Michael Medved Opines Well on Cruz/Fiorina and the Donald

Video Description:

Medved fields some calls both from Trump supporters as well as those who are not rooting for Trump. He brings some historical context (as usual) to the calls (Taft v. Roosevelt; Humphrey, etc).

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY he distinguishes the nonsense of Trump compared to “Republican ideals.” It amazes me that many of the same people that accused “Dubya” of being a “neo-con” are today rooting for someone far more entrenched in expanding government’s role as well as getting us involved in military operations. Here is a commentary by yours truly on my FaceBook:

I still do not understand what people do not like about Cruz’s positions as compared to Trump’s mess of positions. I would be happy if Rand Paul was put in on the third ballot, because he and Cruz are closest to the Founders idealism. I would be less happy but still pleased if Rubio were put in on the third ticket. Why? Because most ppl that ran were truly Republicans that leaned right in their ideology (except Kasich and more-so Trump).

So I view it as maybe being desperate, but only because many today do not think through these basic (101) delineations today. All the people that complained about Bush being a neo-con and who now like Trump (a crony-capitalist’s capitalists) are stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is more about large government than “Dubya” ever was.

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: http://www.michaelmedved.com/

Caller Asks Rush Limbaugh if Cruz Can Still Win

Via the Blaze:

  • Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program Friday that he still believes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can defeat Donald Trump and secure the Republican nomination. The conservative talk show host offered his thoughts after a listener called in to ask. “My question is: Do you think that Cruz still has an honest chance to win?” the caller asked, according to an online transcript.

Two FALSE Ted Cruz Quotes Meant to Malign

A friend asked about this quote. She typically does this as well, but on her way to work she asked me for some refutation of it to pass along. So here it is, but first the quote:

So let us post Snopes position:

ORIGIN:In February 2016, a quote purportedly from Republican senator Ted Cruz about a connection between being openly gay and the proliferation of mass shootings (and public nudity) started recirculating on social media, along with a message urging people not to support the presidential candidate.

However, while Cruz still openly opposes same-sex marriage, he never said this….

While this “setting the record ‘straight'” (pun intended) and others with his similar falsely attributed statements all seem to go out of their way to stress that Ted Cruz does not support the gay-lifestyle in public affirmations such as gay-marriage. Well duh!? All major world religious founders did not support this lifestyle, and almost all religious adherents do not either. The Judeo-Christian Holy Book as well.

There seems to be an air of, “well, Sen. Cruz did not say this… b-u-u-t-t…” And this is the corruption of the political Left, what some call the professional left. They take religious and historical traditions, and trample on them making the modern an elitist to all of history that stood before there short life. THEY are the elite who know it all — to hell with those that preceded them. Which is why one of the mantra’s that came out of the 60’s was “trust no one over 35-years old.

Ghey!

Here is the other quote:

The above is another malignant lie geared at Ted Cruz. Politifact says of the above this… and keep in mind they are in a sense stressing he is still a “bad guy” but that he didn’t — at least — say this with their noted “pants on fire” rating:

A Facebook post suggests Cruz said the day he declared for president, “There is no place for gays or atheists in my America. None. Our Constitution makes that clear.”

Cruz has been clear about his belief in God and opposition to legalizing gay marriages. However, there is no record of him saying the Constitution leaves no place for gays or atheists in “my America.”

Pants on Fire!

Attempted Political Assassination? (UPDATED!)

Update Below ~ But if you want the quick answer, he thought the pastor was a Martian.

I have a couple thoughts that may play into this story, but first, Libertarian Republican’s opening on the story:

Things are getting out of hand out there. Incidents of violence perpetrated by and against supporters of various candidates. Now comes word from Idaho of what might be the worst incident yet. A pastor of a non-denominational Christian church, who opened a Cruz rally on Saturday with a prayer, was shot multiple times (reports vary) in the back after church services on Sunday. The pastor, Tim Remington, 55 years old, is in critical but stable condition, and is expected to make a full recovery. Police suspect a 30-year old white man, Kyle Odom. From internet sources, Odom is a former Marine. No motivation has yet been identified.

Did the shooter become an atheist and thus disenchanted with his roots due to radical secularism? Was their an affair the pastor was having with one of Odom’s family members? Was this truly politically motivated? While NONE of the reasons (passing thoughts of mine) I listed demand any of the violent actions taken… this story may fall into a category unforeseen in the original post by LR that brought this to my attention.

Will update the story as more is known.

UPDATE

From Kyle’s “manifesto” via KXLY

“Things are not what they appear to be. The world is ruled by ancient civilization from Mars. Pastor Tim was one of them, and he was the reason my life was ruined. I will be sharing my story with as many people as possible. I don’t have time right now, they are chasing me. I shot Pastor Tim 12 times, there is no way any human could have survived that event. Anyway, I have sent my story to all the major news organizations. I have no time, I have to go.”

The Washington Times

…Kyle Odom, 30, was arrested in Washington, D.C., two days after the attack on Tim Remington outside Altar Church in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, after Sunday services.

CNN, citing the Secret Service, reported that Mr. Odom was arrested at the White House. Mr. Odom was arrested after he threw two suspicious objects over the south fence of the White House around 8:30 p.m. EST, CNN’s source said.

A Washington, D.C., arrest had been confirmed by the Couer d’Alene police after Mr. Odom’s family had told local outlets, according to TV station KXLY in Spokane, Washington.

KKLY suggested that Mr. Odom, a former Marine with no criminal record but a history of mental illness, may be suffering delusions.

“In a Facebook post Tuesday afternoon, hours before he was reportedly taken into custody, Odom posted that he had shot Pastor Tim 12 times – Remington was hit six times – because he claimed he was a Martian who had ruined his life,” KXLY wrote….

(read it all)

I didn’t see that one coming.

MSNBC Panel Admits Media Bias in “Cruz Cartoon”

(NewsBusters) There was surprising consensus on today’s Morning Joe concerning the Washington Post cartoon that depicted Ted Cruz as an organ grinder and his youngs girls as monkeys. From Mika Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough to Harold Ford, Jr., there was universal condemnation of Ann Telnaes’ foul image.

Willie Geist said it best: “people look for moments of bias in the media. Here’s one right here. You can’t be selectively offended by cartoons. If that had been a Democrat, or God forbid the President of the United States, they would have lit the house on fire. There would have been wall-to-wall coverage on it.”

Larry Elder Takes Steven Colbert to the Wood Shed…

…and by association, the media, as well as the rest of the Democrat sheep:

Larry Elder was filling in for Dennis Prager and during the course of this portion of the show takes Colbert (and other media’ites/Democrats) to the tool shed. In classic “Sage” style, Larry goes through his comparisons like a samurai sword through butter.

Sen. Ted Cruz Makes Sierra Club President Aaron Mair Squirm

Keep in mind that ONLY 65 SCIENTISTS make up the 97% ~ I believe there are more scientists in the world that think Tupac is alive.

Some more information via The Lid:

…At one point in the exchange Sen. Cruz mentioned that the study, which concluded that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change hypothesis, was bogus.  He was totally correct. The results of the study which declared the near unanimity was totally misrepresented by the study’s author and the media.

The study reporting the 97% consensus “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”  by John Cook, and friends under the halo of the University of Queensland was published in 2013 and according to Watts Up With That when the source data for the study was published on line the University of Queensland got so worried, they threatened a  lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal.

The way the study was conducted was Cook and his buddies looked at peer reviewed studies and classified them a either agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothesis. The 97% figure was really 97% of the studies they reviewed. However investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them

Popular Tech. looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American, reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%.

Watts Up With That has a story on this, as well as well as more information found at Climate Depot.