Gay Hotel Owner’s First Statement About Ted Cruz Was Truthful: His Subsequent Apology to His Community About the Meeting Is Not

I’ve been watching the situation between presidential contender Ted Cruz, and a gay businessman who took the opportunity to talk to Cruz about gay issues at his house with some interest.  His initial explanation was that he wanted to address issues between Cruz’s various stands and the gay community.  That was a truthful statement, and perfectly reasonable.

Then the threats of a boycott of the businessman’s business by gay and liberal activists lead to a quick apology and mea cupola from the businessman, who didn’t “understand Cruz’s stands on anti-gay issues.”  This statement appeared to be forced, and a hasty reaction to threats of a boycott, and possible threatened harm to the businessman and his business partner from various communication mediums.

Based on his first statement, I think he was fully aware of the various stands that Cruz had taken but chose to meet with Cruz anyways to have a conversation with the Congressman about it.  The second statement was the businessman trying to save his business.

It’s very unfortunate that liberal hypocrisy is on full display, again, and they’re making it look like the businessman’s fault.   He should be free to talk with whomever he wants, about whatever he wants, whenever he wants and wherever he wants.   Instead, the left is seeking to deny this guy his First Amendment rights about redressing grievances with elected officials, which Ted Cruz is and seeks to be.

Hypocrites!

California’s Environmentalism Has Made Their Drought Much Harder Than It Needed to Be: No New Reservoirs of Water Were Created At a Time When Their Population Doubled, Now They’re Restricting Most Forms of Water Use to Preserve What They Do Have Left

California has known for generations that it is prone to suffer from drought from time to time, yet did nothing to “mitigate the worst effects” of an extreme drought as their population was doubling.  

If those words sound familiar, it’s straight out of the liberal global warming playbook.  Ironic.

California’s water crisis IS a human-made problem, and the blame lies at the feet of environmentalists who have successfully blocked the creation of new water reservoirs in the hardest-hit areas of the California drought.    Now California’s entire population is at risk of not having enough water to drink, prepare food, take a shower, water their lawns and a host of other water issues as the drought continues.

If what NASA is saying is accurate, California will need 11 trillion gallons of water to end the drought.  Put another way, they need 30 billion gallons of rainfall daily for one entire year, without fail.   Or they need something like 12.5 feet of snow to fall on every part of the state during the winter and then melt.

Now they’re having to look at desalinization to turn ocean water into drinking water.  It costs double what it would take to build and run a reservoir, and the reservoir would have superior output, too.

If you want to see what a man-made disaster looks like, California’s the poster child.   I hope the other states are taking notes on what not to do with their environmental policies.

Mother Nature can turn this drought around, as it has before, but it’s going to take a long time to happen.   They won’t get 30 billion gallons of rainfall a day for 365 days without fail.  Nor will they get covered by 12.5 feet of snow in a winter.  

Environmentalism is good, but California’s environmentalism is an example of what happens when liberal environmental politics overrides common sense.

Israel Got It Right Again: Israel Threatens to Sell Anti-Aircraft Systems to Ukraine in Response to Russian Sale of S-300 Anti-Aircraft Missiles to Iran and Russia Blinks

Israel struck a Russian nerve a few weeks ago when it threatened to sell advanced Israeli anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine in response to Russia’s sale of their S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.

It lead to a Russian denouncement of the Israeli move, Israeli threats to bomb the system as it was being delivered to Iran, and a Russian announcement a few days ago that the S-300 delivery to Iran would be delayed.

Did Netanyahu just force Putin to blink?   President Obama hasn’t been able to do that a single time over any issue.

LEVERAGE!!

Russia doesn’t want Ukraine getting advanced arms that will take a bite out of the Russian Air Force should it launch an invasion of the rest of Ukraine.    And it remembers what happened when the Americans, Israelis and Saudis supplied Afghanistan with American Stinger missiles against the invading Soviet Army in the 1980s.   The Soviets lost in the neighborhood of three hundred aircraft.

Our current government can threaten Russia the same way, but it wouldn’t be the same.   Putin has Obama’s number and will call his bluff every time, but Netanyahu is perceived as a loose cannon by Putin.   Israel is more than willing to answer Putin tit-for-tat, and Putin doesn’t like it one bit.

Because Israel will sell lethal aid to Ukraine if Russia delivers the S-300 to Iran.