Ted & Heidi Cruz, the CFR & Why It Matters

During the dust-up between Ted Cruz and his PAC's ugly use of Melania Trump's picture to damage Donald's campaign in Utah, something popped up on my radar and I finally got around to following the trail.

Trump threatened to 'spill the beans' on Heidi Cruz. The media latched onto that threat and ran with it, putting blame on Trump for going after Cruz's wife (although a strong argument can be made that Cruz got their first with tacit approval of that billboard) - but what is it? Trump hasn't said. He nudged it but then let the sleeping dog lie.

That, however, led some people to dig around and post pieces on their blogs about what might be behind it. Katrina Pierson, Trump's spokeswoman laid it out directly during an interview on MSNBC.

There is a police report about Heidi Cruz from 2005 - but that doesn't worry me. She was having emotional problems based on what can be extrapolated from the heavily redacted report (which you can find if you Google it).

In sum, a policeman found her sitting on the grass verge about ten feet away from a busy expressway with her head in her hands. He approached her and took her into custody 'for her own safety'. So, ten years ago, she was emotionally unstable. That does not mean she is now, but the potential is there, in her DNA.

What does worry me is her affiliation with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a liberal 'think tank' that began in 1921 to deal with international relations, economics, politics, trade, societal dynamics and the rest of it.

Over the years, from just talking about how to make the world a better and safer place for individual countries, its scope has changed. According to the CFR website, one of their goals is 'globalization'.  Globalization is, pure and simple, global unification - international integration. Borders don't exist. Countries don't exist. Individual governments don't exist. Sovereignty is gone - once and for all.

It's grown over time, too. It currently has roughly 4,900 members. Most of these members are at the upper level of world politics and the media. It makes interesting reading. From their roster, a few names leapt out a me:

Madeleine Albright (Billy-Jeff's Sec State), John Bolton (Bush II's UN Ambassador), Dick Cheney, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Susan Rice (of Hilliary Clinton's State Department), Charles Krauthammer and Monica Crowley (Fox News Contributors) are just a few. There are also Hollywood types - Warren Beatty - and SCOTUS Justices - Stephen Breyer and someone named John Roberts and another named Ruth Ginsberg... Hmm. Could it be that our Supreme Court which has power over all of us is part of this, too?

Now the idea of a One World Government might sound utopian to you, but it doesn't to me. Just look at the UN members. Who will govern this beautiful new world? Will they rotate through the roster? How would you like Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia ruling the world? Are you up for what their world vision looks like? I'm not.

So here we have the wife of a presidential candidate who didn't just work there, she helped write a report called 'Building a North American Community'. That report recommends getting rid of the borders between Mexico, the US and Canada for citizens - like the EU. Meaning that once you're in one of those countries, you can move freely from one to the other without having to prove where you live.

Heidi Cruz supported that recommendation.

Look how well open borders are working in the EU right now with ISIS / Daesh / ISIL terrorists flowing back and forth like a tide. Paris suffered a terrorist attack just four months ago. Last week it was Brussels and the EU is still hunting down some of the perpetrators and their associates. There are still more threats floating - against the UK and others.

The CFR promoted the original formation of the EU. They pushed the US government into NAFTA which is a trade agreement that has not benefited the US but has benefited Canada and Mexico.

They are not looking out for the citizens of the world. They are looking out for the uber-wealthy, the powerful who view us as cogs who can go hang because we don't count and we don't matter. If you don't believe me, Google 'CFR membership' and take a look at their roster - it's eye-opening who's on there.

So why is this a concern? That's in her past, right? Well, yes, it is in her past but I do think it shows where her ideas lie - a one-world order scenario in which the United States no longer exists as an independent sovereign country.

First Ladies are influential people. Look at Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hilliary Clinton - who became Senator, Secretary of State and is now running for president.

The history of Heidi Cruz not just being associated with a group like the Council on Foreign Relations but being involved in writing such a report, and the sway any politically active and adept wife holds over her husband, raises a big red warning flag for me. Particularly if she becomes First Lady to the President of the United States.

Could it be that the pivot toward Ted Cruz by the Elites is that he's already making conciliatory noises about falling more in line with the CFR ideas?

When push comes to shove if that supposition is correct, who's going to win?

Will it be the electorate that is clamoring for tightened borders and smaller government, or will it be the woman he sleeps with every night? Will We The People get the wall we want, or will his wife who shares his bathroom convince him it's a bad idea?

I don't know but it is a concern.

At this point, even if he were to come out and declare his independence from the CFR I wouldn't believe him. He's already proved he's a serial liar - voter violations, telling the voters in Iowa that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race, lying about all sorts of other things that have been brought up in just the past two months. Once a liar, always a liar and you cannot trust the words of someone who has been shown to be dishonest, as he has.

Do some reading - there's plenty of it out there - and you can start right here:

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Go to the Recommendations that start on page 7 and read from there.

And, at the bottom of the page this link will take you to, there is a list of contributors. Look at who's Number Three:

Now isn't that interesting...

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Every Candidate Has Flaws

Can we agree that all political candidates are flawed? Can we admit that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate except, maybe, the Manchurian Candidate? But we don’t really have a Manchurian Candidate in this election cycle. Instead we have a field of highly flawed individuals.

On the left, Hilliary is an out-and-out un-convicted criminal. That, I hope, is just a matter of time before it’s resolved. Bernie is plain clueless about how to pay for all the freebies.

Despite a decent background and good experience, I just cannot get behind a floppy waffle like John Kasich. He comes across as micron thin in character, and I don’t trust him.

‘TrusTed’ Cruz lies. Pure and simple, he plays fast and loose with the truth while declaring that he’s honest as the day. Besides that, he always comes across the screen as slimy – just the unctuous tone of voice puts my nerves on edge. When I saw him at the Town Hall in Wisconsin yesterday, he started talking about women’s issues and the tone of his voice changed. He lowered the volume, slowed it down – he was talking down to those women and they fell for it. It was a disgusting moment that turned my stomach.

Unfortunately, Trump has a bad tendency to speak too quickly – without preparation or a hint of forethought - and then he has to walk backward while covering the blush of humiliation. That hard and fast ‘do not shoot from the lip’ lesson is something that politicians learn pretty quickly and the fact that Trump is not a politician is, at times, painfully obvious. Take the comments on abortion yesterday during the MSNBC Town Hall.

There is no doubt, regardless of which side of the issue you're on, that was a gigantic flub by The Donald. Was it devastating? That remains to be seen, but it does show that he has got to spend more time thinking about possible responses to the hot button issues, developing clear and rational answers, and less time Tweeting. He has also got to get back ahead of things, get back on his message and keep it there.

If he had developed a solid position on the issue before yesterday, he wouldn't have been caught as he was. The worst thing he did was open his mouth and try to answer Chris Matthews's question. I really hate to say it, but the old saw ‘better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt’ was proved true by my candidate yesterday.

This is not going to change my mind or my vote. In the final analysis, given that the law is what it is, I think this is a non-issue.

Still, instead of trying to answer, he could have said, 'you know, Chris. I really hadn't thought through that in great detail because right now, today, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It doesn’t matter how I feel about it. It’s the law and it’s not a law that’s going to be changed. The people wouldn’t stand for it.'

That would have been honest, it would have given him room, and he wouldn't now be watching his poll numbers plummet in Wisconsin and other places. It's going to be an uphill battle to regain that ground because anything he does and says is 100% wrong per the media. Even if he helped a little old lady across eight lanes of traffic and rescued a sick puppy along the way, they'd find something to criticize.

There is one opportunity, just one, to salvage something of what happened during that Town Hall yesterday.

He has got to come out now, today, and say, ‘I’m sorry. I didn’t give the voters my best effort yesterday. When Chris asked me the question about abortion I was still thinking about the nuclear question. That was such strange exchange it threw me, but that doesn’t excuse what I said about abortion.

‘Obviously, Roe v. Wade is and will be the law of the land whether we agree with it or not. I should never have said a word in answer to that question. This is part of my learning about being a politician. Sometimes on the campaign trail, when I’m trying to make a good impression, I speak when I would do better to stay quiet.

‘I’m not a politician and that’s why I sometimes make mistakes. I’m a manager, an administrator. I run things, big things and I build great things. That’s why I’m in the race. I want to try to get the government under control, to make it more efficient and reorganize it so it works better for everyone. The policy matters are critical and that is why I’m surrounding myself with brilliant and experienced advisors who know these things.’

This kind of a statement answers the question from the other night on CNN when Anderson Cooper asked if Trump ever apologizes, and it shows both humility and humanity. For a moment it would take him off the pedestal and show the base his feet of clay.

A release like this wouldn’t salvage Wisconsin, but it might help going forward. People understand that he’s a human being. Knowing that even a presidential candidate can drop the façade long enough to admit that he’s wrong would be, in my view, endearing. It might even make the women a little less hostile.

Another thing that might help woo women is if he could convince Melania to help him by speaking to women’s groups. Maybe she is already, but I’m following the news closely because I am so anxious about this election, and I haven’t heard a breath about her being involved. Just meeting with small groups like Soroptimists and Rotary and Kiwanis would be fine – they don’t have to be talks in front of roaring crowds, but introduce Donald to the women. Help them to see him as she sees him – what she likes, his strong points and the little kindnesses. She could talk about what qualities he has that would make him a great president.

As for the nuclear issue, the idea of Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons is actually a good idea. Why not?

After all, let’s say North Korea gets a working nuclear missile system. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a forward warning / forward intervention system in the form of nukes in Japan and South Korea? That might well prevent a nuclear warhead from reaching the United States – which is Kim’s stated goal.

So, no. That doesn’t bother me. It bothers me more to think that whack job in Pyong Yang is going to get a nuke or two and we don’t have our systems up-to-date and ready to go.

I don’t know that these things would resolve yesterday’s foot-in-mouth situation, but it might help. There’s no way to undo it but if he does nothing, hoping it just goes away, it won’t. It’s all over the networks already and we can count on it being an issue going forward by both his GOP opponents and by Hilliary. If he has answers in his pocket, honest and human, it could take the water off the boil.

Once he gets past the nomination, he can tackle the nonsense Hilliary throws at him one-on-one instead of five against one with the media taking sides.

I know he’s already tried to walk it back, but one thing I’ve noticed about Trump is that his brain works faster than his tongue. He often (almost always) speaks before he thinks and that leads to messes like this one.

And, as much as I admire the man, he often speaks in ‘clouds’ of words. There is a lot of fluff surrounding the central point, and that’s frustrating to me. I wish he would be more incisive and clear because the dust makes his points hard to find.

So there’s room for improvement in his presentation skills. That does not mean that I want any change in his plans or policy ideas. It’s just that I’d like him to be better prepared for those ‘gotcha’ moments the press is so darned good at.

In any case, this too shall pass. Next week it’ll be something else and then this will resurface in attack ads but, if he’s prepared with great, clear statements, I think he can weather them, particularly if he gets back to driving the conversation.

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Loyalty and Interchangeable Parts

When the chips are down and someone has my back, there is no better feeling in the world. It is HUGE to know that you don't have to look for the axe while dodging the bullet and when someone I work for treats me as he expects to be treated, that is a blessing that cannot be described. It shows character of the best sort.

When Corey Lewandowski was charged with simple battery stemming from that March 8th mess with the Breitbart female, Trump didn't throw him in front of the train. No. He did and he has stuck by him - even though it might end up costing him in the press and at the ballot box in some small way. No - he showed the kind of loyalty that's impossible to find in most boss-employee relationships these days.

He also didn't call out the Secret Service - which should have been called out. After all, if the Secret Service had been doing their job, she would never have gotten through that line. If the Secret Service had been doing what they were supposed to be doing, one of them would have pulled her away.

She should never have been able to get as close to Trump as she did. She was holding a pen in her hand - what if that hadn't been a pen? What if it had been a knife or something else? Where was the Secret Service at that moment? They weren't there so Corey Lewandowski did what the Secret Service should have done.

I have seen the tape of that so called 'battery' and there's nothing there. Yes, Corey Lewandowski reached out and pulled that Breitbart female back (sorry, I don't care enough about her to find or pay attention to her name, she isn't worth it). However, what that tape clearly shows is that she put her hand on Donald Trump before anyone laid a finger on her.

In that case, because he didn't want to be touched - you can see it in the video when he pulls away from her - he could have filed battery charges against her. But he's rational. He's sane. He is not some vapid little girl who is willing to play the VICTIM card because she was touched in a scrum of other people and pulled away from that man's boss.

Let's say that kind of thing happened during Mardi Gras in New Orleans, or at a sporting event or any other crowded place. Do you suppose she would be screaming 'foul' and levying charges? Hell no!

No. I'm afraid her biggest issues are that she's an insecure little twit with the brains of roadkill and she hates Donald Trump.

Out of all of this, the take-away is top-down loyalty. The hallmark of a great character. I value loyalty and I do not like people who are not loyal. They can't be trusted.

On the other side, in interviews yesterday both John Kasich and Ted Cruz said they would fire Lewandowski if he worked for them. Okay, Kasich first said he would suspend him, but then he did say he would fire him. In other words, they will sacrifice anyone and anything if they think it might impact the public's impression of them. Now there's a hallmark of character.


As for the rest of it that's swirling around, it seems the Washington Insiders and their minions in the guise of Fox News (aka Pravda-USA) and CNN really do want just another interchangeable part in the Washington machine sitting in the White House.

After all - who is it that the Elites and their slavering minions are pushing (foisting) on us? Why it's Ted Cruz! He of the scandal-ridden campaign.

Heck - it's only March - this election cycle only got started at the end of January with the Iowa caucuses - and he's racked up claims of three different scandals: Fraud, Corruption and Sex. By God he's hitting on all cylinders!

On the fraud front, this is true and legitimate: Paul Pate, the Iowa Secretary of State was something less than happy with the Cruz campaign for that little matter of the "voter violation" forms. Those were those official looking mailers sent out by the Cruz campaign prior to the caucuses. Pate went so far as to call it 'a false representation of an official act' which is, according to Iowa law, a criminal act.

By all rights, since that was a criminal act under Iowa law, the Cruz campaign should have received a bit more than a finger-wag and a 'tut-tut'. They didn't, though, because I'm sure the RNC / GOP weighed in and said 'shut up' or words to that effect.

Potential voters weren't all that happy, either. The following is excerpted from a January 31, 2016 article in the New Yorker:

The Cruz mailers have been widely condemned by Iowans. “I just wonder how many of these went out to people who might seriously believe they committed a violation or were embarrassed that their neighbors might know about their alleged voting record,” Braddock Massey, a Rubio supporter who lives in West Des Moines and received one of the mailers, said.

Donna Holstein, who was listed on one of them, was upset to learn that she had been given a failing grade and that her neighbors might be told whether she participates in the caucus. She told me that she has voted consistently but that she can’t this time because of a disability.

“I’m crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks

Isn't that nice. Ted Cruz is 'bullying' cripples and 'shaming' the elderly into going to the polls.

The corruption is something I haven't been able to verify, but it's being claimed across the blog-o-sphere. According to more than one internet 'source', the Cruz campaign gave a cool half-a-million dollars to Carly Fiorina's campaign. Let's hit that again: Per rumor one presidential campaign gave $500,000 to a competing campaign. These other bloggers are claiming that it was 'hush' money relating to Accusation Number 3.

Now I don't like smearing people - it's not comfortable for me, so I did try to track down the source of this information.

I spent the better part of an hour on the FEC website where I did find one contribution of a bit more than $499,300 given to the Carly for America super PAC in February, but I haven't been able to nail it to the Cruz PAC. I'll keep trying, or you can if you'd like. It would make an interesting coda to this disgusting campaign.

Then we have the sex scandal. This is a 'burn my eyeballs out' kind of thing. I really don't want to even imagine that. Still, if this man is proclaiming his high and mighty morality on the one hand and doin' the deed with women not his wife on the other, that's a problem. A big one because if you are going to talk the talk then you had damned well better be walkin' the walk.

This is being looked into by any number of moles, so I won't except to say it's out there. If it does have legs, I'm sure the National Enquirer will produce the next installment in their next issue.

What is annoying is that he's lying again.

He's doubled-down on the accusation that Trump floated it when, in fact, it's well documented that it was the Rubio campaign that came up with this. It's obvious why he's doing this, but it's more than a tad disingenuous to keep pounding it when even the cable news services have been told it was Rubio.

Whatever. In the end, once the millipede stops walking and the shoes stop dropping we'll figure it out. Those people who dislike Ted Cruz aren't going to be swayed by the 'poor me' dishrag with which he's wiping his tears. I'm just disgusted by the man's conscious duplicity.

It is interesting that the National Enquirer has put itself on the line in a big way. I don't know what the statute of limitations is for defamation but if Cruz were to lose the election he could easily sue - claiming damages including his failed bid for the White House.

Roger Stone has also thrown the gauntlet, declaring on television, "If it's not true, sue me!"

Real or not, Ted Cruz is at least keeping pace with the Hilliary scandal wagon - one a month. Can he keep it up? With April just around the corner, we'll find out.

What is more interesting than the sleaze factor are two points.

First, Cruz is being swamped with scandal allegations but none of them are sticking and no one in the news is paying attention. Why aren't these allegations being spoken of? You know that if it was Trump they would be talking about nothing else in the most salacious terms possible.

Second, if these allegations are false, why isn't he actively denying them?

I dunno. Maybe because he'll look too Bill Clinton-ish, 'I did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Candy Wrapper.'

In the meantime, the Cruz campaign is still doing what it does. They're playing both sides against the middle, trying not to offend anyone. Just last night, for instance, when asked on CNN if he would back the GOP nominee regardless of who it is, he fudged. He spent a good thirty seconds hemming and hawing and then took a strong dodge to the side.

Trump, on the other hand, was clear. No, he will not honor that pledge because he made it in good faith and that good faith has been violated again and again by the other parties.

With all that's happened, with all that is happening it's hardly surprising. After all, Trump isn't behind closed doors with the Elites and GOP trying to figure out how to steal this election without pissing off and losing the front-runner's constituency. That pledge is worthless.

Now, if the GOP and the money-men were honest dealers, if they weren't conspiring against the leader of the pack, it would be dishonorable for that leader to blow off a promise. But when that promise was made by him in good faith and the other parties leave the deal... well, all bets are off.

As for why the Elites are backing a flawed, scandal-ridden candidate, it's easy.

Those scandals, and any others they uncover, put Cruz in a really bad place. They can bribe him - threaten him with disclosure and humiliation, and thereby keep him in line.

If they could find anything on Trump, anything at all, don't you think they would? Don't you think, given the hatred for Trump, that they would blow it up and make hay with it all day long? Instead, the best they're able to do is to accuse Trump of being loyal to his campaign manager.

Now that is a crazy messed up world.

Anyway. Just another day in paradise, right?

Hope it's lovely!

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

I Don't Like Liars & Ted Cruz Qualifies

Good grief! What a weekend... Accusations about things I would rather not imagine - and some of it looks more than a bit suspicious, like it might actually stick.

Back on April 1st last year, one of the women who has been identified on the internet as one of Cruz's Babes appeared in a Tweeted selfie while showing off a Winston Churchill tattoo placed on the back of her left shoulder. That is not an easy place to self-apply a tattoo and she just happens to be wearing what looks like it might be a man's suit jacket (it's hard to tell - but...)

It's all over the place on the 'net that at the same time on the same day she took that pic, Ted Cruz was appearing on Fox's morning show. There he showed off a Winston Churchill tattoo on his right forearm while batting away a question about where his jacket might be.

This is a seven minute segment, but if you fast forward to about 6:30 you'll get to the part that's most interesting and potentially relevant - the display of the tattoo and question / deflection about the whereabouts of the jacket.

When asked where he got the tat, he said he was on the West Coast - so it would be interesting if someone were to follow that lead. Was Ms. Carpenter also on the West Coast at the time?

These tit bits were put together by several sites across several blogs, but the pictures and video are available off the internet if you just do a search.

There are other little things, too. Like the $500,000 contribution made from the Cruz campaign to Carly Fiorina's PAC - and the fact that another of the Cruz Babes happened to work for Fiorina. The Election Commission is looking into that peculiarity but I wonder if it's hush money for something.

It doesn't matter whether it is or not - that transaction stinks to high Heaven. After all, why would one presidential campaign transfer a cool half-mil to another, competing campaign? I can't think of a logical answer. Wouldn't the Cruz campaign be able to make better hay with that money than hand it off to Carly's account?

Further to this whole thing, several places including Lawnewz.com, have posted articles that raise a really interesting point.

While Ted Cruz has attacked the National Enquirer article that started the rumpus on Friday, he has not denied doing anything wrong.

He's called the article 'garbage' and accused Trump of planting it (which Trump didn't as more than one person has traced it back to the Rubio campaign), but he hasn't declared in no uncertain terms 'I did not boff that woman, or that one, or that one, or...'

It's an interesting point because when we're accused of doing something we didn't - particularly if it's unsavory or embarrassing - don't you or I immediately stand up and say, 'it wasn't me! I didn't do that!'? That reaction is missing between here and last Friday from Mr. Cruz.

There's also the question about the lawsuit. If the article put out by the National Enquirer has no basis in fact, it's defamatory and this is a case where great harm can be easily shown. Just the embarrassment of such allegations against such a pillar of moral society would be enough. Or the emotional harm caused to his wife and children. Those criteria have been met. So why is Cruz not threatening a suit against a defamatory publication? Could it be that he knows there is something there - perhaps not five but maybe four or three?

If he were to take this to court, and if there is evidence that he was doing these women on the side, he'd look like an idiot. Could it be that he doesn't want to look like more of an immoral snake-in-the-grass than he does already?

I will say I don't feel sorry for Heidi Cruz. I've done some digging into her background and she is just as unsavory as her husband. Besides, she's probably known he was getting some on the side for a while. After all, for more than a year he was working on his political career in Texas while she was working with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

No - I feel sorry for the kids. No children should ever have to be faced with stuff like this and hearing these horrible things about a man you look up to and respect? It's a terrible thing for them. Just on that score Ted Cruz should hang his head in shame.

Another piece of moral character that is missing from Mr. Cruz's make-up is the apology to Mrs. Trump and her husband about his PAC going after Mrs. Trump with those billboards.

Art is in the eye of the beholder and those billboards could qualify as art - she made a gorgeous model. Since that picture was shot for a British gentleman's magazine - not quite Playboy - I don't think she's terribly embarrassed by it. Except for how that picture has damaged her husband's campaign in Utah - but it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Not with Romney out there stumping for Cruz.

Hmm. I wonder what Romney will think, say or do if these allegations about his new political bestest bud are proven true? Wave it off and give it a pass? Wonder if the moral compass needle in Salt Lake is broken, too.

Art and political bed mates aside, when a political candidate benefits from the actions of a PAC, and that PAC is responsible for doing something reprehensible - like targeting the opposing candidate's wife or children - doesn't that candidate bear a responsibility or obligation to stand up and denounce the PAC? Morally and ethically I think they do. After all, if they're benefiting in some way, they do bear some responsibility for what provides that benefit whether or not they are directly involved in the decision to run with it.

No matter. It's water under the bridge - except for those bobbing beauties still to be identified and named who are caught in the current.

As for the other lying - not related to the babes - it's documented.

PolitiFact has a list readily available.

The little fact that his wife, Heidi, worked for at least five years at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is another.

That association puts a hard and fast exclamation point on the #LyinTed tag. After all, the CFR has quite questionable goals - small, non-intrusive government emphatically not being one of them. You can read all about them and draw your own conclusions, but if Ted's goals are small government and strict adherence to the Constitution, wouldn't he kind of object to his wife being associated with an organization diametrically opposed to Constitutional sovereignty?

In any event, I'm going to sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop from this distasteful (but interesting) millipede. It shouldn't be long...

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Shameful Politicians - Just Like Neon Marshmallow Chicks

Allow me to introduce you to the Peep Senators:

Susan Collins (R-ME), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Mark Kirk (R-IL).

These are selfish critters - ugly and small. Much more concerned about their own political futures in Washington than they are about the future of the United States of America and its Constitution.

These individuals are up for re-election in November. Because of the leftists in their districts pushing for a leftist SCOTUS nominee, they are afraid that they won't get their cushy job again come the election. Instead of standing up for what's right, they are willing to throw America to the left for at least one generation, and probably forever. These three have agreed to give a show - they will meet with Obie-One's SCOTUS nominee - Merrick Garland.

Now I don't know much about this man. I did check out the SCOTUS blog before getting farther into this than the paragraph above. Maybe he would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But the fact that he has been nominated by a socialist-leaning President who has done everything he can think of to undermine and abrogate my Second Amendment right is a gigantic red flashing warning sign.

I do not want a man or the Supreme Court to re-write the Constitution. They are not there to re-write it, or mold it into something other than what it is. They are there to interpret it. Period.

The fact that Garland openly questioned the Court's decision on the Heller decision is telling. He does not like the Second Amendment. He wants to strike it down as far as possible without trying to get it repealed. That would be a losing battle and he knows it. But if he takes a seat on the Court, he will be in a position to do great damage to this right and to any other to which he takes exception.

This article from the Washington Times lays it out in clear terms: 

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, said Judge Garland is the kind of nominee people get “when you make deals in Washington, D.C.”

“Make no mistake: If Garland were confirmed, he would side predictably with President Obama on critical issues such as undermining the Second Amendment, legalizing partial-birth abortion and propping up overreaching bureaucratic agencies like the EPA and the IRS,” Mr. Cruz said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/?page=all

We all know Obie-One is done after the November 8th general election (thank GOD!) so the article isn't referring to the man, it is referring to the man's positions.

Obie-One is an open opponent of the Second Amendment. He has spent eight years taking every opportunity to try to ignite a grassroots uprising against it, and has failed. He has papered the West Wing in an attempt to find the Executive Order that will stick, and has failed. This nomination is his last best hope - and it's a play for which these Peep Senators are falling.

As for Garland, when the Heller ruling came down he was on the Washington District Court. He suggested that it should be reconsidered, even though SCOTUS - the very body he wants to join - had spoken.

In that case, a Washington DC police officer - someone who routinely carried a handgun during his duty hours - asked for permission to purchase and register a gun for his residence. He was denied, so he applied to the Supreme Court under the Second Amendment.

The Court heard the case and determined that Heller had the right, under the Second Amendment, to purchase and keep an operable firearm at home for his self-protection.

Garland didn't like that. Therefore, he questioned the decision. Which is his right, but it does not bode well for Constitutional freedom if he takes a seat on the court.

The fact that these three Senators are showing all the spine of an Easter peep is worrying. And it's shameful.

Obviously they are far more concerned about their political futures than they are about the future freedoms of their constituents. That is despicable. They should be ashamed and they should lose their seats come November. The fact that they will cave to some political directive instead of standing hard and fast on principle speaks to their character. They don't deserve to represent anyone.


Personally, I value the rights given to me as a citizen of the United States via the Constitution. I do not want the Court to take my rights away. If we give up one, another will follow and then another. Eventually the Constitution won't be worth the paper on which it's written - and this country will be just like every other.

Imagine the government gaining more right, more power to examine our lives - how we act or speak or with whom we associate and punishing us for those actions, thoughts or associations.

With the Constitution as written we are protected from government intrusion into our lives.

What if the Court decides that we have too many rights, too much freedom of association? What if the Court decides we don't have the right to speak or write as we want?

With a leftist Court, one that doesn't like this Amendment or that, these things are not outside the realm of possibility.

Already there is a move afoot to shut people up - the First Amendment is under scrutiny and outright assault on our college campuses.

Just this week someone or a group used chalk - plain, ordinary chalk - to write pro-Trump messages on sidewalks, railings and fences at Emory University and other students claimed - because of a few white lines easily blurred or wiped away - that they felt 'threatened'. They whined and cried to the University administration which caved and is threatening to punish the perpetrators of this horrible act. Really? Obviously, the pro-Trump people haven't got the right to express themselves.

This is not an isolated case and it is one that could well end up in front of SCOTUS.

Do you want to lose your right to express yourself? Do you want your right to speak out, even if it's not the popular, taken away? Are you prepared for the thought police to take control of your life - perhaps even throw you in jail because you write a few lines in chalk on a campus sidewalk?

If we have justices on the Supreme Court who do not interpret the Constitution but instead mold it into their world view, this is not impossible. This could well come to be in short order - and it would be impossible to undo.

Our rights, our freedoms are at stake and it is not something to take lightly.

Just something to keep in mind between now and election day. We need someone to nominate a Justice who values the Constitution, who understands their role as interpreter, not crafter. Based on my review of his background, Merrick Garland is not a good choice.

Best~
Philippa

Twitter Wars & TMI

Ted Cruz, as I have said before is, in my opinion, a sleaze. Actually, lying slime ball might be more accurate. Whatever he is, he is not my idea of a 'Christian' since he hasn't a single shred of decency or character.

First there was the voter violation form in Iowa:

This is despicable. Particularly if you consider that some, if not many people who received this probably thought it was legitimate. The Iowa Secretary of State certainly took exception to it, and launched an investigation.

At about the same time, Cruz's campaign put out the news that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race. They knew he hadn't, but that didn't stop this man or his campaign from telling voters and potential voters that he had.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/05/ben-carson-campaign-releases-tape-of-ted-cruz-worker-spreading-rumors/

In Utah, the bastion of Mormanism which has peculiar ideas about sexual right and wrong (polygamy is still not entirely unheard of in this day and age, but showing off your nude body is morally wrong), one of Cruz's many superPacs plastered billboards of Melania Trump's naked body all over the place.

I'm not going to post that here - you can look for it if you want - but please note:

1) She was a professional model doing her job during that photo shoot (and she's gorgeous!); and,
2) That photo was taken before she was Mrs. Donald Trump and long before Mr. Donald Trump decided to run for president.
3) A woman doing her job before she was married to a political candidate should be strictly off-limits, and any decent human being would have left it alone.

But Cruz's campaign through its super PAC didn't pay any attention to that, and Ted Cruz didn't denounce it as he would if he had just one speck of any moral standing at all. Just one speck of decency and he would have both denounced that attack and he would have demanded that the superPAC take those billboards down and issue an apology. At the very least, he would have done the morally right thing and would have publicly apologized to the Trumps for that slimy stunt.

Tellingly, he didn't. Not before, not during and not since. Then, doubling down on duplicity, he's put on a great show of being outraged by Trump's response - the Tweet and re-Tweet of an unflattering picture of Cruz's wife.

Then, on Friday, the National Enquirer came out blaring in lurid headlines that Ted Cruz is a sex machine (five mistresses - what stamina!). Cruz instantly accused Donald Trump of being behind it. He made that accusation without any fact or foundation - and he did it on live national television.

Since then the boil has simmered down and it's come out - spread all over the internet - that the rumor was floated to the mainstream media back in late January and early February by the Rubio campaign.

That's right - Little Marco Rubio was prepared to float that rumor, and was trying to shop it long before it boiled up in the National Enquirer. This is being reported by Salon and the Huffington Post.

So here we have a Ted Cruz who waves his Christianity in the air like a battle flag defaming Donald Trump by blaming Trump of doing something he didn't do.

Sounds an awful lot like bearing false witness to me - and it has not been rescinded. Cruz has not been a man. He has not been honest and clean. He has not stepped forward and apologized to Trump for accusing him of doing something he did not do or to his wife for the slimy tactics of his super PAC - which no doubt altered the political landscape in Utah.

Now, is that the Christian thing to do, to stand by a lie instead of admitting it was a mistake? Is it the decent thing to do not to apologize to someone who should have been left alone during a campaign being dragged into it, as Melania Trump had done to her?

Is it any wonder at all that Donald Trump consistently refers to Ted Cruz as 'Lyin' Ted'? I don't think so. And, further supporting Trump's label, Politifact has the following 'file' on Ted Cruz:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

Just 6% of Ted Cruz's assertions are true. 94% of his assertions range from Mostly True to Pants on Fire so 'Lyin' Ted' fits.

For someone to trash another man's wife - even if doing it at arm's length and with a wink and a nod - and then to accuse that woman's husband of trashing him is despicable.

It deserves retaliation - which Trump has not done. Yes, he put up an unattractive picture of Heidi Cruz next to a lovely picture of Melania, but he hasn't trashed Mrs. Cruz in any substantial way.

Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman disclosed salient information about Mrs. Cruz while being interviewed on MSNBC - but if the statements made are true, I don't see a problem with it.

First, the allegation about Mrs. Cruz working for Goldman Sachs is documented, as is the fact that Ted Cruz 'forgot' to disclose the loan from Goldman on his financial disclosure forms. There's a direct tie to the Wall Street banks that have caused such pain in the US economy during the past decade.

Second, and potentially more important, is the allegation of Heidi Cruz being associated with the Council on Foreign Relations. This is true - she was for five years under a 'term membership' affiliated with this group.

What is this Council? According to some, it is a group that has plans to wipe sovereignty from the global map - no sovereign nations, a one world order with the UN as the government.

During his first run for the Senate Ted Cruz called this organization a 'pernicious nest of vipers'.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/10/a-pit-of-vipers-also-his-wife-040327

Heidi Cruz was an active member of this 'pernicious nest of vipers' for more than five years, so which is it?

According to the article linked above, she served for 'five years'. However, it's documented on the CFR website that she worked on a task force to write a report entitled "Building A North American Community". This was a plan which would irrevocably tie Canada, the United States and Mexico together and was issued in 2005 - six years before the linked article says she left her 'five year' membership.

Here is a link to this report which you can open as a PDF or download.

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Her name is in it as a contributor - and an advocate - and if you read the recommendations starting on page 7, it's pretty clear that the borders between the three countries would be virtually eliminated. There would be no independent and sovereign Canada, no independent and sovereign United States of America, and no independent and sovereign Mexico.

So he lies to us every single time he opens his mouth and says he is 'for' a sovereign United States of America that includes a wall between here and Mexico.

Obviously, his wife worked for more than a few years for an organization that supports no such thing. Obviously they discussed her work there - it's what any married couple does. They talk about work, about what they're doing.

If he truly believes in a sovereign America, why did he not insist that she quit that 'pernicious nest of vipers'? Could it be that he was in silent agreement with their goals?

I don't know, but it sure looks suspicious - which is more reason why I will never, ever vote for Ted Cruz - not even for dog catcher.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Fox News: The New Pravda

In my opinion, Fox News Channel has reached Dante's Fifth Level (Anger) in their descent to Journalistic Hell. For months, they have been diligent in digging toward this tier by ignoring anything that begins to look like  'journalistic objectivity' or 'journalistic integrity'. Instead, 24/7, they shriek how horrible Trump is, how terrible a president he will be. Never mind that they have no way of knowing what kind of president he will be since he's never held public office. Instead, their matra is 'We'll ignore that and don't bother us with the facts, they're unimportant'.

Fox, as a 'news' outlet, has the obligation to be objective - not biased. Trump, on the other hand, has no such obligation. He is just being Trump and he has every right to be Trump. Smart or stupid, good or bad, on point and fact or not - he has just as much right to be who he is as any other individual. Although, given that he is running for the highest office in the land, he does have an obligation to stop being stupid, start being smart, and be presidential in demeanor.

Fox, as a news organization, has a responsibility to remain objective, to report and let viewers decide. If they are going to slant things as they see fit, regardless of the facts, they are no longer a news organization. They are an opinion organization and the 'PRESS' credentials can be flushed. It has gotten so bad that Fox News has openly become the television equivalent to the old Soviet news outlet Pravda. They are nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the #NeverTrump campaign.

Look at who they talk to: Rich Lowry of the National Review which put out an entire edition dedicated to #NeverTrump blathering. George Will - also of the National Review and another card carrying member of the #NeverTrump group. Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and another Washington Insider who Trump scares the pants off. Karl Rove, a worn out political advisor with a white board. He's the one who brought us George Bush II who brought us the economic melt-down that just won't go away.

When Fox does fumigate its hallways and allow one of Trump's supporters in, they are so snotty, so rude and obviously in pain to allow that person to speak, it's palpable in my living room. It's disgusting.

Fox's tagline should be changed to 'Unfair and Biased', which is observable fact, or they should change their name entirely to Pravda-USA.

Twenty-five years or so ago, CNN was the network 'everyone' watched. It was the first 24-hour news outlet. At first we watched because we didn't have a choice. If we wanted to know what was going on in the world, CNN was the only choice but we still, at the time, adopted from others that CNN stood for 'Clinton News Network'. It was all Clinton, all positive, all the time - and it left us feeling cheated. We saw it as nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the Clinton administration. No matter what Billy-Jeff did, CNN would ignore or parse the truth until the truth became unrecognizable.

Then Fox News appeared. It became available on our cable service and as soon as we could, we switched. We were tired of the ridiculous leftist bias and, for the past decade and more, it seemed to be the better choice. They didn't have an obvious bias. They did try to show both sides of the picture and then let the viewer decide.

That, however, has changed and the change is accelerating - sliding into a terminal downward spiral. They'll probably just leap right over Levels Six (Heresy) and Seven (Violence) and settle in at home at Level Eight - Treachery. When I do pause to see what's happening on Fox, there are strong whiffs of sulfur from that Level already.

In the past few years, chinks began to appear at Fox. Little things, like their coverage of breaking news events. We found ourselves glued to CNN because their reporting was broader, more incisive and, overall, better. When disaster struck, Choice No. 1 became CNN. Oh, yeah, we would flip back once in a while, but the majority of our viewing during times of crisis was kept to CNN. We still didn't watch regularly because they still had that heavy leftward tilt.

This election cycle, though, the tilt has gone wildly in the other direction over on Fox. They have such a hate thing going against Trump - almost across the talking-head spectrum - that they have become not just biased, but have made it perfectly clear that they are a major contributor to the #NeverTrump campaign. Perhaps not in dollars, but in free media time, and it's disgraceful.

The list of #NeverTrump campaigners is long: Megyn Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, Brett Baier, David Asman, Karl Rove and many others. Because of their open and flagrant opposition to one political candidate over the other, they have lost any journalistic qualities they might have once had.

Aside from that, they report fluff over substance. Case in point: This morning I turned on the news. It happened that the station was CNN. They were showing a Pentagon debriefing in which a couple of DoD types were talking about the killing of a top leader of ISIS. That is pertinent news - it's top of the stack for most people around the world because what are we all talking about when it comes to world affairs? ISIS. From that, CNN switched to reports about raids and arrests in Belgium. They showed video of one suspect being shot and taken into custody.

Curious, I flipped over to Fox to see what they were reporting and... Laughably, embarrassing to Roger Ailes and his Fox News organization, they were talking about some human interest story somewhere in middle America. Then they started talking about a new iPhone gizmo.

Really? A news outlet that has feeds to major breaking news around the world chooses to show and bloviate about cops shoveling snow (good for them, it's a good deed but not potentially of international import) and a new iPhone doodad. Fox has lost it for me - zero credibility across the board - although I will still watch Fox Business News over CNBC because they, at least have a brain and know where it's kept.

My leaving Fox is primarily because their bias / hatred of Donald Trump is so flagrant. Almost across the board there is absolutely nothing like 'fair and balanced' in their reporting on him. There are exceptions, but they are very few and very far between.

Sean Hannity is one. He does an excellent job of keeping it fair and balanced. My problem with him, though, is that he has a litany of ills that he repeats like the Catechism or a priest's penance after confession. Turning on his show I can count on at least ten minutes every night going through that litany as he ticks them off on his fingers. It's a waste of time after the third iteration and annoying after the fifth.

Lou Dobbs is another. I love that man - he's got a great sense of humor, he's quick and he's smart. When someone says something stupid or questionable, he's not going to give it pass - he'll ask for more or clarification or outright challenge the statement. He's also up to talking in a balanced fashion about the GOP candidates - and I appreciate that.

Neil Cavuto is pure smart / funny. I love him, too (although the constant 'thank you very, very much' gets to be very, very annoying). He's another who keeps it real, who doesn't openly take sides in this match.

Among these three I don't know who is supporting whom in this race - although I have my suspicions - but at least they aren't out trashing one candidate over and over again. If someone does or says something stupid, they report it and move on - they don't belabor it ad nauseum the way Fox Opinion / Pravda-USA does.

So for me, no more. It's open war on Trump, using their FCC license without compunction to sway voters and it's despicable. Fox News has become Pravda-USA - a political propaganda mouthpiece for The Weekly Standard, the National Review, the Washington Establishment and the Donor Class so, since I have a choice, I'll go back to watching CNN.
It is still, disgustingly, the Clinton News Network when the discussion is between the DNC and the RNC or the Dems and GOP, but at least there is some semblance of balance and, when real news is breaking, they're on it.

See ya Roger! Bye Megyn! Hello, Anderson and Don and Dana!

Hope you'll pass the word and then join me.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Paul Ryan - The Fluffy Optimist

I was browsing the 'net today, looking at the headlines, reading the stories I found interesting, and I came across part of a speech given to Washington interns by Paul Ryan. I started reading and... my eyes glazed, refused to focus.

It was classic Ryan - idealistic and barely in touch with reality. Just more of what I've come to expect from him - fluff without a shred of substance that can hold up under pressure without putting people to sleep. What's encouraging is that I'm not the only one who thinks it's a load of crap. So do most other media outlets - Google it: paul ryan speech to interns.

Don't get me wrong - he's a very smart guy. Really smart. But he would make an excellent accountant someplace. He's too detaily and weedy and he's a blathering bore - even when he's trying to sound optimistic.

It's a lot like the Republican Establishment. Blather empty phrases and emptier promises and hope no one notices. They do it among themselves so much they've lost sight of the fact that we're smarter than that. There are only so many lies and fabrications we'll swallow and, for now, we're full up.

The lack of attention being paid to their cries and screams of derision regarding this election cycle - widely ignored by real people - led them to hold their Pinhead Confab last Thursday. The result? Well...

Kasich doesn't stand a chance - even if he gets to the convention. He's desperate and weak and the people will not vote for him in the general. Election to Hilliary.

Cruz is a sleaze, but he's an owned sleaze. He's as much in bed with the lobbyists and the people who run Washington as anyone else. Hell! $40M and counting owned - so he's distasteful but at least they can control him. 'Cross your fingers, boys, maybe he can beat Hilliary.'

Trump is a non-starter for them. He's challenging them at every turn, calling them out, speaking what's on his mind, taking no prisoners. And, despite what all of the chattering class are saying, I think when the general comes around and Trump is the nominee, he will have no trouble with Hilliary. After all, the woman is a walking baggage carousel. Pick a subject, there's a scandal and you can bet that Trump will go after all of them in one way or another.

So the Pinhead Confab concluded that their only possible hope is Cruz. Being desperate to keep the Barbarian from the Citadel, they've decided to make an uneasy truce with Cruz. He's not palatable because he's too rigid and intractable, but at least he's one of them - owned as they are by the Donor Class. So, they hold their noses as they gather 'round their... candidate.

What Ryan and the others don't get is that politics as usual - no matter how they sugarcoat the turd - is not doing it this year. We're not biting.

Trump correctly said on more than one occasion that Cruz has no friends in the Senate - that no one of his Senate colleagues was stepping up to endorse him. And it was true. Otherwise, where was all of the clamor to be first in line? He's been in the race for a full year - since March 23, 2015 when he announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Yet no one got on his bandwagon in all that time?

In what I suspect was a move of uneasy resignation, a toe in the water, Lindsey Graham came forward last week. The lamb to the slaughter no doubt sent by his Donor Class betters.

After all, he had already endorsed Jeb! who failed in spectacular fashion so, with his endorsement sitting on the shelf, he picked Cruz. Somehow, I just don't think his heart is in this. Today, during an interview on MSNBC, he waffled and said that Kasich would make a better president.

What!? He's endorsed Cruz, but... Well there's confidence for you.

And this is a major part of the problem in Washington. Instead of our employees - and they are supposed to be our employees (public servants) since we hire them through the election process and pay their salaries and benefits through taxation (theft worthy of another post all on its own) - standing for what's right, they run for what's expedient. In this case, they see the writing on the wall.

As much as they detest Cruz, they despise Trump more. Which means they will each sell another chunk of their souls and character to rally behind a man they wouldn't go to lunch with a month ago, even if Cruz was buying.





It was during last week's Pinhead Confab that they even tried to refloat the Hindenburg. There was chatter over the weekend suggesting that Paul Ryan could be 'floated' into the convention mix as the alternate candidate. That sugarcoated turd was ignored. The Hindenburg didn't rekindle, it just crashed.

Naturally, because of the deafening silence, Ryan 'declined'. Although I would wager my life that if anyone outside the Beltway had sat up, taken notice and shouted a resounding yeah!, he would now be in the headlines.

As a result, for better or for worse, Cruz is now their guy. But hey! At least a goodly part of his soul and character are owned. He will be taking calls from the K Street lobbyists and doing their bidding. At least that should make the Pinheads happy. It would be no change from what's been - we would still have a sugarcoated turd shoved down our throats if the Pinheads have their way.

So I'm back to watching the polls with fluttering nerves. I really do not want another interchangeable part to take the big chair in the Oval Office. I want a Trump presidency because I think he's going to shake things up, knock a few heads, and get us back on better footing than we've been.

As for you, if you're worried about the intestinal fortitude of your Congressman or woman backing a man who's got a tenuous attachment to truth, might I suggest you send along a few of these:

That would at least free up their hands.

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

I Haven't Changed My Stance

After putting yesterday's post up over on Facebook, I got some blow-back. Not a lot and not too strong because I think the people doing the blowing-back know that as distasteful as my position is, it's the right one. It isn't nice, but it is how I see it and the comments received haven't changed my mind.

Think of it this way. You have invited a family into your home. Your mother, sister, a trusted friend, or someone else in whom you have confidence says, 'take them in, they're good people' or 'take them in, they need a safe place to stay'. So you do. You open your home and let them in and, for a while, all is well.

You get along okay although they have different ways and a different language. Still, it's no more than a little awkward at times. When you bump up against one another there's a nervous chuckle, an awkward smile and you get on with things.

Then, after a while, one or two of them start fussing. They want more space in the refrigerator, or a different kind of food, more or different selection. They don't like the television shows you do, so they start to insist on having the right to pick what shows you all watch. Then they want a different bathroom schedule. They start pushing back against basic courtesy and fight against living by your rules. They aren't assimilating to your standard.

Still, while you're less than thrilled with how things are going, you made a promise. You said that they could stay so you shrink back and bite your tongue, watching as they take more and more territory. The others reassure you, 'it's okay. It's just his/her way. S/he doesn't mean anything by it.' But the territory is gone, handed over, and until they leave there is no going back. It's the new normal.

This is what has happened in the EU and, to a lesser extent, in America with the people we have accepted from the Middle East.

They came and most, the vast majority slid into place without a ripple - and that's great. Welcome to my home.

Some, however, got to fussing, to pushing back and demanding that they wanted things done differently.

In Britain, instead of assimilating to the standard and trying to fit into their new home, some Muslims started fussing. They wanted more control, a separate system within the system so they could be 'free' and kept apart from the rest of the population.

As a result of that non-assimilation, eighty-five Shari'a courts have been set up and instituted to settle disputes within the Muslim community. They don't (yet) have more power than the British courts, but how long will it be before that's not good enough either? How long will it be before the Muslim Imams and leaders demand still more control over their communities?

It's called creeping incrementalism.

First it's a baby step. Nothing big, nothing overt or threatening. Just a teeny-tiny accommodation to keep folks happy. It settles into place, becomes the norm and people adjust and accept it. Then, months or years later another step is taken. That first quarter-inch becomes half-an-inch. It happens again sometime later and then it's an inch, then a foot and finally a mile.

Eventually, what was unthinkable becomes not only thinkable but actuality - and going back is no longer an option.

That is what is happening in Europe right now. That is why this situation is so dangerous.

After yesterday's post I was corrected - there have been protests against ISIS in the streets of Europe but, according to those who corrected me, they're not being covered by the media.

Why not? Well, golly! Let me guess. It's because it would be seen as one of two things: 1) it would be racial profiling and that is not politically correct; or, 2) it would foment reaction from the other citizens which might lead to violence. Either way the result is the same. Media silence is giving a pass to the violent factions and that is encouraging the violent factions to keep doing what they are doing - like bombing airports and subways and killing dozens of innocent people.

By hiding it, by not showing the disgust of the good people for the behavior of the bad, it's opening a door to more of the bad.

What would be far more effective is if those protests against the wicked were carried live on national television. What if those marches and protests were shown to all and sundry? What if it was made clear that the radicalized are pariah and not accepted by the larger community? What if people known to be in sympathy with Daesh or ISIS or IS or whoever it is today are shown to be shunned by their communities? Could that possibly have an effect?

I think so. People are herd creatures. We don't do well in isolation. If parents shun their radicalized children and it's seen by others, that would be a step. If family members of all stripes shun their radicalized parents or siblings or other family members, that would also be a step. If neighbors and colleagues and others in the community do the same, that's another step.

If not-yet radicalized people see that the behavior is unacceptable, if they recognize that there are serious negative consequences within their social network to that life-style, that might deter at least some of them from following that path. Isolation can be a powerful tool - but it must be total or it won't work.

It's also not something that's going to turn the tide in a day or a week or a month. It will take time and persistence, but it can be done and if we start now, all of us who might be able to encourage or support or engage, we could save untold numbers of lives in the future.

Most importantly, though, people within the Muslim community have got to speak up. If they know of something being planned, or something suspicious is going on, they have got to speak up and tell someone who can do something about it. Otherwise they are just as guilty as the perpetrators of the act - accessories before the fact - and they deserve to be vilified and treated just as the guilty.

The people within the community have also got to stand up directly to the Imams and religious leaders - to make it crystal clear that their children are not available to be taught to hate. Madrassas are fertile training grounds used to indoctrinate the next generation to hate. Hate the Jew. Hate the Christian. Hate the secularist. Hate the Shi'a and hate anyone who doesn't think, look, act or worship as you do. That has got to change. Faster than the rest, the drip-drip of hate mongering has got to stop.

If the Madrassas came under the control of good people, loving parents who worship as the Koran allegedly intends based on what we're all being told - that it's the Religion of Peace - that would save a generation.

Parents throughout the society have also got to make it clear that their children are not there to be used as cannon fodder. And that statement is not hysterical hyperbole. It is a well documented fact that families are handing their children over to ISIS to become 'soldiers'. It is a sick and disgusting trend that makes the battlefield that much worse. How does one fight against child soldiers, after all?

If the good upright people in these groups are not willing to take a hard and fast stand, to make it known with no doubt whatsoever that the behavior will not be tolerated to any degree, the battle will be lost before it's begun. Only Muslims can make the fundamental change within the Muslim community that is required for it to be effective.

If they are not willing, if they will not take charge and take back the hearts, minds and souls of their children and brothers and sisters, then my position stands as it did yesterday. Round them all up - the good, the bad and the ugly - and send all of them back to where they came from so they can fight and kill and live or die by the rules they are willing to tolerate.

The alternative is that Western culture disappears under a burqa. Women who now live free and independent become less than sheep and goats on the social scale. All of us will lose our rights and our liberty.

Take your pick because it is glaringly apparent there is no middle road in this fight.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Brussels In Mourning

This morning I woke up and joined most of the rest of the world in watching the terrible news out of Belgium. This event and what led up to it infuriates me so I'm going to say what I think - no holds barred. Therefore, fair warning:

Do not read on if you're 'squishy' or 'squeamish' because I am going to say what's on my mind, and what's on my mind may scare the children.

First off, I do not advocate hurting people for any reason. I don't even like watching people 'fighting' for entertainment so my television does not project images of boxing or cage fighting or even wrestling - it's disgusting to me.

However, if you are in a situation of low-level war, which we are as proved by Paris and San Bernardino and Brussels this morning, and if you have to get information from someone who is under suspicion of planning or participating in a terrorist act, there are plenty of options available that don't cause long-term harm.

There's water boarding, to which we subject our own special forces people as part of their training. It's terror inducing but if done correctly causes no long-term harm. There's sleep deprivation which is useful if you have the time to get it to work, and drugs that are effective if time matters. Any of these options can be used to gather information that might solve or help prevent a tragedy like this morning's. Using those methods, or instilling the fear of their use in someone who's planning to do harm to others just going about their business is perfectly all right with me. If you don't want to be water boarded, don't be stupid. Don't get involved with stuff that's bad. Easy-peasy.

With that said, the massacre in Paris happened just four months ago. Since then the Belgian authorities and anyone else with half-a-brain have known that there are still nests of vipers inside the EU. Within a few days after those attacks, Europol had tracked the vermin back to Brussels but no farther, so it was pretty clear that they had holed up there.

Since there is a large Muslim community in the Molenbeek neighborhood of Brussels, which is where Salah Abdeslam of those Paris attacks was found last week, and since no one within that community has cooperated with authorities by talking, that's a rather telling sign.

I say that 'no one has cooperated' because if someone had it would not have taken four months for authorities to find the little weasel living in the midst of that neighborhood. If someone had cooperated, they would have found this guy within days after the Bataclan massacre. If people in that neighborhood are cooperative, they would have given intel to authorities last week or even yesterday that might have prevented this morning's attacks.

Obviously, that Muslim community is not cooperating. Obviously they have some agenda that does not mesh with Western ideas or culture. Obviously they, and yes, I do mean all of them because there is no evidence to the contrary, do not condemn the act of murder. They might not condone it, but neither have they condemned it or someone would have spoken up and told authorities where they could find these people.

If just one person who knew something had spoken up early last November, Paris wouldn't have happened.

If just one person who knew something was being planned had spoken up even yesterday, today's attacks could have been stopped.

So, no. I don't believe that the citizens of Molenbeek care about the non-Muslim population of Europe.

At this point, given that attitude of not caring and not cooperating with the authorities who are trying to keep everyone safe, a heavy line has been drawn.

To the Muslims in Molenbeek, and probably elsewhere throughout Europe and America, the attitude is that 'We live within your borders but we are not bound by your laws or rules of society'.

For confirmation of that attitude, look at the Shar'ia courts that have sprung up around the EU. That then falls straight into 'We will do as we please and the hell with everyone not of our faith. You are a non-believer and worth less than the dirt under my feet'.

That's obviously the attitude. If it isn't, why did no one come forward with information about these vermin either before or after Paris or during the planning of today's attack? Does anyone really believe that no one in that neighborhood heard or saw anything?

No doubt what I'll say next will brand me as some sort of 'phobe' or hater, but after the past months of silence from the citizens living in Molenbeek followed by this morning's decimation of innocent people doing nothing more than going about their business, I don't care.

Given the clear attitude of 'you v. us', Christian or Jew or secularist v. Muslim in this case, I think Belgium and other countries would be absolutely within their rights to round all of those people up. Gather all of them together - no harm, no punishment except expulsion. Purge them from Europe by shipping them back to wherever they or their antecedents came from - regardless of where they were born because it is as plain as day where their loyalties fall and it is clearly not with their native or adopted country.

Despite the stonewalling by the Muslim community in Brussels, authorities finally caught the little vermin Salah Abdeslam last Friday, and have been questioning him since his arrest. Given that he is a known chicken and has been spilling his guts, how did they not get information about this attack before it took place?

He's proved that he's a coward. He was positioned to martyr himself, but he chose to run instead of to blow himself up.

I just have to shake my head because, obviously, the Belgian / Europol investigative and interrogation methods are less than effective. There is no stomach for taking hard measures to prevent his from happening again. So it will. Maybe not tomorrow or next week, but it is only a matter of time because we're too soft.

And the Muslim community is not helping. They are not proving, by providing hard information that could prevent these things, that they care.

Lip service is useless and we're not even getting that from the majority of Muslims. It's not on the news and I'm constantly looking at the headlines because it's what I do.

It's not being proclaimed far and wide across the airwaves in public service ads.

It's not preventing anything, so don't lecture me about how wrong I am. Actions speak louder than words and silence is louder still and right now, the silence from the Muslim community at large is deafening.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories