Monday, August 3, 2015

Senator Ted Cruz was a crowd favorite in California this weekend, usually mild mannered donor group cheered on hearing Cruz's remarks-Washington Post

Commenter wonders why Washington Post reporter uses pejorative term "bragging" when relating facts presented by Ted Cruz at an appropriate time: "Savvyheat 2:55 AM EST, Why does the writer/James Whoreman use the word 'Bragging' when describing how Cruz told donors he's received more than 175,000 donations, that the average contribution was $81, from every state in the nation and five territories and that he has donors in 48 percent of all postal ZIP codes in America. How about QUIT editorializing and just tell us the DAMNED News. Unless this is the Opinion page?" Hohmann writes: "He (Ted Cruz) opened a half-hour question-and-answer session by bragging that he raised more hard money than any other Republican in the field during the last fundraising quarter, including Jeb Bush."...

8/3/15, "Ted Cruz looking to build Southern ‘firewall’," Washington Post, James Hohmann, Dana Point, Calif.  "James Hohmann is a national political correspondent for The Washington Post."

"Ted Cruz made the case Sunday that he can win the Republican nomination because of his strength in the South.

The Texas senator was a crowd favorite at the Koch network donor summit here. He got the normally mild-mannered donors laughing and cheering with his red meat. But many worry privately whether he can win, and they’re desperate to take back the White House in 2016.

Recognizing this, Cruz did more to stress his viability than any of the four other 2016 presidential candidates who got a chance to pitch the 450 mega donors who have gathered at the St. Regis resort on the Pacific Ocean for a meeting that wraps up on Monday.

He opened a half-hour question-and-answer session by bragging that he raised more hard money than any other Republican in the field during the last fundraising quarter, including Jeb Bush. This money, he explained, will help him run a national campaign, not just one focused on the first four states in the nominating process.

“For any serious candidate to play, you’re going to have to run a national campaign,” he said. “If you are going to run a national campaign, you’ve got to be able to compete nationally.”

Cruz plans to spend a good chunk of the August recess traveling by bus around the South, including South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Several of these states will hold primaries on March 1 in a regional primary that has been dubbed the SEC Primary after the Southeastern Conference in college football. March 1 is the first date that non-early states are allowed to schedule their contests. A candidate who wins then might get momentum going into the winner-take-all contests that begin March 15. “I view the SEC primary as a firewall,” Cruz confided to the audience.

He explained that the first states are “critical”-that he is still playing to win in Iowa-but that Republican National Committee rules going into effect for the first time in 2016 have “sped up the process.”

Cruz wore khakis, an open-collared white dress shirt and a blue blazer. He stayed after his question-and-answer session with Politico’s Mike Allen to watch Jeb Bush field questions. Ahead of the formal rollout of new Environmental Protection Agency rules Monday, Cruz denied that that there is global warming. Asked if President Obama is exaggerating the dangers of climate change, Cruz paused for effect.

“You know, there’s a different word than exaggerating,” he said to cheers and loud applause.

Cruz predicted that the new rules, designed to cut carbon emissions, give the GOP an opportunity to appeal to steelworkers, autoworkers, and factory workers in 2016. The same kinds of people, he explained a little later, who did not vote for Mitt Romney because of his 47 percent comment. “The Obama administration is driving up their bills and taking away their jobs,” he said."


Comment: It would be nice if Obama were the only reason for the climate cartel. The multi-trillion dollar global warming industry was created by George Bush #1 on 1/16/1990 via U.S. Global Change Research Act, USGCRP, which embedded climate spending in the Executive branch and 13 federal agencies (out of reach of congress and voters). The act financed the global climate science boom before most people had heard of climate scientists. Billions of taxpayer dollars that could've gone to the poor and needy continue to be diverted to millionaires, billionaires and various global parasites. The problem isn't loss of blue collar jobs or the EPA. It's the US political establishment which is obsessed with selling the country out. If Senator Cruz wants to get elected in a landslide and save the country and possibly the world at the same time, he can call for immediate US withdrawal from the UN which is kept afloat by US taxpayer dollars, whose personnel are unelected, unaccountable, can't be prosecuted for any crime anywhere in the world, and can put US taxpayer dollars in a Swiss bank account without consequence:

"Commissioner Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon controller, asked Gambatesa whether the (UN) agencies have immunity "if they siphon (their U.S. grants) all off into Swiss banks? Is that accurate? They will be totally immune, no matter what they do with the money?"

"My understanding is, yes," Gambatesa replied." (near end of USA Today article):
4/16/2009, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian

"The contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse....

UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007...UNDP has yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says....
Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,"...


More on USGCRP:

1990 USGCRP established US taxpayers as global ATM machine for imaginary climate danger profiteers:

"2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science RandD as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its purview."...

3/6/15, "Causes and consequences of the climate science boom," William Butos and Thomas McQuade

From the paper:

"1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...[is] embedded in scores of agencies and programs scattered throughout the Executive Branch of the US government. While such agency activities related to climate science have received funding for many years as components of their mission statements, the pursuit of an integrated national agenda to study climate change and implement policy initiatives took a critical step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This Act established institutional structures operating out of the White House to develop and oversee the implementation of a National Global Change Research Plan and created the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to coordinate the climate change research activities of Executive Departments and agencies.[33] As of 2014, the coordination of climate change-related activities resides largely in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which houses several separate offices, including the offices of Environment and Energy, Polar Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Clean Energy and Materials RandD, Climate Adaptation and Ecosystems, National Climate Assessment, and others. The Office of the President also maintains the National Science and Technology Council, which oversees the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability and its Subcommittee on Climate Change Research. The Subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of planning and coordinating with the interagency USGCRP. Also, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy is housed within the President’s Domestic Policy Council. While Congress authorizes Executive branch budgets, the priorities these departments and agencies follow are set by the White House. As expressed in various agency and Executive Branch strategic plans, these efforts have been recently organized around four components comprising (1) climate change research and education, (2) emissions reduction through “clean” energy technologies and investments, (3) adaptation to climate change, and (4) international climate change leadership.[36]....By any of these measures, the scale of climate science RandD has increased substantially since 2001. Perhaps, though, the largest funding increases have occurred in developing new technologies and tax subsidies. As can be seen from Table 1, federal dollars to develop and implement “clean energy technologies” have increased from $1.7 billion in 2001 to $5.8 billion in 2013, while energy tax subsidies have increased from zero in 2001 and 2002 to $13 billion in 2013, with the largest increases happening since 2010. The impact on scientific research of government funding is not just a matter of the amounts but also of the concentration of research monies that arises from the focus a single source can bring to bear on particular kinds of scientific research. Government is that single source and has Big Player effects because it has access to a deep pool of taxpayer (and, indeed, borrowed and created) funds combined with regulatory and enforcement powers which necessarily place it on a different footing from other players and institutions. Notwithstanding the interplay of rival interests within the government and the separation of powers among the different branches, there is an important sense in which government’s inherent need to act produces a particular set of decisions that fall within a relatively narrow corridor of ends to which it can concentrate substantial resources.

2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science RandD as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its purview.[40] To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding requested for climate science RandD in 2013 is about one-third of the total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in the same year,[41] yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom. Its directional characteristic, concentrated as it has been on R&D premised on the controversial issue of the actual sensitivity of climate to human-caused emissions, has gone hand in hand with the IPCC’s expressions of increasing confidence in the AGW hypothesis and increasingly shrill claims of impending disaster."...

No comments: