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 dallasobserver.com ...

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 thehill.com ...

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 americanthinker.com ...

CNBC Disaster Debate: Full Republican Debate Grades

AP

BY:

 BEN SHAPIRO

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.

Honesty?

No time!

Remember!

Non-Essential

Red Terror

Costume

CUTS!

OUTRAGEOUS!

PROOF!

WHUP ASS!

PHISHING!

The Role!

BEYOND!

Unbelievable!

Hillary

GUNS

Hillary's 'Victory Lap' of Lies

Townhall.com ^ | 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 zerohedge.com ...

The problem...

Calm Down!