators and candidates. Let the candidtaes debate."

Piers Morgan, former CNN host, also tweeted his disapproval, calling the moderators' performance "embarrassing."

Debate 3: Ted Cruz Changes the Game

American Thinker ^ | 10/29/2015 | C. Edmund Wright 

There was a disturbance in the force last night at CNBC's Republican debate, and it left no doubt of who won and who lost. The loser was CNBC, and the winners were all ten Republican candidates – in varying degrees, of course. (More on that later). And there is no doubt when this shift in the axis happened.

Everything changed when Ted Cruz dressed down Carl Quintenilla and John Harwood – two of CNBC's far-left commentators – and literally mocked their absurd line of questioning.

Cruz did not just criticize the questions; he made sport of them. He demonstrated just how infantile most of the CNBC crew was (Tea Party originator Rick Santelli not included). Cruz flat-out embarrassed them, and they knew it.

After the crowd stopped roaring in approval of Cruz's protest, which took a while, the rest of the Republicans followed the Texas senator's lead, and there was almost no Republican-on-Republican crime after this exchange. In fact, we then saw numerous examples where Republicans made it clear that any of the ten on the stage would be far preferable to what we have now, and to Hillary Clinton. These comments were met with loud approval from the audience every time. Meanwhile, Quintenilla was literally booed loudly three times.

Later in the night, Chris Christie embarrassed the mods again with his fantasy football reply, as did Mike Huckabee by turning a gotcha question related to Donald Trump into praise of Trump. I have my problems with Christie and Huck overall, but both are demonstrably nimble on their feet.

And because these precious egotistical and not very bright media mavens crave the love of the audience, I submit that this dynamic will go farther than just recasting the last hour or so of this debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CNBC Disaster Debate: Full Republican Debate Grades

OCTOBER 28, 2015
In what had to rank as the worst presidential debate in modern history, CNBC anchors berated, cut off, and skewed the words of Republican candidates over the course of two hours on Wednesday night. In spite of – and in the case of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christie, among othe
Without further ado, here are the debate grades.
Donald Trump: B. In the run-up to the debate, I wrote that Trump needed to stay away from attacking other candidates. Except when attacked, he did so. His initial exchange with aggressively nasty John Kasich ended with Kasich face down in the dust after Trump questioned his relationship with Lehman Brothers. And his slaps at the media were comic gold – his final riposte against the CNBC powers-that-be, in which he bragged about forcing them to reduce the length of the debate to two hours, was a classic. Trump only gets a B rather than an A because he was caught red-handed in a lie about his position on H1B visas. It became clear that Trump has not even read his immigration plan – or that if he did, he didn’t know it well enough for a debate.
Ben Carson: C. Carson came in with momentum, and he exits without it. He didn’t have much to say throughout the debate, and he flubbed his answers on his tax plan. He looked uncertain and erratic. He still gets off the occasional strong note – when talking about social issues, he may be the best in the field – but even he acknowledged that his weakness may be his inability to consider himself a presidential candidate.
Marco Rubio: A. Rubio had a terrific night. Smooth on defense, willing to jab at the media, Rubio turned in a stellar performance. Labeling the media the Democratic Party’s Super PAC was a terrific moment, a moment underscored by Hillary’s lackeys attacking him throughout the debate with discredited talking point after discredited talking point. John Harwood, the worst offender, even lied about Rubio’s tax plan statistics, forcing Rubio to give him a lecture on elementary mathematics. Rubio also beat up Jeb Bush after Bush turned on him regarding his voting record in the Senate, bashing Bush for hypocrisy: he pointed out, correctly, that Bush had not criticized John McCain for missing votes in 2008, and chided him for political aggressiveness in the face of impending electoral doom.
Ted Cruz: A. Cruz had the best moment of the night, and of the entire debate season. Cruz said that the questions asked “illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.” He added, “This is not a cage match.” He then called the Democratic debate a debate between Bolsheviks and Menshiviks, and contrasted the media treatment of Republicans with media treatment of Democrats, “where every fawning question from the media was which of you is more handsome and wise.” Cruz also pointed out that none of the members of the media vote in Republican primaries. Cruz needed to get aggressive after two passive debates, and he did so in a massive way, with a moment that rated 98% with Frank Luntz’s focus group, for whatever that’s worth. Cruz is for real, and he and Rubio are the shadow frontrunners.
Jeb Bush: F. Bush was plain awful. He couldn’t dent Rubio. He couldn’t dent Trump. He appeared alternatively bewildered and angry. He sided with the members of the media rather than doing the right thing and tearing them apart, like the other more intelligent candidates. He’s toast. Rubio had the unkindest cut of all: his campaign manager said he wouldn’t critique Bush’s performance because it spoke for itself. Ouch.
Carly Fiorina: B. Fiorina was polished, composed, and often witty. But she couldn’t top her second debate performance. There was no place to go but down.
Rand Paul: D. Paul said nothing of interest the entire debate, but vowed to filibuster the new budget deal. That didn’t even land with the heavily conservative audience. It will do little for him in polling.
Mike Huckabee: C. Huckabee’s always fine in debate, and he landed a couple of solid lines against the media as well. But his star has waned, and his economic populism with regard to income inequality made him seem oddly dissonant in the more free market crowd.
Chris Christie: B. Christie has a feel for the room. He understands the mood. He bashed the media – telling John Harwood that he was rude, even by New Jersey standards, was terrific. He also scored solidly on entitlement reform, and appeared magnanimous with his colleagues. A good night for the New Jersey governor.
John Kasich: F. Shouty McScreamypants came out in full force, with Kasich leading off the debate by calling his colleagues insane, and concluding by saying Americans should come together. It was that kind of night for the incoherent big government governor of Ohio. Truthfully, Trump put his candidacy six feet under in the first five minutes of the debate.
CNBC: Z. There are no letter grades that properly fit how terrible the network was. The network was so awful that even Reince Priebus had to condemn them.
The field is consolidating. The top three, in the end, will be Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. Christie is the new dark horse. Jeb is done. The race is on.



No time!






Red Terror














The Role!










Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Hillary's 'Victory Lap' of Lies ^ | October 28, 2015 | Brent Bozell 

To hear the media tell it, Hillary Clinton came to Capitol Hill as a bullfighter and easily killed the angry bulls of the House Benghazi committee. The "mainstream" media wondered why these crazy Republicans would "walk into the trap" of trying to scrutinize and question a media darling.
She was a "commanding, presidential presence," gushed the "objective" Associated Press.
It created "Hillary's Best Week Yet," oozed Politico. National Public Radio touted her "victory lap" at a Friday campaign event.
Never trust the liberal media to tell you who should run a "victory lap." After all, it's easy to remember that these same media outlets endlessly touted Al Gore's winning warmth and intelligence in 2000 and in 2004 insisted routinely that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hadn't laid a glove on John Kerry.
In fact, this same media concocted a massive victory for Clinton two years ago when she screamed "What difference at this point does it make?" on whether the violence was a terrorist attack or a protest. Republicans were accused by Chris Matthews of a "pissant performance" when they asked tough questions. But polls show voters still question Clinton's honesty.
Clinton's contempt for the Republicans -- the people she blithely compared to the Iranians on her list of enemies at the last debates -- came through every time she rested her face on her chin with a look of utter boredom on her face. Her arrogance came bursting forth as she put on her tremulous voice and claimed, "I've lost more sleep than all of you put together."
Has she lost more sleep than the families of the brave men who died in Benghazi who never had a chance of getting any help from their leaders in Washington?
The media elite awarded her an A for her performance, and she definitely kept calm and endured the questions. But these so-called watchdogs had almost no interest in the substance, and were allergic to the notion that Clinton has lied on Benghazi -- shamelessly, repeatedly, even in the faces of the families of the men who fell in the consulate attacks.
Congressman Jim Jordan caught a lot of attention on the substance when he noted that at 10:32 p.m. on the night of the attack, Hillary Clinton issued a statement that "some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." But at 11:12 p.m., Hillary Clinton emailed her daughter Chelsea -- who she referred to by a pseudonym, "Diane Reynolds" -- saying "an Al Qaeda-like group" was responsible for the attack.
On the following day, Clinton again referred to the violence in a statement as "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." But on the very same day, Clinton had a telephone call with the Egyptian prime minister and assured him "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack -- not a protest."
This is the "old news" that the networks tried to squash. ABC was the only one to refer to it on the night of the hearing, and only CBS noticed it the next morning. But it was lost in the "victory lap" coverage.
Stephen Hayes offered the obvious summation on Fox News: "I would say the lead from the day so far is Hillary Clinton repeatedly offers false or misleading testimony, and journalists yawn." For Clinton, journalists aren't interested in providing public scrutiny. They're interested in granting perpetual impunity.

Why Are Half Of All 25-Year-Olds Living With Their Parents? The Federal Reserve Answers

Zero Hedge ^ | 10/27/15 | Tyler Durden 

Back in 1999, a quarter of all 25-year-olds lived with their parents. By 2013 this number has doubled, and currently half of young adults live in their parents home.
While the troubling implications for the economy from this startling increase are self-evident, and have been extensively discussed both here and elsewhere (and are among the key factors pushing both the US and global economy into secular stagnation), a just as important question is why are increasingly more young adults still living at home.
Labor Market and Higher Education
One potential reason for the increase in young adults living with their parents is the labor market. The authors highlighted research showing that individuals at the beginning of their careers often need more time to transition into the labor market. This is reflected in the unemployment rates of those between 21 and 27, which are often higher than for other age groups.
Earning a college degree can help with labor market outcomes, as young adults with a college degree are more likely to live independently. However, additional research has shown that the underemployment rate for recent graduates was about 40 percent during the Great Recession. Canon and Gascon noted: “An implication is that a significant portion of recent graduates were earning lower wages than what they should have been, given their education.”
Also affecting many young adults is that they started their post-education careers during a recession. Canon and Gascon discussed a study noting that those entering the job market during a recession pay a price for about a decade. They wrote: “That’s because they start work for lower-paying employers and slowly work their way up toward better-paying jobs.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The problem...


Calm Down!


Just be right