by baldilocksbaldilocks

I’m back. Originally posted February 17, 2004.

Self-education has its benefits; it’s generated by true desire for knowledge, unclouded by the bureaucracy of formal education, uses straight-forward language as its vehicle. Formal education has some good points as well: that degree looks good on your wall. (Calm down, all you PhDs, JDs, MDs, etc.; just yanking your chain. You know that it’s envy. Really.)

As it happens, I found out about one of the best products of self-education, Eric Hoffer, from one of the best that formal education has to offer, Thomas Sowell.

While reading The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics), I was struck by several of Hoffer’s observations. The narrative lays out all the ingredients necessary for the success of Mass Movements: the people, the pre-conditions, the attitudes and the actions/reactions. He makes no moral judgments on the phenomenon, but merely lists the pre-cursors for the main event —like listing the ingredients for a main course. Would that I could do better than Mr. Hoffer in explaining the mass movement phenomenon, but I can’t. So here are a few of the statements that had meaning for me.

“A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement [like many practical organizations], but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.”

Potential converts:

The newly poor: “This class has a vivid memory of affluence and dominion and is not likely to reconcile itself to straitened conditions and political impotence.”

The bored: “Where people live autonomous lives and are not badly off, yet are without abilities or opportunities for creative work or useful action, there is no telling to what desperate and fantastic shifts they might resort in order to give meaning and purpose to their lives.”

The inordinately selfish: “The more selfish a person, the more poignant his disappointments. It is the inordinately selfish, therefore, who are likely to be the most persuasive champions of selflessness.”

Self-sacrifice [leading to] united action are the primary engines of a mass movement and must be inculcated into its proponents, says Mr. Hoffer. Sounds like basic training, yes, fellow military persons? (A distinction is drawn, however, between armies and mass movements: one promises “salvation;” the other is mainly used to “preserve or expand an established order.”)

On self-sacrifice:

“To ripen a person for self-sacrifice he must stripped of his individual identity and distinctness.” “The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings.” Some of Star Trek’s writers must have been reading Hoffer before creating the Borg.

“People who live full, worthwhile lives are not usually ready to die for their own interests nor for their country nor for a holy cause.” Here, Mr. Hoffer is right, but incompletely so. Such people are often ready to die rather that live in a world in which others are ready to take their full, worthwhile lives and turn them into that of a slave.

On hatred, the great unifying agent:

“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents.”
“Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.”
“Often, when we are wronged by one person, we turn our hatred on a wholly unrelated person or group.” Great and Lesser Satans everywhere, now you know what the jihad thing is about.

The book is fascinating. (Read about leadership as a unifying agent in mass movements. It’s not what you might expect.) Uncluttered by high-sounding concepts using high-sounding words, the anatomy and function of mass movements are made plain. You know the people that Mr. Hoffer observed; at least you do if you’ve been paying attention. You might have caught yourself exhibiting these characteristics a time or two—for good or ill.

Check this one out. And the next summer [sic], when the naked protesters upstate start uglying up the countryside and you ask yourself “why,” Mr. Hoffer will have provided you will some plausible answers.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects: A Roof Over My Head, my Storage Facility, my new novel, this blog, and my Internet–to keep them going and to the COFFEE fund to keep me going!

There is an old joke from the Soviet Union that has stuck with me over the years.

Lenin Stalin & Brezhnev are in a train compartment together traveling in the Soviet Union when suddenly the train lurches to a stop.

After 10 minutes of waiting Lenin turns to the others and says “Comrades, don’t worry I’ll get the train moving.” He walks away the others hear a gunshot and he returns and sits. “Don’t worry comrades will be moving soon, I just shot the conductor.

20 minutes later the train still isn’t moving & Stalin turns to the others and says “Comrades, don’t worry I’ll get the train moving” he walks away shortly after the others hear multiple gun shots and he returns and sits. “Don’t worry comrades, we’ll be moving soon, I just shot the fireman and his crew.”

30 minutes later the train is still not moving and Brezhnev, says “Don’t worry comrades, I’ll get the train moving.” He gets up and pulls down all the blinds in the compartment so they can’t see outside of the compartment and sits down. “There, now we are moving.”

I couldn’t help but think of this when I saw this post from Neo Neocon the Obama Strategy in Syria quoting Ambassador Fred Hof:

as Syria began to descend into the hell to which Assad was leading it, I did not realize that the White House would see the problem as essentially a communications challenge: getting Obama on “the right side of history” in terms of his public pronouncements. What the United States would do to try to influence Syria’s direction never enjoyed the same policy priority as what the United States would say.

She applauds his very belated honesty but also expresses her frustration.

why didn’t he speak up in September of 2012, which after all was prior to Obama’s re-election? Might it have mattered? I really don’t know, but maybe. And why, oh why, had this very smart man not noticed that the biggest “policy priority” of the Obama administration has long been politics and spinning to political advantage?

Seriously, by March of 2012, how could he have not realized this? His bio doesn’t say much about his political affiliation—I would guess “Democrat” and probably “liberal Democrat”—and this is the most likely explanation for his failure to notice things that were absolutely obvious but would mean splitting with the party.

This illustrates the reality of the Barack Obama presidency, it doesn’t matter if the rest of the world is falling apart. It doesn’t matter if people are losing their insurance, americans are abandoning the workforce and can’t get 30 hour even if they try to get a job. It doesn’t even matter if our embassies are attacks or our ambassadors killed. As long as it’s possible to spin such an event and the perception of it, with the help of the media in the president’s favor, the actually reality is totally irrelevant.

It’s been clear for a while that this president has been a joke, but Neo’s post taken with the Soviet humor I started the post with make it clear that all Barack Obama is and has always been just another an old communist joke told to a gullible public by a compliant media and government.

How far have we fallen in only 8 years.

Closing caption:  This picture is dedicated to the fifty

The Great Escape 1963

At the end of the movie the Great Escape a group of prisoners led by James Garner’s character Hendley are returned to the POW came that they had escaped from and are given the shocking news from the senior officer of the POWs Group Captain Ramsey,that fifty of the recaptured prisoners had been shot.

Ramsey: Roger’s idea was to get back at the enemy the hardest way he could, mess up the works. From what we’ve heard here, I think he did exactly that.
Hendley: Do you think it was worth the price?
Ramsey: Depends on your point of view, Hendley.

The idea being that the mass escape helped the war effort of the allies by diverting attention and manpower to a panicked search for the escaped prisoners and that this sacrifice, while tragic was a necessary cost of war.

This came to mind when I saw this story:

The US has deployed 50 troops to an air base in Iraq’s troubled Anbar province to help in the fight against Islamic State (IS).

A Pentagon spokesman said the troops would examine site facilities and prepare support for Iraqi forces.

This revelation came after the first new Iraq casualty:

The Pentagon conceded Wednesday that U.S. troops are in combat in Iraq after days of dancing around the characterization following the first death of U.S. service member in the campaign against ISIS.

“We’re in combat,” Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Wednesday. “I mean, of course, this is a combat zone. There’s a war going on in Iraq, if folks haven’t noticed. And we’re here and it’s all around us.”

There is a legitimate debate to be had concerning putting boots on the ground in Iraq and what is necessary to win and loud passionate arguments to be made by both sides in said debate.  I have very definite opinion myself,  but there is one thing that I suspect everybody can agree on….

Fifty Troops are not going to do the job.

Now I believe that fighting ISIS on the ground is a noble and worthy task and I would welcome our government deciding to do so, but you can’t do it with fifty guys, no matter how well trained.  That being the case  the obvious question is why would you bother deploying these soldiers, well here is my opinion:

Those fifty troops isn’t about winning in Iraq or stopping ISIS or even supporting the Kurds.  The announcement and deployment of those 50 troops is to allow the administration to be able to say they are doing something.  They’re deployed to allow this administration to pretend that the US has just as much military influence on what is happening in Syria as the Russians or even the Cubans.  They’re a talking point

In short they are the official bodyguard of Barack Obama’s manhood. 

Don’t expect our friends on the left to make a very loud protest, don’t expect the press to count down the days or name the casualties, that will be reserved for a time when a Republican is in office again.  Iowahawk put it best.

I do wonder, when at the Democrat convention when they show the video they will invariably put together to celebrate Barack Obama as he hands the torch off to the next Democrat asking for the job of commander in chief if they will put a dedication the end.

This video is dedicated to the fifty, who are risking their lives in Syria to defend Barack Obama’s manhood.

I’m sure that knowledge is a great comfort to those they have left behind.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $4370

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

…comes from Cardinal Pell:

Paragraphs 85 and 86 are not on communion for the divorced and remarried. Communion for the divorced and remarried wasn’t mentioned in the document. It wasn’t mentioned even as a possibility. No endorsement has been given for it, and if priests or people are to use their conscience, they have to have an informed conscience based on the teachings of the Church.

The “discernment” spoken of in paragraph 85 must be effected in light of all of the teachings of John Paul II, especially Familiaris Consortio. In the middle of the paragraph, it says “according to the teaching of the Church.”

Pells talks of the “virtual synod” of the media to spin the church and he give the exact right answer on how to deal with it.

As the “virtual synod” continues in the media, how should clergy and everyday Catholics navigate their way through it? What’s the solution?

The teachings of Jesus as interpreted by the Catholic Church over the years. And that includes the Gospels (i.e., Jesus’ teaching on adultery and remarriage); the Council of Trent; John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There’s no way around it.

via the Deacon’s bench.

The other side has two tactics to attack the church, encouraging the unfaithful and demoralizing and misinforming the faithful.

Don’t fall for it.

Most people who spend their employment years in the U.S. will never hear of Fatca, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Fatca was enacted in 2010 under the Obama Democrat administration.

However, Fatca affects an estimated eight million American citizens working overseas. As the Wall Street Journal points out (emphasis added) there are compliance costs,

Fatca requires that foreign banks, brokers, insurers and other financial institutions give the U.S. Internal Revenue Service detailed asset and transaction records for any accounts held by Americans, including corporate accounts controlled by American employees. If a firm fails to comply, the IRS can slap it with a 30% withholding tax on transactions originating in the U.S. Facing such risks and compliance costs, many foreign firms have decided it’s easier to dump their American clients.

And forget about overseas business partnerships or future promotions,

American expats in the Fatca age are also less attractive as employees and business partners, as any financial accounts they can access must now be exposed to government scrutiny—not only from the U.S. but potentially also from more than 100 other countries that have signed Fatca-related information-sharing agreements with Washington. Americans up for executive posts in Brazil, Singapore, Switzerland and elsewhere have been asked by their managers to renounce their U.S. citizenship or lose their promotion

Renouncing your citizenship is a momentous decision that is never taken lightly; now it’s also more expensive since the fee went up this year to $2,350 (used to be $450), in addition to exit taxes on current assets.

So the U.S. workforce, currently at its lowest participation rate in 38 years, is facing pressure from all sides, with (among others):

  • The unknown consequences of the TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership, of which even its staunchest supporters believe will result in job losses in the U.S.,
  • the huge influx of skilled and unskilled labor into the country, including H1B visa workers which may get paid 40% less than the American workers who are forced to train them before they are laid off, as was the case with Disney.

And now, for the millions of Americans who have found overseas employment,

  • Increased financial risks and compliance costs
  • Plus additional government scrutiny, “not only from the U.S. but potentially also from more than 100 other countries that have signed Fatca-related information-sharing agreements”, information which can be used against them by the 100 “other countries,” many of which are not democracies committed to human rights.

But hey, the 8 million Americans living overseas are not here to complain, and the current administration is not interested in a welcoming business environment. It’s just one more instance, as the WSJ put it, of “U.S. tax and regulatory policies that hamper the entire U.S. economy.”

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

As he is want to do Stacy McCain tends to find some of the funniest stuff on the net posted by various feminists on Tumbler:

Going to the post I expected a rant concerning feminism, instead it is was a post by a black woman about something that happened at school:

i had a good ass conversation with this dude from class. we have the same major, he’s black, seemingly intelligent. i always like to touch base with niggas who i can relate to.
we talking finance and universities and shit. we standing by this car for like the whole conversation & he says his ride isn’t coming. so we posted up on this accord like it’s yours bruh? ok
i value his student ethic and i be giving my lil homegirls rides home when they stuck, so i half ass ask if he wants a home. had to half ass it so he wouldn’t take it as a green light. first mistake.

Google chrome didn’t auto translate the page but the story is basically this:

Girl talks to guy after class, guy seems OK

Girl offers guy ride home when he says he doesn’t have one.

Guy takes this as a signal that it’s not starts spilling BS to try to impress her

Guy has her stop at a medical pot store he drugs up she feels like a fool

Girl eventually leaves thinking, this guy is a loser

At least that the best translation I could come up with.

Now at this point you might be wondering:  “Hey DaTechGuy why this business is of any actual interest?  Why are you wasting our time?”

Well it’s because there is an important revelation in the middle of this that needs a lot more eyeballs.  Here is the paragraph with the line that jumped out at me emphasis mine:

he wanted to stop at the weed shop, he knew one that didn’t card. whatever. he said he was going to take me inside. at first i was on some, “no the fuck u not, me and u not walking in no where”, but curiosity got my ass. everybody in a 10 mile radius has a medical license except me, and you can’t enter a legitimate dispensary without one.

If I’m reading this right This young lady must live in a very unhealthy area with a large amount of glaucoma patients and cancer cases (must be a lot of hotdog and bacon stands) because she seems to be saying that just about everyone in the area happens to have the “medical license” needed to purchase pot for medical use.

Now if you are one of the people who have been pushing medical Marijuana and lobbying for it with story after story of either old people suffering from a horrible disease, or a little kids with glaucoma & their families making a teary eye appeal to voters saying that medical marijuana is all about making life bearable for a lot of helpless innocent sick people, you might find that explanation completely believable.

However it seems to me that the more likely explanation is that this young woman was stating quite bluntly that anybody who is looking to score recreational pot to get high, including the young, is able to get a licence to circumvent federal law to do so.

One might think that my conclusion is rather obvious, particularly when you read her description of the shop and the people there:

walk in. cameras everywhere. weed smells good as fuck. two layer hood nigga gates on the windows and doors. very authentic.

he gets pat down by the lobby security. nigga gone look me up and down and gone smize at me. as if. why u smizing anyway

i walk in. ‘staff’ all look rough. happy. everybody 16-22. i’m trying to grasp my experience and he interrupts me by tapping my shoulder, to tell me, that he, mr flex & floss, needs my $5.

However there is a lot of incentive to ignore this reality

The sellers pretend otherwise because they see easy money.

The state pretends otherwise because they see easy tax revenue

The elected officials pretend otherwise because they the likelihood of  big contributions coming from the lobbyist to protect this business.

The lobbyists  pretend otherwise because they see a big pie with a piece reserved for them.

The bureaucracies pretend otherwise because see  they power to licence dispensaries and distribution as a way to reward friends and punish enemies.

And of course Democrats pretend otherwise because their base is the main customer base for this product and wants it.

Now I’ve said many times that I have a perverse incentive to go along with this, ever single drugged out loser out there increases the value and price to any employer for people like my sons who don’t touch the stuff because everybody is just dying to have some pothead changing their oil, to cook their food & ringing up their groceries and working in their factories.  Pot legal on the state level is  a geek full employment plan at every single level.

But I think it’s a bad thing for society to normalize a product that messes with your brain, that leads the vulnerable to other worse drugs and helps trap people in a permanent underclass.

That’s not only a morally wrong thing, but it’s a stupid thing that while a windfall for some will cost society in terms of pain, treasure and achievement.

That’s the story that’s hiding in that piece and I think a hell of a lot more people need to know and understand it before they jump on the medical pot wagon or decide to push pot as an alternative to opioids.

It’s a horrible idea and creating a legal space for a permanently stoned underclass joined by a bunch of teens who won’t know better protected by law will have costs long after we’re dead and gone and it won’t be people thinking bad feminist poetry is as good as classic rock.

Update: Stacy McCain notes the apparent Glaucoma epidemic in the hood:

Hey #blackeyesmatter


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $4200

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

By A.P. Dillon

If it looks like a political stunt and smells like a political stunt, then it stands to reason it is a political stunt.

President Obama’s big shift in rhetoric on testing this past week comes at a politically convenient time.  In a total course reversal, Obama wants a cap that limits the testing on children to 2% or less of their class time. That 2%sounds great, but really it’s not changing anything if one realizes that 2% of a school year’s class time translates to somewhere between 20 to 24 hours worth of testing. Like I said, this is a stunt.

This administration has beaten the drum of ‘test and punish’ for seven years right alongside tying test scores to teacher evaluations — a move that has had teachers unions up in arms nationwide.

What better way to quell the powerful, big donors like teachers unions just prior to a Presidential election year than to offer a ‘testing cap’?

It’s bait in an election cycle where education is taking the main stage with voters.

Likewise, it’s an opportunity for this administration to subtly hit Hillary Clinton over the head again, as she has come out supporting Common Core, which has been anchored to two testing consortia and ‘testing accountability measures’.

This isn’t just about hitting Hillary over the head. It’s also about beating Congress over the head. Again.

Remember, the House pushed forward with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, which strengthens over testing instead of stemming it. The reauthorization also solidified Common Core. It’s a nightmare.

A recent article at Front Page Magazine by Mary Grabar points this out. Here’s an excerpt, but do read the whole thing:

In a smooth move, the Obama administration called on Congress to fix a problem that had been foisted on the people without the consent of Congress—namely the national Common Core standards, even as the widely hated name was scrupulously avoided.  The Obama administration also told teachers to fix tests that they had not devised and were forced to administer.    

In an even smoother move, the New York Times summed up the blame this way:

The administration’s move seemed a reckoning on a two-decade push that began during the Bush administration and intensified under President Obama. Programs with aspirational names — No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top — were responding to swelling agreement among Democrats and Republicans that higher expectations and accountability could lift the performance of American students. . . . .”

Alas, the push began “during the Bush administration.”

Shorter: If JEB! needed a final coffin nail, here it comes.

Meanwhile, in Obama’s backyard of  Washington, D.C.,  only 1 in 10 DC students score ‘college ready’ on the new Common Core math tests.  The scores dropped in neighboring Maryland as well.  Let’s not even get into the results for Hispanic students; Obama has that one covered with a forced touchy-feely outreach program.

But for educrats like William Bushaw, who is the director of the agency overseeing the NAEP (Nations Report Card),  the narrative remains the same: Common Core is not to blame.

William Bushaw, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP, tried to discourage connecting this year’s test results and Common Core in a telephone call with reporters Tuesday.

NAEP exams, while overlapping with the Common Core standards, are not tied to any specific curriculum or material used in public schools, Bushaw said.

He added that states might not have used Common Core in the same way.

We should not assume the Common Core has been evenly or persistently implemented in the country,” he said.
News and Observer 10/27/15

That’s an AMAZING admission right there, folks.  For the last 5 years, supporters of Common Core have maintained that the standards would be the same — everywhere.

About every five or so years, Educrats and Ed Reformers roll out some shiny new reform. None of these amazing reforms have moved the needle for our kids, nothing has changed for them.  Nothing has changed in the way these reformers window dress the failure of their amazing reform either; perhaps they took deck chair rearranging lessons in a past life.

It was vital kids be able to transfer from state to state and learn the exact same thing, even though the transient student population is less than 2% of the overall student population in the United States.

So not only was Common Core not being implemented the same way, it’s now clear the other major platform of Common Core has crumbled. That platform is consistent comparison of tests from state to state.

But don’t blame Common Core.  It’s the implementation. It’s the tests. It’s anything but the flawed and experimental standards that were rolled out rapid fire in order to yoke states into using them via the Race To The Top grant.

Having said all of that, Obama’s ‘test cap’ is an insulting band-aid on a machete wound that this administration has allowed to fester for the better part of his Presidency.

DM7 small LL1885A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review,, and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885

Last night I dreamed that I went to get an interview with Ted Cruz and he was absolutely soaking wet, when I asked why he said his crew had emptied the gatorade bucket over him.

That’s not a surprise because other than a Knights of Columbus meeting and the occasional check on the world series last night was all CNBC debate and the big moment of it being Ted Cruz’s hit on the moderators when questioned by Carlos Quintana. it’s been the subject of a lot of conversation online

Daily Caller:

Presidential debates just got a little less futile, thanks to the senator from Texas.

The American Thinker:

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.

PJ Media

The big story — the A-story — on Wednesday night — the actual full blown case of seppuku — was CNBC. The network will never seem the same. Their moderators — Becky Quick, John Harwood, and Carl Quintanilla — were so obviously biased you would have thought it was a parody, if you hadn’t known it was real, a kind of black comic nightmare out of a leftwing theatre of the absurd. Ted Cruz superbly caught the temper of the evening when he called them out, specifying how they had attempted to poleax each of the candidates one-by-one. This turned the already alienated audience completely against the moderators with the candidates abandoning their competition and joining forces as well against the moderators in a red versus blue color war. It was fascinating to watch and quite amusing

Here is the video of the exchange

and here is the text of the key moment via National review

Sen Ted Cruz: The questions that have been asked so far in this debate, illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions, Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do the math? John Kasich, can 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 —

Carlos Quintanilla: Does this count? Do we get credit for this one?

Sen Ted Cruz: And Carl, I’m not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every fawning question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise?

Carlos Quintanilla: Let me say, you have 30 seconds left to answer should you choose to do so.

Sen Ted Cruz: Let me be clear. The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Menchavicks. Nobody watching at home believes that any of the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primer. The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive — CNBC: I asked you about the debt limit and got no answer.

As an aside let the record show that CNBC did one thing right compared to CNN hispanic reporter Carlos Quintana was not regulated to asking questions about immigration. That was a significant plus.

Now this isn’t the first time that a GOP candidate hit the media at a debate so what made Cruz’s speech significant? Several things:

1. Thanks to the Trump/Carson Phenom the audience contained plenty of people who normally don’t watch debates saw it. That wasn’t the case for the Gingrich business.

2. Ted Cruz said something that everyone is the place was thinking but nobody had said yet.  Shortly afterward everyone else joined it but Senator Cruz said it first

3. Ted Cruz rather than giving a general media critique gave specific concrete examples that everyone had just seen so it was fresh in the viewers heads.

4. Ted Cruz didn’t point to himself as a victim, every example he gave was of a different candidate, a rival.

It was also wise to offer to answer the actual question at the end which put Quintanilla in a box, if he lets Cruz answer he gives him even more time  vs his rival, if he moves on to the next candidate (what he did) Cruz could say he offered to answer and was not allowed.

Folks like CNN and their hosts might be willing to downplay it, paint it as if it’s just another republican hitting the media.  They might be willing to spin it, but they can’t make the millions who saw it unsee it.


Well done Senator Cruz, well done.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and I’m a full 17K short for the year.

I would ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

This one was during the debate

This one was after the debate

And this one was true even after the Mets were down 7-1 in the bottom of the 8th last night.

Remember the Mets will get at least two more chances and maybe as many as five to do better, I sincerely doubt the GOP is going to go anywhere near CNBC again.

Then again they are called the stupid party on occasion.

Update: This Post by Sooper Mexican is a keeper a sample


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000.

Given that fact and the discovery that the repairs needed for my car that failed inspection will run between $500-$1000 I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

There are a lot of things today that need to be laughed at.

Today too many people are so disconnected from reality, so fearful of the wrath of the left or ignorant that they allow things that should produce mocking laughter automatically actually threat these things seriously.

So this is the first in a semi regular series called “Are you kidding me” where we will point at a story and laugh at it.

Today: Hillary Clinton Cries “Sexism

Hillary Clinton has found a new wedge issue against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The topic is gun control, but the angle is gender. Clinton is framing Sanders as a sexist who accuses women of shouting when they try to speak up.

It didn’t take long for this sexism charge to produce stories with even Jake Tapper asking Senator Sanders about to answer her over it.

Are you kidding me?

Seriously, Hillary Clinton, the wife of Bill “you’d better put some ice on that” Clinton is crying “Sexism” because Bernie Sanders says shouting on Guns won’t get it done.

I noted this to a Hillary supporter pointing out that Bill Clinton opened for her and Katy Perry at her big rally and wondering what would happen if say, Josh Dugger opened for Mike Huckabee at an event?. Her reaction.

No I’m not insulting I’m just informed enough to know that if Hillary Clinton is opining on sexism the proper response for any person with any actual knowledge of the Clinton and perspective on what sexism is: is to point at Hillary and laugh.