South Side Chicago: you have the right to defend yourself

   The NRA hits another home run with this ad. I have often wondered why the black residents especially of Chicago tolerate their overlords in the Democrat party who surround themselves in their rich enclaves with armed security but deny the good residents of South Side Chicago the right to protect themselves.
  The NRA has been running some great ads, unlike the stupid party who can't seem to find their voices to articulate the reasons for limited government, personal liberty and the right to speech and self fence.
  Anyway here it is:

One brother's view of Obama

If you only watch one video today this is the one to view. Yes, the man is a Trumpster but his disdain for Obama drowns out everything else. He feels betrayal, anger and pain.

Little white lies from Little Rubio

The professionals tell us it's extremely difficult to put together a campaign strategy on the fly. The new Marco Rubio that has emerged in the past few days confirms as much. One charge he has leveled against Trump caught my attention. According to Rubio and the story was sourced by an outfit that should know better, namely the New York Times, Trump was given $200,000,000 by his father, a real estate developer in Queens, New York. The senior Tump built multi family housing units in the neighborhoods of Coney Island, Bensonhurst, Sheepshead Bay, Flatbush, and Brighton Beach in Brooklyn, and Flushing and Jamaica in Queens. These are not high rent districts but certainly Fred Trump did accumulate considerable wealth. But how much wealth? Did he ever have $200 million to burn?
Going back to 1975 when Donald Trump was begriming his career, a little research reveals that in that year Johnson and Johnson, the pharmaceutical company, earned $200.9 million. Motorola did a little better at $205.2 million and the brewing giant Anheuser-Busch earned a whopping $215 million. Looking at it another way $200 million in 1975 dollars would be worth roughly $880 million in today's world. Rubio may want to rethink this claim.

The new and improved Teflon candidate

Congresswoman Patsy Schroeder was one of the more memorable political characters of the Reagan era. While perhaps the most photogenic Democrat of that time, Schroeder seemed to have never mastered the ability to smile while talking without looking like she was chewing barbed wire. Her most significant contribution to politics is probably debatable but her contribution to the political lexicon is priceless. She dubbed Ronald Reagan the Teflon president. Nothing stuck to him.
Just days out from Super Tuesday the candidate poised to win 11 of the 12 states in play has been criticized by a former Mexican president, the Chinese foreign minister, the pope, the British House of Commons and the Speaker of the House and those are just the celebrity detractors. It's time for Patsy to come out of retirement and do an encore.

Did Marco Rubio choke? No he chocked.

Where would we be without spell check?




One hundred and sixty thousand dollars in student loan debt and what do you get? I'm chocked up.

The bully, Trump

No, Donald Trump is not a bully.
My guess is Trump gleaned much of his body language from the construction trades. He swaggers and talks very much like an iron worker bull steward. He refers to "his people" as does any union steward worth his salt. Disagreements between a steward and a superintendent can get heated but a jurisdictional dispute between two stewards, each representing a different craft, with a contingent of each craft looking on is high drama. They would do Leo Durocher proud. Hard hats are slammed to the ground, dirt is kicked in the air and statements may be punctuated by belly bumping just to make sure the point is well taken. An outsider stumbling upon such a demonstration of rage would probably reason incorrectly that the antagonists were mortal enemies but while they may not care for each other much they have probably known one another for years and respect the others position if not his person.
 Trump speaks the way people who get their hands dirty talk to each other everyday. Small wonder he is so popular with the working class.

Obama's joke about Scalia's death typical

  In case you were shocked that Obama did not attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice, here's another shocker.
  He and the wife spent 2 whole minutes on Friday, closing eyes giving silent Salat al-'asr, er, prayers for the man.
  Then he made a disgusting disrespectful joke about Scalia's death. Not funny. 
  Obama's fond of paying his respects at the funerals of like thinkers, just as he paid respects to the Black Lives Matter crowd on Thursday, along with the inimitable Al Sharpton, praising them for their hard work.
  He also did not acknowledge the 9 officers who have been murdered in the last 10 days.
  But we've grown to expect this these days, right?
  Personally, I love this country.
  Too bad there are so many in charge who don't.

Yeah, we know. Liberals are BETTER than everyone else.

  So running back and forth to the hospital this week, I've generally been avoiding politics and talk radio. When you are dealing with hospitals, you don't really want to hear ranting about how the whole planet is going to hell.
  I suspect others feel the same way.
  I just hit a wall last weekend and couldn't listen to one more debate. 
  Anyway this was a link in my email and I thought it was kind of funny. I understand it's been around the web today so if you've seen it, whatever.
  The attitude of this young woman is something I've personally seen many times.
  Liberals are the smart ones. Liberals are the tolerant ones. Liberals know the best way for everything. If only THESE liberals were in charge, socialism/communism would be SO great.
  Except no.
  So weepy miss, here ya go. 
  Obviously you haven't had to face academia or the media or television or the general Leftist population that sneers at anything remotely  Christian, conservative and/or Republican.
  So whatever. You have my sympathy.
  Kind of.
  But not really. 
  This is an autoplay video and I really can't stand to see it every day so here's the link to Miss Weepy-Republicans are SO mean....

Colbert mocks Hillary

Colbert wonders how Hillary can be so bad at lying, considering how often she does it.

The 2 sick old white people running for the Democrat nomination

  Look, we have serious problems on the right side of the presidential candidate aisle, especially since The Donald has gone off his nut with the Code Pink bilge.
  At LEAST we don't have 2 coughing old white people running for president.
  I mean, seriously.
  Do these people look healthy to you?
  These 2 are the heroes of the Democrat party!
  One is an old liar who cheats at gaining delegates, a crook who barks like a dog in a lame attempt to mock her opponents and whose main cheer leader has to have kids bused in from the local high school to get a crowd these days.
  The other is an old lazy ne'er do well who has alternated between having his heat turned off and griping about others' success until he finally landed a gig slurping on the government teat. That's right. Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money.
  Here ya go, America.

That train wreck of a debate

  ...was the WORST.
  If you didn't watch it, you're lucky.
  If you did, you are probably still seething.
  Donald Trump wasn't at his best: the remarks about 9/11 and W were inappropriate, particularly claiming that Bush could have done anything to have prevented 9/11. Need I remind of the "wall" built between security agencies by Gorelick & Clinton? What on earth was the purpose of THAT?
  From Conservapedia:

The Gorelick memo of 1995 erected a "wall" between counter-intelligence and law enforcement, which impeded investigation of al Qaeda in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. Jamie Gorelick, then working as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno was author of the memo.  

The wall was nominally created in response to the "legitimate fear that agents denied criminal warrants would gain information through the backdoor from their buddies working under FISA."   

Scott Wheeler wrote: Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences might have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.   

Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission: "The simple fact of September 11th is this ... We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls."

  Yet these facts are never discussed and for Trump to have brought Bush up as the non-defender of the US for 9/11 was simply wrong.
  But Bush was terrible. He looked petty, immature and spiteful.
  The others were ok, but basically stayed out of the fight, while Kasich the opportunist moved in with his faux optimist message trying to garner votes with his oily "see how I heal and the others fight" message.
  As I have said before, in these debates it appears that, rather than declare the winner, we can declare the loser or losers.
  The biggest loser of all last night was the RNC.
  Now we learn that, the RNC gave only a few tickets to candidates' supporters and instead filled the hall with their donors....AGAIN. From a local news station:

People selected will fill the 1,900 seats that have been made available for the event, according to Groover.
Groover said the Republican National Committee gives a lot of tickets to supporters. He said more are then allocated for the state party to distribute among the county chairs.
"I didn't have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” said Groover.

  I agree with Don Surber.
   Fire Reince Priebus. He's a dolt, a lick spittle kiss up to the establishment who's mostly concerned with the donor class and getting cheap labor into this country:

Reince is a glad-hander who raises a lot of money so the RNC money-raising machine can continue to raise money. They will not fire him. The RNC measures his success not in how well Republicans do, but how much money he raises. I guess losing is the optimum find-raising mechanism for the RNC. Certainly the RNC does not care how bad these debates look to the public.

  Years ago, I said I thought Sarah Palin would be a good replacement; though I've changed my mind about that, I certainly still believe that Priebus is not interested in making the logical case for being a conservative or even a Republican.
  He's interested in the halls of power, his head swollen with importance and the fog of power.
  The only recourse we have, it seems, is to simply dry up any small donations we little folk out here might give to the RNC and turn those dollars over to individual candidates whose agendas and back bones we can support.
  Last night was shocking in the immature display of booing and incivility.
  That could have been a Democrat audience.
  And, to quote Thoreau, the more you think of it, the less the difference. 
  And more here, from Surber.
   

Bernie & Hillary want your pensions-er-PASSIVE INCOME

  Now you may be thinking you are not one of the higher income folks in the United States. 

  Listening to the Democrat "debate" moderated by Clinton Foundation donors, my ears pricked up at the term "passive income."
  I'm not much of a money aficionado myself, having spent a lifetime actually earning an income and now resting on a modest earned pension.
  So, sure, my modest earned pension should not be of interest to the Democrats who claim that only the 1% of upper incomes are in the cross hairs, which includes the 538 billionaires in the United States who seem to be eagerly looking for refuge overseas these days.
  So once they run out of billionaires and people who won the lottery, both literally and figuratively, whose income will they seek?
  Because everyone knows Bernie's & HIllary's plans will soon run out of money as in so many countries such as Greece, Italy, Venezuela......they'll be looking for other sources of incomes, which leads me to the comments made last night.
  CNS records BS's & Hillary's comments:

"I would hope that you would come onboard and say that this is the simple and straightforward thing to do. We're asking the top 1.5 percent, including passive income, to start paying a little bit more so that the elderly and disabled vets in this country can live with security and dignity. I hope you will make a decision soon on this."

"Well, Senator, look, I think we're in vigorous agreement here," Clinton said. "We both want to get more revenue in. I have yet to see a proposal that you're describing that...raising the cap would apply to passive income. That has not been--"

"That's my bill. Check it out," Sanders interrupted.

"Well, that has not been a part of most of the proposals that I've seen," Clinton responded. "I'm interested in making sure we get the maximum amount of revenue from those who can well afford to provide it. So I'm going to come up with the best way forward. We're going to end up in the same place. We're going to get more revenue. I'm going to prioritize those recipients who need the most help first."

  Now note that HIllary says they are in "vigorous agreement" that they need more "revenue," meaning your money and that "passive income" is an obvious "revenue" source.
  For you rubes out there who don't know what "passive income" is (like me), it's this, from Wikipedia:

• Any type of property income 

• Earnings from a business that does not require direct involvement from the owner or merchant; 

• Rent from property; 

• Interest from a bank account
  Royalties from publishing a book or from licensing a patent or other form of intellectual property, such as computer software product; 

• Earnings from internet advertisements on websites; 

• Dividend and interest income from owning securities, such as stocks and bonds, is usually referred to as portfolio income, which may or may not be considered a form of passive income. In the United States, portfolio income is considered a different type of income than passive income; 

• Pensions.

   So you say to yourself, "Fortunately I don't make enough money for the feds to be interested in my pension."
  Here in Ohio a few years ago (well, ok, a lot, it was 1986), they passed a law that you had to wear a seatbelt but there would be no penalty for not wearing it. 
  Originally police could not cite you for not wearing it or stop you for not wearing it or ticketing you for not wearing.  
  Then the law was altered in 1992.
  Now, of course, there's a fine. 
  You'll note from this link that the fine has been raised.
  Graciously, the government allows that they will not add points to your license since not wearing a seat belt is not a moving violation.
  IOW, open that door and watch the laws and regulation change and evolve as more as more immigrants widows & children pour in the door and we anoint them with the oil of free health care, housing, income and pensions which will undoubtedly not be taxed because, well, they weren't born here.
   So don't think your modest pension will be exempt for long from a "passive income" tax.
  Add insult to injury, you'll also note that the description of a "passive income" is "an income received on a regular basis, with little effort required to maintain it. It is closely related to the concept of "unearned income".
  That's just another reminder that the feds think they get to decide who earned their pensions, just like  they get to hand out Social Security to whomever they please.
  At the same time, Social Security recipients who worked all their lives are subsisting on government largesse aka an "entitlement."
   Though admittedly some people haven't earned their Social Security, I did earn my pension and took a lot of effort to get there. 
  So hands off my passive income, you commies. 
  It took a lot of years and effort to earn it. 
  But they need more "revenue" to waste on stupid experiments and the over half million federal employees making over $100,000 a year.

There is a real debt limit.

Some things even with the worst of intentions are impossible. Bernie Sanders by way of promising free college and free healthcare is pushing the limits of the possible. Supposedly free healthcare would be financed in part by a new payroll tax meaning of course it's not free unless you pay no taxes. The free college is dependent upon a tax on Wall Street speculation whatever that maybe but there exits among his supporter the idea that if the new taxes do not cover the expenses he can merely increase the national debt to breaking point.
That idea may have worked for sometime even as late as the year 2000 but today there is a limit to available credit. In addition to the aforementioned taxes as of late the Sanders people have added a new fix to the insanity. Bernie would raise the maximum tax rate to 73%. We don't need John Maynard Keynes to tell us that raising the tax rate does not necessarily raise revenue. With an economy limping along at a 0.7% annual growth rate even a modest tax increase is certain to produce a recession which means people would earn less and pay less in taxes. The same is true of the other two tax measures but the payroll tax, because it would be unavoidable for most taxpayers, is the real killer. Sanders seem to think wealth is something people keep stacked up in their basements like so much firewood. Take a few sticks and no one except the taxed individual will know the difference. That would be true of a gold hoarder but most people keep their money in banks. The more that is taken out of depositor accounts the less the bank has to lend for mortgages or business investments. As a result carpenters, electricians and plumbers are not hired to build homes nor are cooks and waitresses whose would be employer could not get a business loan to open a restaurant. Now because of the tax increase carpenters, electrician, plumbers, cooks and waitresses are not paying taxes but are instead collecting unemployment benefits and food stamps.
So just borrow the money and let the next president worry about it. After all there is long history of deficit spending. There are various estimates of the cost of a Sanders presidency but a frequently cited estimate predict that it would cost $18 trillion over 10 years. A little research provided a vivid comparison. On January 26 of this year the market cap, that is the intrinsic value, of the entire Standard and Poor 500 was $17.5153249 trillion. In other words Sanders would burn through the wealth of the 500 largest companies in the US every 10 years. Yes, Amazon and Face Book grew to be great in a hurry but other companies such as Dupont, which began by selling gun powder during the Revolutionary War, have spent hundreds of years to get where they are today.
This of course begs the question who do you see about borrowing $18 trillion? Presently about 60% of the US debt is held domestically and much of that is by the government itself. Social Security is required by law to place its funds into government bonds and the Federal Reserve is a major debt holder but what entity either in the US or in the nearly bankrupt global economy could purchase an additional $18 trillion every 10 years? As wealth is finite so is the ability to borrow. At some point there exists a real and absolute debt limit.  Is it more than just coincidence that Mr. Sanders' initials are BS?

The biggest loser in New Hampshire was NAFTA

And the loser is ....NAFTA. Rather than rehash the political misfortunes left in the wake of the New Hampshire primary vote let us look at long range economic consequences. The two winners, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on one key principle, NAFTA has to go. Many who should know the answer ask mockingly how Trump could bring the jobs back from Mexico and China. The answer is very simple. He would scrap the trade treaties with both countries. Yes, politics does make strange bedfellows and the thought of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump standing shoulder to shoulder against Hillary Clinton and what remains of the Republican candidate field only adds credence to the widespread belief of both Sanders and Trump supporters that the system has been deliberately rigged to advantage of the rich and powerful.
Could a President Sanders or Trump simply break a trade treaty? Yes, there is precedence for it. The ultra timid Jimmy Carter unilaterally cancelled a defense treaty. The action was challenged in Goldwater v Carter and the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge without even hearing the legal argument. Similarly George Bush cancelled the ABM Treaty in 2002. But being able to cancel a treaty would not get a President Trump where he would want to be. The absence of NAFTA does not automatically impose tariffs.That would require congressional action and possible compromise with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who will be the Senate majority leader in 2017.
My thinking is support for tariffs maybe more popular among the congressional Democratic than the GOP. Only 28 congressional Democrats voted to give Obama fast track authority on the TPP so its reasonable to expect Trump would get little help from his own party. In 2010 Democrat Gene Taylor introduced legislation that would end US participation in NAFTA. It attracted 27 co sponsors;
Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y.; Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif.; Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.; Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa; Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass.; Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill.; Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.; Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif.; Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.; Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill.; Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.; Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis.; Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio; Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.; Rep. Michael Michaud, D-Maine; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Mich.; Rep. Fortney Stark, D-Calif.; Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Rep. Peter Viclosky, D-Ind.; Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio; and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.
Note that Taylor and several of the Democratic co sponsors are no longer in the House but there is probably more anti NAFTA sentiment in Congress than there was 6 years ago. Like it or not the prime defenders of NAFTA are "conservative" Republicans. For that reason I turn a deaf ear toward the criticism that Trump is not a conservative. The American worker who has lost his job at Whirlpool or Ford or Nabisco cannot eat the lofty conservative principles articulated by Paul Ryan and the National Review. They seem more intent on preserving Bill Clinton's legacy than restoring the nation.

Rubio's right-Obama knows what he's doing

  I'm not a big Rubio fan, though I was encouraged when Jindal, whom I admire greatly, endorsed him.
  I thought Christie's criticism of him was stupid, considering that everyone on the stump says the same thing over and over. Nothin' new.
  He's right though about Obama.
  I think we've all struggled with wondering whether Obama's just incompetent or intentional when it comes to his attempts to destroy our country.
  Obama has consistent sided with our enemies and not the people who want freedom demonstrated in the uprisings in Islamic countries.
  He's traded traitors for enemy commanders.
  He's run the long term debt into oblivion, adding more in debt than all previous presidents combined.
  He's ridiculed the presidency, ridiculed patriots who oppose him, ridiculed Christians while going out of his way to support the criminal class and those who oppose freedom in this country.
  So in case you didn't know, Obama who always brags that he taught Constitutional law, he didn't.
  He was a "lecturer" who was appointed as a "political favor," and instead taught Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, as shown here in this image:

     Now if you don't know who Alinsky was, he's the one who mentions in the foreword to his book that Lucifer was the first radical who organized communities.

  So when we think about what Obama has done "for" our country, you might want to take a look at these rules for radicals.

  Read carefully because you are seeing Alinsky's most powerful disciple (other than Lucifer) at work every day.

 

Is Hillary wearing her Freudian slips?

  I don't blog every day; there are so many talkers out there I despise just being another voice yelling about injustice and hypocrisy. (That's the next post.)
  I was thinking, though, that I hadn't seen much about Hillary's wardrobe choices which I find quite, interesting.
  First there was the unfortunate choice of an orange pantsuit when being questioned about the legality of her server.
  Yes. She went there.
  She wore orange. 
  Now, one of the problems with this suit, other than the color so reminiscent of certain enclosed places, is something in the vernacular called "camel toe." I shan't say more than that. 
  This was posted over at the Free Republic, where the posters had quite a run with it.

 

    Then there's the striped shirt she wore the other day, another unfortunate choice, considering the latest news that up to 30 separate emails were generated from Hillary's illegal server, something the FBI seems to be taking seriously and something Hillary's aides need to take seriously when it comes to trying to stay out of their own orange wardrobes. (There's that darn Clinton curse which seems to happen to anyone who gets involved with them.)
  Anyway the WSJ has the picture. Again, this is another flattering item we can really imagine a future president wearing...such gravitas.

  So apropos, considering the circumstances, n'est ce pas?
  Stripes?
  But the one that really got me is yesterday's archbishoprick outfit.
  Quoi, you're asking?
  Well, this outfit reminded me of Chapter 95 of Moby Dick.
  Now, if you haven't read---or perhaps you have, but you didn't realize what you were reading--this chapter, you might not know what is happening.
  The sailor (also called a mincer) who has the pleasure of stripping the whale of his, ah, member's, shall we say, skin takes great delight in donning the, ah, member's skin as a pope's robe.

Ere long, it is taken down; when removing some three feet of it, towards the pointed extremity, and then cutting two slits for arm-holes at the other end, he lengthwise slips himself bodily into it. The mincer now stands before you invested in the full canonicals of his calling. Immemorial to all his order, this investiture alone will adequately protect him, while employed in the peculiar functions of his office.....[SNIP]Arrayed in decent black; occupying a conspicuous pulpit; intent on bible leaves; what a candidate for an archbishoprick, what a lad for a Pope were this mincer!*

  So here's Miz Hillary wearing her archbishoprick's outfit. This was the night of her bitter harsh hoarse concession speech to Bernie...in New Hampshire, which has ended up somehow giving her more delegates than old Bernie.
  Does she see herself as a religious figure, a theological icon?

Reuters photo from Business Insider

 

 

  Um, yeah.
  It looks just the way I imagined it.

The difference between the debt and the deficit.Duh.

  I was in Florida last week staying at a mom & pop cottage populated by elderly snow birds and advertising a pool heated to old people temperatures. Very nice.
  I might note that much of the opinion around the cottages was that this country is in trouble.
  Except for one very genteel retired college professor. 
  She had taught "history," (of course) and when we started talking politics, she said, "Ah am read-y fo Hillary!"
  Noticing my Carson cap, she asked in her most tolerant and gracious Southern drawl, "Now what experience does that man have to deh-serve being president?" to which I responded, "Who HAS experience being president?" which shut her up on that topic.
  The truth is that Obama's experience both before and during his presidency is abysmal but why confuse the genteel with facts.
  Anyway she rattled off Obama's so-called financial successes, crowing the party line that Obama is fiscally responsible because he lowered the deficit.
  Personally my eyes roll back into my head when the debt/deficit topic comes up; I worry they'll stay back there permanently when anyone suggests that Obama-of the taxpayer paid millions of dollars vacations-is remotely fiscally responsible.
  Apparently Democrats don't know that there is a difference between what you're spending on an annual basis and what we owe as a nation long term to all those white haired snow birds sipping wine on Florida beaches actually worked for their Social Security checks.
  Heritage:

The administration has placed the nation “on a fiscal collision course,” Boccia said, “with Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid driving more than half of the projected increase in spending over the next decade.”

The Congressional Budget Office continues to warn of mounting debt, noting that “the long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years.”

Reduced now, the deficit soon will grow, according to CBO. Citing increased health care and retirement entitlements in addition to mounting debt payments, the agency predicts that budget deficits “will rise substantially, to $1 trillion in 2025.”

  I found a pretty good explanation of the difference between debt and deficit over at Politifact for math idiots like me:

Deficit=one year.
Debt=all money owed.

  So when the Obamabots, no matter how edumacated they appear to be, declare that Obama has lowered the deficit and when conservatives claim the deficit came down in spite of Obama, it makes no difference in the long run. 
  The concern is that this country cannot sustain its astounding debt, that Obama is the 20 trillion president who has doubled the nation's debt and accumulated more debt than all other presidents combined.
  I guess rewriting history is kind of a thing for genteel Southern professors.
  I call it lying.

ABC debate: the RNC lost

  I have several takeaways from last night ABC debate:
  Carly should have been on that stage.
  Many of the questions were intended to bait the candidates into beating up on each other.
  The audience was stacked with RINO establishment fans.
  When Cruz related the story of his addict sister, there was some odd noise in the background from the audience. What was that about? Was that noise intentional to distract from a moving moment by Cruz?
  Trump did pretty well, Cruz got beat up, Bush did better than usual, Christie did great, Rubio was exposed as a stump speecher, Kasich is trying hard to beat his grumpy gnome image and Carson did well. He's a good guy.
  Again, I don't think it's so much a matter of who won but who lost, but if I had to say who won, I"d probably say Christie gained the most ground because he's focused on issues and because he's mentally adroit enough to not only answer questions but point out the weaknesses of other characters.
  Who lost?
  Well, obviously the RNC lost.
  The audience was so obviously stacked any observer faithful enough to spend 3 hours on a Saturday night watching a brawl fest would notice that the RNC is trying to sway our opinions by stacking the audience.
  How dumb is that.
  Trump was right to call them out on that. Now we learn his fans were only given 20 tickets.
    An interesting moment occurred right at the beginning as the candidates were entering. Christie was called, entered, Carson was sent out to but couldn't hear his name so stood in the wings with the camera trained on him.
  Next Trump comes out but apparently chooses to stand with Carson; when Bush passes Trump he flicked him with his hand.
  Does Trump stand with Carson intentionally so he won't be awkward, as Conservative Treehouse says? 
  I don't know.
  But I liked the moment and thought Trump was classy in this instance while Bush looked, well, puny and thoughtless.
  Add that moment to Bush's decision to haul his 90 year old mother out with her walker in the snow. Meh.
  BTW, I don't agree with this YouTuber's assessment that this is a "hilarious" moment.

Finland: Just say no to rape or throw your purse at the rapists!

  Yes. It's come to this.
  Kind of like when our government tells its citizens to all run together at an Islamist terrorist or hide under your desk

Traumatizing Hillary dance

  ARGGGH!! My eyes!
  Shouldn't these women's meaty thighs be squeezed into polyester swimsuits while sitting on a beach in Florida sipping margaritas instead of line dancing in sweaty stretch pants?
  There's not a heifer among 'em! BLEH!
   Several other equally unappealing videos of Hillary dancing are available at the Washington Free Beacon website, if you dare, one of which is unfortunately very suggestive.

This miserable campaign season

  Personally I hate wallowing in the mud with our presidential candidates.
  Trump's behavior after his "surprise" loss has been disappointing.
  As a Ben Carson fan, I can excuse some of his whining as the result of inexperience, but he needs to move on (even while as Mark Levin and others begin to wonder if Marco Rubio was responsible for Carson's so-called  withdrawal from the race.)
   This indeed is an ugly process; it's almost like that time in a master's English class when the liberal began crying when confronted with her bullying of other students. It wasn't pretty, I tell ya. In fact, it was downright disgusting.
  That's where we are in the campaign: downright disgusting.
  Hillary's a cheater; she's always been a cheater and now that old Bernie is feeling the burn, maybe he understands what some of the country has understood for decades: Rose Law Firm billing records that mysteriously disappear and then reappear in the White House, strange financial transactions, bodies appearing, women being attacked by a Bimbo squad.
  She cheats.
  She lies.
  She tries to ruin people's lives if they disagree with her for any reason. 
  Now when queried about Goldman Sachs' contributions to her campaign, she says this, from the WaPo:

"That’s what they offered," Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

  Yeah. Well, when you're a crook, you know.
   We can just hope to our dear Lord that SHE doesn't make it.
  This is the season for the madness; we will get through it, hopefully without too much damage.
  And in Ohio we can't wait for our primaries on March 15; fill the air with commercial after commercial, please.
  So looking forward to that.
  Bleh.