A 'New Day in America'?

Who woulda thunk? For nearly two weeks the talking heads across the networks have been predicting a Cruz victory in South Carolina because of his standing in the Tea Party and his strong Christian background. They swore the Evangelicals would all go for him. His daddy is a pastor who has been standing in front of congregation after congregation, preaching the Word and pumping for his son.

When Trump called Bush II a liar during the GOP debate and got into an exchange of words with the Pope, all the talking heads predicted a Trump implosion.

In the end, none of that mattered. In fact, it didn’t matter in a big way.

Yesterday, Trump swept all but two of the forty-six counties in the entire state, garnering all of the delegates.

Cruz got zero delegates, lost all counties across the board, and came in third behind Rubio who lost to Trump by ten full percentage points.

The most shocking event of the moment was that Jeb! announced the suspension of his campaign. Three states in and he’s quit. Yet he was the one who, just a few months ago, all of the pundits said would be the front runner and ultimate nominee. He was made out to be the Republican's darling boy and now he's out.

So what is going on in American politics? Why is this bombastic loud mouthed boor walking away with everything? Well, because…

I’ll stop there. I can’t and I won’t attempt to speak for anyone else. I can only speak for myself but I do have specific reasons for hoping Trump wins.

First, I am sick of and disgusted by the buying and selling of favor in Washington. While candidates run for office they swear up and down that they’re going to do this, that and the other – all the things they know the folks back home want to hear. They repeat the lies so often I think they start to believe them. Then they get elected. They get to Washington and start learning the ropes. Sooner or later, the phone rings. It’s Warren (Buffet) or George (Soros) or David (Koch) or Bill (Gates) or Larry (Ellison) or one of the many lawyer lobbyists. “Hey, you know that bill you’re working on? We’d really appreciate it if you’d…”  And there goes that campaign promise. It doesn’t matter one jot what’s best for the country or the folks back home. Money talks and at that level it screams and the politicians listen. They have to if they hope to get re-elected when their term ends.

Second, I live in California and I am sick and tired of feeling, as an American, that I live in Norte Mexico. Mexico ceded California to the United States in 1848 - 160 years ago. Since 1850 it has been one of America’s fifty states yet it feels like we live in Mexico. We have ads on television in Spanish. We have billboards selling beer and McDonald's hamburgers in Spanish. There are announcements in stores in Spanish. Walking down the street there are signs for 'carcinerias' and 'tiendas'. I hear conversations in Spanish – and I wonder 'where the hell am I'?

I wonder if all of these Spanish speaking people are:

a) here legally;

b) if they are here legally, why aren’t they making more of an effort to assimilate; and,

c) if they’re not here legally, why are we accommodating them by offering ads and announcements and all the rest of it in Spanish?

If I were to emigrate to a non-English speaking country, I would not expect that country to make accommodation for me. I would understand and accept that if I want to be a part of that society, it’s on me to learn the language and customs. It is not on the new country to make me feel “welcome”. That is bullshit and it annoys the hell out of me.

Third, I lost my healthcare when I was laid off in 2012. Before that, I had a great employer-paid plan but, because of the fucking around with the economy by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich when they repealed Glass-Steagall which then allowed the banks to become real estate brokers, and by George Bush and Hank Paulson when the housing bubble burst and the economy imploded, I lost my job. I could no longer afford insurance.

Then Obamacare came in. I researched my options but I couldn’t afford the premiums under that, either. It would take too big a chunk out of my earnings - twenty percent of my after-tax income. That would mean that I would have to stop eating or move out of my house into my car or a box under a freeway overpass. So, I’m a criminal. I don’t have insurance even though, legally, I’m supposed to have insurance.

So on just these three points I am a HUGE Trump supporter.

First, I believe that Trump means what he says. He rarely thinks before he speaks and he often suffers from foot in mouth syndrome, but I do think his heart is in the right place. I believe that he genuinely does want to make America great again and will by rebuilding the economy and by creating an environment where businesses can thrive. If he can get Congress into a room and negotiate the repatriation of those trillions of dollars off-shore, that will be a good indicator that we're heading in the right direction.

Because he has not taken anything in campaign donations, he is not going to be the recipient of a loaded phone call. Yes, he will get the calls, but he will be under zero obligation to do what the caller wants him to do. They will have no hold over him, and I like that idea. A lot.

Second, I also believe that he will build the wall, and that he will get Mexico to pay for it. Not directly, obviously, but certainly through various round-about means. Nothing illegal or underhand, but if he implements trade tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, that’s one way. If he prevents at least some of the money earned by illegals here from being sent to Mexico, that’s another way. There are other means, too.

Third, we have got to get Obamacare repealed. We absolutely have got to eliminate the restrictions on cross-state line purchases of health insurance. As things stand now we have fifty different insurance monopolies. That is fact, absolute fact because, as a resident of California I cannot purchase insurance from a company in Louisiana or Maine or Montana or anywhere else even if some provider in one of those states offers a plan I can afford with the services I want. Instead, I am stuck with whatever the insurance companies licensed in the State of California say I can have.

This means there is zero competition. It means that these insurance companies can collude and set whatever rates they see fit. They can offer only those services they feel like offering. And, they can keep the rates too high for many of the working not-quite-poor who don’t qualify for government subsidies. People like me who don't make enough to comfortably afford the premiums and deductibles but make too much to qualify for subsidies - which I wouldn't want, anyway.

Along with that, we have got to have meaningful tort reform. Doctors should not be seeing each patient as a potential lawsuit. That’s why doctors order slews of tests that end up pushing the cost of a visit to the doctor’s office into the exosphere. Around here going to the doctor costs a minimum of $180 for a ten minute or less office visit. That’s the equivalent of a billing rate of more than $1,000 per hour. Who can afford that? And the reason it’s so expensive is because the malpractice insurance premiums are wildly expensive.

If doctors didn’t fear being sued because some patient develops a hangnail two days after an office visit, the costs would start to come down. If doctors didn’t have to pay their insurers through the nose to protect them against frivolous lawsuits because an outcome wasn’t what a patient liked or expected, they could lower their charges to something affordable. They could go back to being doctors again.

We need to replace Obamacare with something new and much better. We need real portability – which Obie-One promised but which doesn’t exist. Right now if you live in Michigan and have an insurance plan you really like, but your company transfers you to South Carolina or Florida or Texas or anywhere else, you cannot take your insurance with you. You have to sign-up for whatever insurance providers are licensed in that state and pay those premiums.

Beyond these things, we have got to get the tax code fixed and made more equitable. Right now about forty percent of working age people pay zero tax. They live here. They use the roads, the schools, all of the public services, but pay nothing for them. How is that right or fair? I don’t think it is and that is why I would like to see a point-of-sale flat tax.

Everyone buys stuff so why not have everyone pay their income tax at the point of sale? If everyone paid a fifteen percent flat tax on every single thing they buy, two percent could go to the local jurisdiction, five percent could go to the state, six percent would go do the feds for government spending, and two percent would go directly to Social Security and Medicaid.

The best part of this system is that all of the illegals that are here would also contribute to paying for the roads and schools and hospitals and all the rest of it. That would be another huge boost.

This would just about eliminate the IRS because there would be no tax returns, no tax filings except for death taxes and some of the other off the beaten path stuff. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be saved just in that.

It would improve cash flow because it would be steady stream – every day there would be tax collected and disbursed to the various jurisdictions. With three-hundred million people chipping in fifteen cents of every single dollar they spend on food, on gas, on clothes and goods and services, that would be one heck of a lot of money and would go a long way toward solving the insolvency problem with the huge entitlement programs we all know are about to fail. Everyone chips in; everyone carries their share of the load.

Poor people who use state issued EBT cards for either food stamp programs or unemployment benefits would not be charged. Naturally, rigorous screening and steps would have to be defined and instituted to prevent fraud, but that would shelter those people from taxation. The rest of us would pay tax on everything we buy. Since I pay for basic stuff – nothing like the things wealthier people buy, I would be taxed on what I buy. People who buy luxury items would be taxed at the same rate on the high ticket stuff they buy. It would be fair because everyone would pay based on their buying habits.

As for how do we prevent fraud? It’s as simple as day.

Each state takes responsibility for issuing Social Security cards. These cards are linked to a national database for Social Security payout purposes, but are issued, managed and tracked at the state level. California is the most populous state with approximately thirty-nine million people. Tracking and managing thirty-nine of anything is far easier than tracking and managing three-hundred fifty of the same thing.

The state boards of equalization already get all employment data – payroll information and can identify who is working and who is receiving benefits of some sort. When someone files an application for unemployment benefits, it goes into the state database, just as it does now. It shows the individual isn’t working and qualifies for benefits. They are issued a benefit card – and it’s set so that no tax is taken from their benefits.

Each state is responsible for managing its system, each is accountable to the federal government, and each is responsible for investigating cases of fraud and abuse – instead of sending that responsibility and power to Washington. Because the states are each responsible, they have a vested interest in making sure that fraud is found and quashed post haste.

Aside from these things, I hope Trump already has staff working on assessing governmental departments and agencies – how many times do we have to pay tax to support multiple departments offering the same services? Why not eliminate duplicative functions, jobs, and services – streamline government and make it more efficient and cost effective?

If we did that – if we reduced the size of government from what it is now to one-half or one-third of its current size and cost by eliminating duplicative services – we would save enormous amounts of money. Salaries, benefits, office space, consumables like copy paper, toner, pens, everything anyone uses in the course of business would be eliminated, saving millions upon millions of dollars every year.

There is so much room for improvement and all it takes is one man with vision and determination and the ability to negotiate and work with people from all parts of the spectrum. I think Donald Trump might just be that man. He is certainly more qualified to do these things than party hacks and socialists who want to perpetuate the current system.

I'm looking forward to the coming weeks - to Super Tuesday on March 1st and the subsequent primaries.

I am looking forward to a Trump run against the perpetual liar.

I do not see a path to the White House for Sanders, but Trump would have no trouble with him either.

Still, though, all of the pundits are out there again, lining up and saying that Trump won't carry the country, but we'll see. They've been wrong before and I think they will be wrong again. As Trump's underlying messages get out, I think they will resonate and I think he will gain more support and reach 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January.

Sit up and pay attention - and have a wonderful week.

Best~

Philippa

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

Geez, Talk About Coincidence

Yesterday's post was all about 'what's coming next', relating in broad terms my views RE: the world, politics and economics. Then, mere hours later, the news broke that Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court had died. This is a watershed moment in American politics.

Obie-One is in the last year of his presidency, a lamer duck than ever. Nothing he wants to institute as policy or anything else is going to go much of anywhere for the next eleven months. Particularly given the fact that the right controls both Houses of Congress.

All Representatives in the House and thirty-four seats in the Senate will be up for re-election come November, so there is the potential for a major power shift inside the Beltway. When you couple those things with the revolution taking place among the American electorate, this is turning into a perfect storm of an election year.

Mitch McConnell, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will be responsible for examining and confirming the next Justice, has already said, 'No'. Which is as it should be because whoever is appointed is going to have long-term impacts on the Court and on life here in the United States.

Obie-One will, as he has in the past, put ideology far ahead of Constitutional purism. He will look for a jurist who will be comfortable with, or even be champing at the bit to, legislate from the bench. The problem with that is that once the Supreme Court speaks, there is no court of last resort. The idea of passing a Constitutional Amendment to undo what the Court hands down is just about unheard of. Thirty-eight states have to pass the Amendment and that virtually never happens. Therefore, the Justices who sit on the Court could, if they put ideology ahead of Constitutionalism, be the nation's dictators, consigning the American people to whatever whim they choose to pass into law.

Given that, and with Scalia's passing, the next ten months take on even greater import. Who will be the next President? Who will be responsible for nominating and confirming the next Supreme Court Justice? Will the president be the outsider - Trump? (I leave Carson out because he just ain't going to go the distance - two states under their belts, numbers three and four looming, and he's already flagging.) Will it be the Tea Party candidate, Ted Cruz (who didn't even gain the support of the Tea Party's darling, Sarah Palin)? Or will it be a Washington insider - Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush or Kasich?

On the right, the 'Establishment' candidates cannot gain traction. Look at Jeb! and Kasich. Their poll numbers suck wind and they're showing little signs of improving. After last night's debate, even with all the vituperation and shouting, Trump is still leading in South Carolina with 42% of the Republicans saying they'll be voting for him. Bush, the Establishment Right's darling, is at just six percent, along with Carson. Kasich has nine percent and Cruz and Rubio are in the teens. This, after Trump ignored all warnings and went right after the supposed sacred cow of the Bush family.

On the left, Hilliary's nomination to the head of the Democrat ticket is a certainty unless the FBI steps forward with a better than rock solid case against her. Still, the DOJ will decline to indict and that will set off a massive firestorm if the brainiacs who watch this stuff more closely than I are right.

Of course, as Real Clear Politics posits in the following article, her current deep and persistent brown-nosing of Obie-One is nothing more than a desperate ploy:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/13/hillary_clintons_frantic_embrace_of_obama.html

Reading this article stuck a deep chord - created an Ah Ha! moment. It was like a puzzle with a number of unset pieces - something smelled but I couldn't fit the pieces together. Now that I've seen this, it makes perfect sense.

Six months ago, even four months ago, Hilliary was desperate to distance herself from Obie-One. She was defining herself and her candidacy as being different from his. Then came the flare-up with the e-mails and the Foundation, and she's suddenly in Obie-One's hip pocket, breathing deeply. Since December she has begun running as Obie-One's 'third term' apparently hoping that this will offer some protection from Obie's DOJ.

No matter since it looks like the FBI has put the e-mail issue on the back burner and are now going after her through the questionable antics of the Clinton Foundation. Did she trade political favors for donations to the Foundation? Hmmm. Looks like it because the FBI has issued a subpoena to the Foundation. I just hope they find something they can make stick, despite the politics of it, and do it around the end of April when it's too late for anyone but Bernie to make a real run for it.

If it gets down to Trump or Cruz on the right and Berns on the left, it should be a good year for the right. Unless, of course, the American voter gets stupid again and elects a bunch of Democrats into Congress 'to balance the White House'. All that will do is ensure two more years of gridlock which everyone says they don't want.

Still, unless there is an indictment of Hilliary, Hilliary will be the left's only choice for president. Why? Because of the unconstitutional 'Super Delegates'. These are the party hacks, the Democrat sycophants with more money than brains who have sucked at the Kool-Aid teat for so long whatever brains they had have melted. They are puppets of the Democrat party and will do as the party dictates. In this case, the party dictates that they must be for Hilliary. Therefore, these people are already solidly in Hilliary's corner, bought and paid for, committed. That's another CF that's going to get more interesting when and if a recommendation for indictment is sent to the DOJ. Don't believe me? Well... Here's a headline from Salon:

Saturday, Feb 13, 2016 12:30 PM PST

Un-Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

Critics say the unelected superdelegate system is rigged. Debbie Wasserman Schultz basically admitted this is true

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/


Aside from all of that, what must be sending shivers up the spines of everyone currently serving in Congress is that the American people are sending a strong message that same-old, same-old doesn't play any more. If the majority of people are supporting Sanders and Trump, shunning Hilliary and the Establishment candidates on the right, what does that mean for the upcoming election?

Add into the mix the fact that the Senate - thirty-four of whom are up for re-election come November - will have to confirm, or not confirm, the next Supreme Court Justice. Obie-One has already said, despite McConnell's drawn line, that he is going to nominate someone. In that case, what's a Senator to do? It's like juggling nitroglycerin.

There is not enough time - just two weeks - for Obie-One to nominate a new candidate and get them in front of the Senate for confirmation hearings before the Super Tuesday caucuses and elections. Even if he tries to fast-track it, the Senate has the power and capability to drag its heels.

Iowa and New Hampshire might well have been the canaries in the coal mine for politics as usual inside the Washington Beltway. The American electorate has begun to speak in loud tones, as shown by giving a Tea Party candidate, a businessman / celebrity and a 74-year old Independent Senator from Vermont those two states in resounding fashion. Then there was last night's debate where the fireworks got really nasty between Trump and Bush and Cruz and Rubio.

March 1st, Super Tuesday, is going to be even more telling. If things go as they have gone in the past two states, and South Carolina, Nevada and the fifteen states on March 1st break the same way - for Trump/Cruz and Berns - that will present the Senate with a huge dilemma.

Yes, Hilliary "won" Iowa - but, literally, only by the flip of a coin. She got well and truly trounced in New Hampshire. If Trump and Berns come out of South Carolina and Nevada with a lead, and if they each do well on Super Tuesday, that will pretty much cast the political future in concrete. 'Establishment' will not fly in the coming Congressional election and those people who like their comfy seats and cushy jobs in the Senate are going to have to think long and hard about who they confirm to the Court.

It's not looking good for Hilliary in South Carolina - a must win state for her. Berns is making good inroads into her presumed security there. For weeks the press has been talking about South Carolina being a 'firewall' for her candidacy - but if you read some recent articles about what's going on there, it doesn't look quite so certain. He's closing the gap in published polls, and he's gotten some key endorsements (although the talking heads are declaring endorsements don't matter any more). He's got a strong ground game and it looks like he might just give her a run for her money.

All I can say, again, is that this seems to be a perfect storm in the political realm. A pending nomination to the Supreme Court, an extraordinary field of presidential candidates from which the American people will pick and choose over the coming months, and a Congressional election that will determine the course of this country for the next two years, at least. Watch closely - it's gonna be a rocky ride!

Best~
Philippa

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

One down...

Iowa is sleeping better this morning. The Circus has left town and people are waking up to emptier streets and coffee shops, less sound and fury. The only milling herds they'll be dealing with are cows and sheep.

Today, it's New Hampshire being invaded and another round of who will and who won't and why.

Cruz won Iowa last night. According to some, that isn't surprising. According to others (the BBC, for one), it was a 'blow' to Trump. What the 'blowers' don't get is that Iowa is vastly different from the coastal states - New York and New England, the Eastern Seaboard and the Left Coast.

I think Cruz appealed to the locals with his attire (farm modern v. Armani), his demeanor - calm and sincere - and with his pastor father who spoke in a number of churches. With blue jeans, a 'cowboy' shirt and a pair of Tony Lama kicks, Cruz fit in more more easily than Trump. When Cruz visited farms, he probably wasn't mincing through the dirt, afraid of getting his city shoes muddy or dusty.

Even at the Iowa State Fair last summer, the difference is obvious. Ted fits right in, one of the regular guys. Donald appears as a celebrity, body guard, hordes of fans and all. As much as anything else, I think it's this optic that played out over the weeks and paid off for Cruz last night.

(c) Getty Images

Aside from the optical differences, one of the points hammered on for the past several days is the 'ground game' each of the candidates had in play. These are the staffers and volunteers who spend countless hours on the phone, behind the wheel and knocking on doors. The media kept talking about how well organized Cruz was in that respect, and laughed at the secrecy cloaking Trump's.

In all, I think Iowans, on a personal level, felt more comfortable with Cruz and that is why Cruz won.

To say that a 'blow' was dealt to Trump is a stretch. Even Trump was saying (although only he, Melania and his inner circle know what he was saying privately) that he didn't believe he would win. And, when he didn't, he gave in graciously. Surprisingly graciously (I was sitting on the sofa, palms together and praying he would be gracious, delighted when he was), and I think that won him at least some points across the board.

He didn't come out snarky and insulting. He congratulated Cruz and Rubio, wished the others well, and said he was heading to New Hampshire. Along with everyone else.

It was a good evening all around and I think, that in the sense that Trump had a surprise at the end in the tone and tenor of his capitulation speech, he probably actually did better than Cruz in a way. That pleasant speech might well make people sit up and pay a bit closer attention because 'maybe he isn't the jerk we thought, Mildred.' He revealed another facet to his character, and it's a good one. So, we'll see because there's a long way to go

On the Democrat side, that was a squeaker and I can't help but wonder what the real vote was. Unlike the Repbulicans, the Dems count delegates, not votes, and they don't release the 'real' numbers, the raw count, to the public. Which means box stuffing is entirely possible, do-able, and probable in some precincts.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of there in a few weeks. Even though it won't really matter by then. At some point, Iowa will take the Democrat results, tally them and announce the 'real' winner. By then, though, it's too late. New Hampshire will be in the bag, South Carolina and Nevada will be underway, and no one will be paying attention to Iowa anymore (sorry, Iowa, but it's the fact).

In the meantime, both candidates are going to claim they won, even though they split the vote almost straight down the middle - separating the two of them at the end of the evening was just two-tenths of one percent which is about as tight as it gets.

Now, if Sanders goes to the Iowa Secretary of State and asks that the raw data be released, that'll be interesting. The Iowa Sec State is a Republican. If, looking at the data, there appears to be anything untoward, she might go up the food chain to ask about it. If it's glaring that the box was stuffed in Hilliary's favor (the DNC might not have believed how tight a race Berns would make it), they might just release that data. Give it three weeks or so. If they do, it'll make for interesting reading. If they don't, well... it'll go down in the books as a really close race.

What's going to get interesting now is this whole e-mail mess with Hilliary.

If Berns did better in Iowa than the DNC and Washington might have projected or expected, if he took the party by surprise, they might be getting nervous. Berns's numbers up in New Hampshire are strong. He's known to the folks there, and he's liked by the folks there. It's almost certain that he's going to win New Hampshire, and probably by a lot.

If he blows Hilliary out of the water up there, and if he can get his ground game going in South Carolina, where it's currently lagging, badly, and Nevada, and make it look like he's going to give Hilliary a run for her and the DNC's money, the Dems might decide to cut their losses. There is, after all, that little matter of the e-mails and the server, etc.

One thing that Bernie hasn't done to date is tackle Hilliary head-on over that. If he had challenged her on it leading up to last night, he very well could have had a clear win in Iowa. If he decides not to make that same mistake going forward, if he raises the question in people's minds that she can't be trusted with even middling decisions, he could start to walk away with this

Cue the legal paper chase through the halls of Justice, an indictment, a stepping down and a tossing in of Biden.

Even if Obie-One and the Democrat machine deny the indictment and negotiate the charges down to a misdemeanor, I think it's a sixty-forty proposition or better that Comey and the FBI will be furious with the manipulation. If they're mad enough, if they have a strong enough case to get a conviction and the Democrats wave their hands to make it go away, there might be some embarrassing leaks from Foggy Bottom as we get closer to the election.

No matter, the DNC is getting backed into a corner with Hilliary and the mess she's created, and Berns's surprising strength in this process. They can't wait too long because if they get much past Super Tuesday - March 1st, which is the day on which fifteen states either vote or caucus - they're going to have a real uphill battle to sell Biden as a replacement for Hilliary.

Keep watching - we're just getting started!

Best~
Philippa

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

Now, It's Getting Interesting

Caucus day in Iowa and the first of many elections in this cycle is gearing up for tonight's get togethers across the state. Who's it going to be?

Will the left-leaning people of Iowa throw their lot in with a dedicated liar, or will they go with a Socialist who wants to raise taxes across the board to pay for freebies?

Will the right-leaning go with Trump or Cruz or Rubio or someone else entirely? Who is going to get the support of the Bible belt folks, those Evangelical Christians who make up a goodly proportion of Iowa's citizens?

Poor Iowa. It's a little state pretty much in the middle of the middle. It's a quiet place most of the time. Except for now. Now every single news organization that can find an airport has people on the ground. It's great for the local economy. All the hotels are packed, the restaurants are full. People who don't live there are talking about hash browns and 'hot pot' and admiring the stoicism of the locals while the outsiders shiver in their expensive coats and the regular folks stand around in shirt sleeves or a light sweater. And tomorrow, after the hoorah and excitement, the place will empty and the regular folks can go back to being regular folks. Most of whom (the majority, most likely) will heave a sigh of relief to have the party over and their place back to themselves.

The process in Iowa is interesting, too. Two different processes across the two different parties.

The Dems get together in meeting halls and school gymnasiums and other places and they talk the subject to death. Neighbor-a-neighbor, mano-a-mano, and try to convince others to 'vote' for their candidate of choice. At the end of the day that process can be manipulated because if someone in the Hilliary camp decides to defect but doesn't want to go with Berns, they can walk across the room and stand around with the three percent supporting O'Malley.

Now that's not right, because it skews the O'Malley three percent. Perhaps it bumps his numbers up to five or six percent. Of course, that extra couple of percentage points doesn't matter in the end because a candidate has to have fifteen percent of the 'vote' in order to be considered 'viable'. Then, once the votes are tallied, those low percentage folks have a choice: leave or go with one of the other candidates.

On the other side, the Republicans show up and gather 'round, probably with cake and cookies and coffee and tea and whatever. Representatives for each of the candidates will stand up and speechify - why everyone should vote for their candidate. Then they talk about it for a while and then they write their preferred candidate's name on a slip of paper and, I guess, drop it into a box. Toward the end of the evening, or after the caucus closes, the votes are counted and the winner is announced.

It sounds like an interesting place to be on caucus day, just as an observer to see how the sausage is made.

Then, eight days from now, New Hampshire voters will have their say. That is the more traditional method of going into a voting booth, all by yourself, and marking a ballot or pushing a button or pulling a lever. Of course the press will be there, too, following the candidates all over the place and disrupting the normal lives of the folks. Once that to do is over and the candidates get a sense of whether they're 'viable' after all, the field of candidates will start to thin but the press hounds will just converge more tightly around their assigned candidate.

Candidates will drop out, backing another candidate or not, depending on a variety of factors. Some will just walk away and go back home to start paying back the debt they've incurred. One or two, if they truly believe in the positions of their candidate of choice, might be encouraged to actively stump for their chosen one, or they'll at least make one or two appearances, probably for appearance sake. 'Yes, I really believe in so-and-so, they'll make a fine president.' Leaving on the table the future quid pro quo, of course.

It's going to be really interesting to see who stays and who goes because, by all sensible standards, O'Malley on the left should be gone by now. He's pulling just three percent of the vote. On the right, there are five candidates I can name who should, by all rights, be gone: Gilmore, Kasich, Fiorina, Bush and Santorum.

I name Bush instead of Rand Paul because Bush has the baggage of his family behind him. His father lied to us, 'Read my lips...' and his brother dragged us into a war that many said we should never have gotten into. Regardless of the legitimacy of the war, we did manage to further destabilize an already unstable region of the world. Not a good track record for that family name, and I doubt that Bush III would be much different in his policies than his brother or his father. I also look at Bush III and compare him to Bush II and Bush I and see a much weaker individual. Not what we need at this time.

I happen to like a lot of what Rand Paul stands for. Not all of it, but enough of it that I'd like to see him keep going for a while, and keep talking about things like auditing the Federal Reserve and fiscal conservatism.

As for Fiorina, I like her. I think she's smart bordering on brilliant in some respects. She's clear in her messaging, but it's just not going to fly for her given her baggage with her time at Hewlett-Packard, and I think she has a name recognition problem. Do I see her in Washington? Sure, as the head of the Department of Commerce or another cabinet position, but I'm sure Donald has other ideas (and probably better).

So, who's it going to be after the Iowa dust settles?

On the Right, I hope it's Trump because I like the idea of someone not tied to and bound by the Washington cartels. I also really like the fact that Trump has a broad background of managing and running things.

In the last days running up to the caucuses, Cruz really blew it. He stooped to one of the sleaziest and most misleading methods to get people out to the polls by stuffing Iowan's mailboxes with this:

Intimidating? Yeah, I would say so. And, at first glance, for an older voter who is easily confused or someone unsophisticated or less educated, it could really be fear inducing. Which is where the sleaze factor comes in. Engendering fear in order to garner votes is nothing less than disgusting.

Before this cheap stunt, I would have said that Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to Trump because of his hard-core conservatism. Now, with this, huh uh. No thanks. It's low, cheap, seedy, despicable... Pick your pejorative because this kind of ploy is not how politics should work. This is not a shining example for How To Win an Election. All it is is a low-down intimidating trick of the worst sort and it paints the entire right-of-center field in a bad way.

Now, going into New Hampshire, he will be dragging the baggage of in Iowa Secretary of State investigation. I'll say it again: despicable, and it smacks of desperation. It sure as heck isn't going to play well in other places as the election cycle draws on. I don't like it, and I imagine a lot of other people don't like it.

However, in listening to the talking heads across the networks last night, it seems as if this isn't the first time something like this has been done.

Apparently, Obama did it in 2008, and Rubio did it this time around. Maybe the locals are used to it. Nonetheless, it's still sleazy and underhand.

On the Left, I hope to heaven it's Bernie in Iowa. I do, really, because of that little indictment issue dangling over Hilliary's head. This would get a whole lot more interesting if Berns wins and she comes second, because it already looks like Berns is a shoo-in up in New Hampshire. That would leave the DNC with a problem. Keep pushing Hilliary with two early losses, despite that increasingly likely indictment (if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire, I do think the DNC is going to sacrifice her), or cut their losses and move in with someone else - Biden / Warren or Warren / Biden?

Now they might wait until after Nevada and South Carolina on February 20th, but if it looks like Comey is going to move, they might not.

Nonetheless, it's going to be an interesting day followed by an interesting month. Settle into your seats and hang onto your popcorn, folks. It's going to be an exciting ride!

Best~
Philippa

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

Fox + Chickens = Kerfuffle

Kerfuffle. I love that word. Such a silly word. It makes me think of:

Last week we had the kerfuffle over Trump and Fox News and the debate and the aftermath and now it's over. All done.

Fox had its debate sans Trump.

Trump had his vet's event sans Fox.

CNN tried to chart the middle path, talking about the debate sans Trump while showing Trump's event sans Fox. It was amusing, to say the least.

Then there were those all week declaring, 'It's because Trump is afraid of Megyn Kelly!' which is laughable. C'mon, what woman who wants to be taken as a serious professional allows pictures like this to escape:

I mean, unless she's a member of the Oldest Profession or a lingerie model for Victoria's Secret, that is not professional.

Now don't get me wrong - I think she's a beautiful woman, smart as a tack (most of the time) and a capable news talking head. But for Trump to be afraid of a piece of smart, eye-candy? Gimme a break.

I think what gets under Donald's skin with this one is the fact that he's got a thing for blonde women but this blonde woman won't give him the time of day. That's just me, speculating.

Whatever.

And while all of this is going on, Hilliary Clinton and Obie-One are playing peek-a-boo (or peep-bo if you're from the UK) with James Comey and the FBI.

Hilliary is running around shouting at the top of her lungs, "I didn't do anything wrong!" (Sounds a bit Bill-ish to me).

Which, of course, continued to be an open question because of a certain little blue dress and a little thing called 'impeachment'.

In Hilliary's case, we have a smoking gun in the form of e-mails collected from her server. Some of those are so sensitive that they cannot be released to the people investigating this mess.

Now someone at my work asked, "Why is this so important?" My jaw just about hit my desk because, to me, it's obvious. Then again, I worked for a government contractor and saw first-hand how seriously they take this stuff.

No non-employees could walk anywhere - not even to the bathroom - without an escort. Every employee had not just a badge, but a badge with their picture on it. When I signed up to work there, I got verbal warnings and written warnings which I had to sign. Dead-serious non-disclosure agreement, which I had to sign. Warnings everywhere that if I handled anything for that contracting company and it made it out the door in any way, I could be fired and I could be prosecuted and sent to jail. And that was at the mud on the bottom of the ocean floor level of heirarchy.

Then we have Hilliary, swimming up near the top of that ocean, blithely going about transferring data, highly secret and sensitive data, to an unsecured - i.e, non-encrypted, not securely protected from tampering or hacking or anything else - computer. It's like posting national secrets on a gmail account.

And the data probably contains information gathered in hot-spots around the world. Perhaps even messages to and from Chris Stevens, the late ambassador to Libya who was killed at Benghazi because Hilliary and Obie-One couldn't be arsed to either provide more protection or withdraw him and his staff.

So all of this is out there on something no better than a gmail server. And the Chinese and the Iranians and India and North Korea and everybody else probably tripped over it as they were collecting sigint (signal intelligence = electronic intelligence) as they do all the time.

Perhaps, at first, they couldn't believe anyone like the Secretary of State would be so woefully stupid as to do this, so maybe they passed over it. Then again, maybe not.

And in those e-mails are twenty-two that, if rumor has it right, have the capacity of endangering people's lives.

People take great risk for belief and patriotism and, if they believe the United States will help them or their family or community or country, they sometimes work up the courage to talk. Then, once they do, they live in constant fear of being found out. Thus, the need for tightly secured, highly protected servers. Except if you're Hilliary Clinton and are either blithely stupid or think that you're bigger and more important than some little guy in Iran who just took a head-shot for passing information.

On Friday, Obie-One met with Berns, privately. Now there's all sorts of interesting speculation about that. Doesn't seem like Obie-One and Berns are bestest buddies since this get-together was notable. I doubt they were comparing calendars for lunch or a golf date. No, I suspect it was one of three things:

1) Shut up about the e-mails. We have enough trouble with those and don't need you stirring the pot.

2) I have to recommend that Lynch lynches Hilliary and passes down an indictment, but we're still not giving you the nomination - that's going to go to Joe and Liz.

3) Both of the above.

See, Obie-one, because of his faithful Sycophant of State, is in an untenable position. He's in the last year of Legacy Building. Will his legacy be one of setting politicians and their appointees above the law by giving Hilliary a pass?

Well, that flies in the face of the Constitution and the guarantee contained in the Preamble - the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal'. There is no provision anywhere in the Founding documents for government officials being treated differently or with greater preference under the law than regular folks.

Another point, one which would be just as damning, is if he doesn't let Lynch lynch Hilliary. If he gives both a pass, he is likely to have James Comey and half the FBI leadership stand up and walk out on him. And Comey is not a push-over. Comey threatened to do this once before, and I believe he meant it. Comey is a law and order guy who sees purely in shades of black and white / legal and illegal.

So, does Obie-One's legacy stand as a president who effectively pardoned a traitor to the country by not permitting an indictment and had a revolt at the top law enforcement agency as a result? Yeah, that'll look good in the history books.

He's a politically savvy guy who's entire life has been spent looking out for himself, his position and how he is perceived among the people. He is purely self-serving when it comes to stuff like that, and now he's being tested. He is caught between a rock - his pride and dream of what his legacy will look like - and a hard place - those Elites behind the scene that pull the string of Obie-One and every other politician in Washington.

They probably don't want to see Hilliary indicted. They're probably furious with Obie-One and Hilliary for creating this mess, but they need and want Hilliary in the Oval Office to further their agenda.

What is Obie going to do? Cave and let Hilliary take a pass and see his golden legacy turn black with tarnish, or...

Wait! Cavalry trumpets in the distance! It's Joe and Liz to the rescue! We can toss Hilliary to the wolves, let her take her lumps and pay the price in some cushy place, but keep the agenda of the Elites alive and well - we'll bring out Biden and Warren and dust them off and thrust them into the fray. Sure! That sounds like a plan.

After all, Biden went to great lengths a few months ago to say that he wouldn't be running and why. Now, more recently, he's making noises about how he 'regrets it every day' that he's not running. Uh huh. Yeah. Probably began regretting it since that 0200 phone call that said 'it's looking bad for Hil so you'd best be ready to pony up and ride, son.'

We'll find out. It depends on how things play out in the next week or so.

Obie-One and his puppet masters can't wait too long. If Berns does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, well enough to bring into question the eventual outcome of the election later this year, they might pull Hilliary, toss the indictment at her, and shove Joe and Liz into the limelight in her place.

Now that's guaranteed to piss off the liberal base because there are people out there clamoring for Hilliary and her ovaries (her sole qualification for the job as far as I can see) to run this place. If she's yanked and yet another bland white man is shoved in front of them, game over. The Ovary Voters will stay home, Bernie's voters will push him along, coupled with defectors from the Ovary Class, Trump will take Biden apart one bit at a time (the man is a Gaffe Disaster and a moron) and the Democrats will have a right mess on their hands.

If Berns runs the table after New Hampshire, how can the Dems not give him the nomination? But they don't want to, because he, like The Donald, doesn't take money from the Elites (aka special interests). That means that if either one of those two win, the Elites no longer have control over the White House - for at least four years.

I love politics - from the outside. Have a wonderful day!

Best~
Philippa

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

Yak Doo & Brussels Sprouts

I know not many people like Brussels sprouts. They are pungent - kind of like what I would imagine yak droppings to look and smell like. Not that I've ever seen or smelled yak droppings. We don't have many yaks around here, in Northern California. It's just... me, my weird and wunnerful imagination. What can I say?

But I do like Brussels sprouts - roasted with a little olive oil, some balsamic vinegar and white pepper. They're flavorful and stinky and just plain good.

I also like mushrooms and some people don't like those, either. Hubby and Daughter, for instance. They won't go near them, but I add them to everything I can think of. Except ice cream and yogurt. They don't go so well with dairy, unless you're adding them to an omelet.

Why am I talking about this stuff? Probably because I'm eating Brussels sprouts as I write this and probably because the last time I roasted the sprouts I experimented and added quartered mushrooms to them. Those didn't turn out so well. Overdone and a bit rubbery so I won't make that mistake again.

In other news, I watched the Iowa townhall for the three Democrat candidates last night. What a waste of an evening that was!

Okay, I got to see Bernie and listen to him. The entire concept of his campaign: "If it moves, tax it".

One question for him was about expanding Obamacare to a single-payer system. That is something near and dear to his heart. How he would pay for it? Simps:

1) Eliminate private insurers.
2) Increase the tax on every person in this country by $5,000 + the $10,000 average cost of premium and deductibles to pay for it so every single person would pay $15,000 in taxes to pay for the coverage.

I don't know about you, but $15,000 per year per person in my household would be more than my take-home salary. To pay for his dream I would be taxed about 110% of my earnings. How does that work? I don't get to eat? I can't pay to get to and from work? I can't pay my property taxes?

What he didn't say is that that wouldn't be enough because there are a lot of people who receive subsidized premiums - they don't earn enough so don't have to pay a penny, which means that people who do earn enough also have to carry the freight for those who don't. Yeah, that sounds fair (NOT!).

He's an idiot. I knew it before and he confirmed it in spades last night.

He also wants to tax "Wall Street speculation". Well, guess what that is. That would be your 401k or Keough or other investment accounts.

See above to my opinion of that idea.

Hilliary looked and sounded more desperate than usual and it seems she might have reason.

Hubby was awake at 0300 this morning and was checking on the markets (it's his passion, so he looks anytime he's up in the middle of the night) and there was a new poll out. Seems Hilliary's poll numbers have dropped again.

As far as O'Malley - he of the <1% poll numbers - I don't even know what he was doing there. A poster child of "Vote for Me!" and no ideas or findable positions.

It was pathetic and, as I said, a waste of an evening.

What I'm looking forward to is the GOP debate Thursday night. That should be interesting because the divisions are widening and the differences are more apparent. I just wish they would get rid of Kasich and Bush and Carson and leave the field between the front runners so they can get a better shot at explaining their positions. Rubio doesn't have a chance. His campaign is almost in full meltdown, like Bush's and Kasich's, but he does have a pulse so I'd leave him in. The others, though. Nope, DOA.

I do like Ben Carson, I really like and admire the man. I just don't see him as presidential. I can't see him making hard and fast decisions on crucial issues. He doesn't strike me as a strong leader. I think he'd be too nice to be a strong leader, willing to piss people off if he solidly believes the course he wants to follow is the right one. I also can't see him being an effective negotiator, and that's what we really need. We have got to have someone capable of getting all parties into a room, sitting down, finding common ground and building a coalition. I don't see Carson in that role.

Having Cruz and Rubio in the White House is pure insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Deal making and negotiating is something Trump has done his entire adult life. He's good at it, so let's give him a shot. Hell, we can't be much worse off than we are now.

Yes, they have their followers. Yes, they are getting numbers. But the numbers aren't meaningful. Four percent? Really?

Anyway, enough of that stuff. I'm going to go finish my Brussels sprouts (aka yak doo) and my lunch.

You have a lovely day!

Best~
Philippa

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

Uh oh....

I think I just pissed off a bunch of people. I... uh... I spoke my mind, said what I really think. D'ya think they'll be mad at me?

See, there's a thread over on the writer's forum I belong to. It's political and unapologetic about the Left and Bernie Sanders and stuff. In response to someone over there I checked out Bern's voting record. Good ol' Bernie voted against high-paying, long-term jobs several times. Construction jobs and energy sector jobs through about a dozen states that would have employed at least many hundreds of people. Perhaps several thousands of people.

But, no. It was "environmentally" bad - despite the fact that the energy industry, by the very nature of its business and the current political environment has got to be more sensitive to what's good and bad for the ecosystem than just about any other industry. They are overseen by so many different watchdog groups and government agencies their employees can't sneeze without a permit in triplicate. Still, Keystone was a non-starter - even though it would have employed tens of thousands of people during its construction. Site workers, truck drivers, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, entire industries would have seen a boon and a boom. He voted against it more than once.

Anyway. Over on that thread, the conversation drifted (abruptly) to "choice" and abortion. The subject of partial birth abortion came up. This is a subject guaranteed to light a fire under those sittin' bones I mentioned the other day. Of all of the things people do to one another, this has got to be the most heinous, evil... words fail. There are no words to express how I feel about this... abomination.

In a partial birth abortion the child is developed enough that it has a heartbeat. It's brain is nearly fully developed. It feels pain. It can hear. It is only days or weeks away from being able to survive outside its mother's body. The subject of whether it is developed enough to have a sense of 'self' is a discussion to have with God or whatever creator or non-entity you choose, but it is ALIVE. It is living. Yet, for whatever reason, it is forcibly "torn" from its safe haven and killed in the most heinous, disgusting and cruel way I can think of.

Okay. Not the most heinous, disgusting and cruel way - being burned alive tops this abomination, but it's so close it makes no difference.

And, according to some on that thread and in the general public forum, it's 'Okay' to do this. It's a "choice". It's "just" a choice. Like picking what shoes to wear with the outfit the woman is wearing. It's a choice, like picking which shade of lipstick looks best in this light or with that scarf. What do I want for dinner? Hmmm. Salad, chicken or abortion? Hey! It's "just" a choice, right?

So I described the procedure of late term abortion - partial birth abortion - as I understand it. I described it as graphically as I could given the fact that I could not stomach the idea of reading in detail about what is done. And I probably offended most of the people on that thread but, you know what? I don't really care. Not one skinny little iota really because the subject is important.

Lily-white hands are not possible if you participate in murder, or advocate for murder, because that is what abortion is - at any stage. It's just "more" evil in the late terms, after that child develops to the point where it can feel pain. That child can also hear. It might not understand, but it can hear and it can feel.

And this was easy to write because it is something about which I feel passionately. Think about it. Really think about it and recognize it for what it is: an irrevocable decision that once made cannot be changed or undone.

If it contradicts or goes against your views, so be it. I am not in a position to express or change anyone's mind but my own. I cannot affect the law - an evil, wicked law in my view, from where I sit. It is what it is but it contravenes anything associated with "humanity".

Philippa

What Does Bernie Sanders Want?

You know, looking at this man's approach to the presidential campaign, he scares the crap out of me. Where is his drive? Where is his fire? Where is his competitive nature? What will he be like on the world stage? If he cannot fight for the White House effectively, with determination and steely resolve, just how will he fight for the U.S. position in the world?

He handed Hilliary a pass on the e-mail question during the debate a while back. There was a golden opportunity to strike a pretty significant blow against her, but he backed down. At the time he said "people are sick of Hillary's damn e-mails". Uh, excuse me, Mr. Sanders, but many (most?) of us are not.

This is a major indicator that this woman has no consciousness of national security, of what is secret, why it is so and why it should be kept so. Either she thinks, as Edward Snowden thought, that secrets shouldn't be kept secret or, if it's not that, then she is criminally careless with a laissez-faire attitude toward U.S. interests that's astounding.

The Secretary of State is privy to a lot of sensitive information - data gathered to give us clues and indicators of what's happening below the surface in the arena of world politics. Yet she plays fast and loose with data that might well have been gathered and transmitted at risk to someone's health and safety. Doesn't she get it?

Not all of the data that she or any other SecState sees is gleaned from local news accounts or gossip. Some of it is gathered at some level of risk to the person gathering it. Oftentimes, in that kind of situation, it could well be life or death - a "who's the dirty rat that ratted us out to the Feds? We'll find him and..." To me, that shows a woeful lack of integrity and smarts. She could easily be putting that "rat" who gave us crucial information at a critical time at great risk. Yet she doesn't care, or she doesn't get it, which is actually worse since it shows she has no clue about thinking big picture.

After all if you were Louie's friend and Louie was a rat who ratted out... El Mencho, let's say. Now there's a dream guy. I read a little about him last night. He's a guy who reportedly tied up a father and his teenage son, strapped explosives to them and then detonated the kid in front of his father's eyes, before detonating dad. A real peach of a fellow.

So you are Louie's friend. Louie is discovered to be a rat with a teenage son. You "get" to watch while your friend and your friend's son are blown up in front of you. You happen to have certain knowledge of some horrendous massacre that's being planned and you were thinking of talking to someone about it. What are you going to do now? You think you're going to talk? Hell no! You don't want to go out the way Louie left, or something worse. You're going to keep your head down and your mouth shut and dozens or maybe hundreds of innocent people will die because of it.

That's the problem with Hilliary's approach to security.

Louie got ratted out for ratting and ended up dead. Are you going to take the chance of Hilliary letting something out that points a finger at you, and you get to make a quick trip to Hell as the result? Hardly. It makes it kind of hard to find people willing to help us with learning secrets when they keep ending up dead.

Now, with the GOP candidate attacks on Bill Clinton bringing into question Hilliary's role in shutting down and shutting up the women Bill reportedly assaulted, Bernie is handing her another pass. During a rally on Friday, Bernie said Trump should back off and stop trying to use Bill Clinton to defeat Hilliary. He said, in effect, that Bill's bad behavior has no bearing on Hilliary.

Wrong, Mr. Sanders. Dead wrong. It speaks volumes of both of their characters.

Bill Clinton is scum around women who aren't his wife. He has a long record of groping, fondling, sexually assaulting and, in at least one case, raping women. Through all of that, all of the accusations - the quiet whispers, the news headlines and the press conferences in which he pounded the podium and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (that same woman who's dress was later found to have his semen on it), she never once blew up in public. She never left him, called him out, accused him of being a serial molester or anything.

Fast forward to 2015 and her run for the Oval Office. At a political rally she declared: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed. We’re with you.”

Read what that says, then think about her reaction to Juanita Broaddrick who claims this woman's husband raped her, Kathleen Willey who he molested, Monica Lewinsky who was, apparently, a willing partner, Paula Jones who was at least harassed when he exposed himself to her and demanded sex, and the rest.

Thinking of the 1990's when Clinton was front and center in one sexual accusation and scandal after another, I think The Donald has a valid point.

After all, Hilliary is running on the women's ticket - tossing her ovaries into the ring as a qualifier. Yet, if she really is the woman's candidate, one who is a vocal and upfront fighter for women's rights and dignity, where the hell was she when Juanita Broaddrick came forward and accused Bill Clinton of raping her? Where was she when Kathleen Willey accused him of groping her in the White House? How about Paula Jones and all the others? Does anyone remember Monica Lewinsky?

What self-respecting woman stands by a man who is a serial philanderer and possible rapist? What self-respecting woman doesn't stand up for the rights of other women when they are assaulted? Why didn't she loudly and publicly throw him to the wolves if she's so up for women's rights? Shouldn't this be a universal fight? Or is it that she's only willing to fight for the rights and dignity of select women, women somehow deemed worthy of support?

But that doesn't fit, either. Kathleen Willey worked in the White House. She and her husband were donors to Clinton's campaign. She is, according to Wiki, a former Democrat activist and I'm pretty willing to bet that she is still probably a liberal.

Yet, despite being a Democrat activist there's an ad out there in which Kathleen Willey states the clear truth:

“She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money,” Willey told the American Mirror.

In the article quoted there, there's an outline of an ad that features Kathleen Willey.

In the ad, which is only about 17 seconds long, Hillary Clinton states: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed. We’re with you.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/kathleen-willey-calls-out-lying-pig-hillary/#UEkCTkj2rMHk5bW0.99

Isn't that interesting? Hilliary Clinton says, "I want to send a message... Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard and...believed." Yet she has declared that each one of these women who said they were sexually assaulted by her husband are liars. She has worked hard to discredit them, to get them to shut up and go away. She has stood by her man, the man accused of sexual improprieties and rape, yet she tells women out the other side of her face "you have a right to be believed"? Strains the boundaries of credibility just a bit, doesn't it?

A woman's advocate? Hardly. A hypocrite? Absolutely and unequivocally.

And Bernie is an enabler. By not calling her out and challenging her on using an unsecured e-mail server for classified and highly sensitive documents dealing with U.S. national security matters, he is enabling her. By not calling her out on her hypocrisy about women's rights and dignity, he is an enabler. In that case he's giving Bill Clinton a nudge with the elbow and a wink of "atta boy!" while smiling benignly at the wife who should be outraged but who's not.

It seems based on what I've seen and heard, this man has neither balls nor spine. He isn't interested in winning the White House. I have never before seen a more limp wristed candidate for public office.

It seems to me that his entire appeal is in what he's going to give away. That's the driver behind his popularity - the hand-me-downs from government. Those same hand-me-downs that government can take away by the single stroke of a pen if it needs or wants to do. Then where will this country and its people be?

He's not fighting for it. He's kind of going along to get along, which makes me believe he wants nothing more than the second chair - Veep instead of the throne. There he can promote his agenda without having the stress and pressure of having to be No. 1. He'll let Hilliary and her ovaries do that, along with Bill who will probably take advantage of the situation to harass and demean more women while protected by the Secret Service and his enabling wife.

God, I hope Bernie Sanders wins the Democrat nomination and I hope that someone with balls and spine wins the GOP nomination. That will make for interesting politics leading up to the election.

Best~
Philippa

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

Nope. Not a Curmudgeon. I'm Lewis Carroll's White Rabbit.

Bless my waistcoat and whiskers! I'm late, I'm late! I mean I'm really late - it's eight o'clock at night and I'm just getting started on this.

Last night I watched the Democrat Debate (I refuse to call it the "Democratic Party" because that implies neither the Independents or Republicans or Greens or anyone else are part of a Democratic process). What a bore.

I learned nothing new about anyone, except that Bernie Sanders is woefully unequipped to be President of the United States - unless we change the office from President to Santa Claus, up to and including the bag of freebies.

Let's see... Single-payer healthcare and free college and increased minimum wage - which will also apply to government workers which make up almost fifty percent of the workforce in this day and age. There were so many give-aways I can't remember what they all were, but those stuck.

Now I don't know how you run your household, but if I don't take in enough money to pay for all the nice things I want to have, I can't have all those nice things. Unfortunately for us, government doesn't have that same restriction. They look to us and hold out their hands and legislate that we have to give up more of our hard earned money to pay for the freebies they're giving to someone else. It's called "redistribution of wealth". In a democratic republic such as ours, that should be illegal. It's highway robbery, theft, and there's no really nice way to call it what it is. Unfortunately, the politicians talk over and around it and here we are.

Oh, wait! I did learn that Bernie Sanders is either naive, stupid or both. His comment about Putin "regretting" going into the Ukraine and Crimea was ridiculous, at best. Putin knows precisely why he's in the Crimea. It's the same reason Russia tried to overrun the Crimea about a hundred-fifty years ago. It's a warm-water port with unfettered access to the Mediterranean, along with the oil and gas and provides a secure and easily protected naval port.

So Bernie hasn't a clue and cannot extrapolate potentials even when they're laid out right in front of him.

Besides, can you seriously imagine Bernie Sanders or Hilliary Clinton going toe-to-toe with Vladimir Putin?

I mean, really. Can you see this:

or this:

going up and winning against this:

If there was a confrontation over something important, who among these three people do you think would come out on top? Look at their faces. Sanders looks desperate. Hilliary looks like a fanatic (and no, this was not the least flattering picture I found). Vlad looks confident and determined.

BTW - if you want to see one of the worst pictures of Hilliary I found, there's this:

So - between Bernie, Hill and Vlad, who would win? Particularly since Hilliary, in all her time as Secretary of State, has accomplished zip, zero, zilch, nada-thing.

You don't agree? Okay. Name one thing in international circles she did that was and is a sustained success.

Did she bring about peace in the Middle East? No.

Did she resolve the issues between Israel and the PLO? No.

How about between Iran and Israel? No.

Did she bring about change in the laws in Saudi Arabia when it comes to women? No.

Did she get China to sign and keep to the Climate Change deal the UN wanted? No.

Did she manage Benghazi? Hell no. Even in the weeks leading up to it when the people on the ground there were begging for help she denied it or ignored their requests. Then, when push came to shove, her boss sat on his thumbs and did a 'numunah, numunah, numunah' indecisive dance until the matter resolved itself. The fact that four people lost their lives didn't and doesn't seem to matter one speck to either of them.

Okay, yeah, she traveled a lot. And she lied. Remember the gunfire in Kosovo? The time she claimed that she and Chelsea had to run for cover? That was then proved to be a flat-out baldfaced lie she tried to defend by saying she was 'tired'.

And there are the national security e-mails no one wants to talk about. The ones that were probably hacked and read and acted upon by the Chinese and half the rest of the world. But that's okay. Our national security must take a backseat to Hilliary's convenience and laziness. God damn! It's so hard to live, act and work by the rules that have been put in place over the past 100 years or so in order to make sure that state secrets stay secret.

So, no. I was not impressed last night. I learned nothing new. Just saw the same pandering idiots doing what they do: Pandering to the masses. Promising free stuff to all and sundry in exchange for votes so they can then shrug their shoulders, spread their hands and said, "Sorry, folks, it's Congress."

It's BS and I'm disgusted. Which is why I like Trump.

Yes, the man is a blow-hard. Yes, he's rude, loud-mouthed and boorish. But you know what? He says what he means and doesn't care what people think. Which is fine. We've had namby-pamby and nice and look where that's gotten us.

Trump has spent his entire adult life negotiating with people, probably who didn't much like him or who he didn't like, but with whom he needed to strike a deal in order to get what he wanted done.

None of the other candidates on either side of the line have that skill to the same degree The Donald has.

And, if it came to it, I think this:

Could take on that:

The same determination, the same grit, and I think The Donald is someone who could actually garner at least grudging respect from someone like Vlad.

The Donald has management experience. He knows how to organize large-scale operations. He's not obligated to donors or lobbyists. He's clean, as far as debts to special interests go. Which cannot be said of any of the other candidates, at all.

So, no. I was not impressed with last night's debate. It was boring as hell, boring as watching grass grow (at least with paint you can get a high off the residual fumes).

Now we'll see what happens in the next few months. Obviously the Shadow Bankers and the Power Brokers have decided Hilliary will be the next President if they can manage it. That way their power won't be impacted. Things won't change at all from what's been. At best, Bernie will be offered the Vice Presidency so he'll have a lower Bully Pulpit from which he can toss out candy to the masses and keep the masses happy.

However, The Donald might just manage to upset their apple cart. If he gets elected, it will be interesting to see how things play out. PACs, special interests and lobbyists won't be able to just pick up the phone and demand that The Donald do whatever they want him to do. They don't have the leverage on him they have on the others.

Whatever. We'll see what will develop in the next few months.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy watching the drama play out.

Best~
Philippa

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

I Do Not Like Bernie Sanders, But He Got One Thing Right

Yesterday I posted information about Bernie Sanders relative to Donald Trump and the Fox debate of Thursday night.

In the little reading I did about Sanders (I don't need to do a lot because I will never vote for a self-declared socialist), I found his voting record.

He is wildly liberal by my standards - not particularly thoughtful and deliberative in what he says yes to. Based on his record, I think, economically and politically, the man is dangerous and short-sighted.

For instance, when the American voter needed jobs because of the recession we've been in since 2007, he voted three times against the XL Keystone Pipeline. That project would have created thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of jobs by its construction, its maintenance through all of the states through which it would run, and ancillary jobs in companies impacted by its existence.

There would have been the construction crews, the design firms, the local agencies with jurisdictional oversight. And that's just during construction. You can pretty well be sure that each segment of that line, perhaps as much as two or three hundred miles but probably no more, would have required a maintenance staff - probably three shifts, 24/7 to prevent against breakdown or failure. What about the pipe companies? The valve and fitting jobs that would have been created and would have been needed going forward? There would be pump companies, and lubricant manufacturers, repair services for the pipeline and the equipment used to service it. Good grief!

Yeah. He's really looking out for the best interests of the people. Yessiree bob, those votes had nothing to do with the environment. People are first and foremost in his consideration.

He voted against permitting the reconstruction of infrastructure - bridges, roadways, etc. - after a natural disaster to the original specifications without environmental review.

That one is jaw dropping if you stop and think about what that might mean. Let's follow that one logically through a hypothetical construct.

There's an earthquake. It's massive and damages the San Francisco Bay Bridge so badly it can't be used. Tens of thousands of people - commuters and business delivery drivers - cross that bridge every single day.

Instead of permitting the bridge to be re-built to the original specifications, following the same environmental standards as at the time of construction, it would require new environmental review.

That, the drafting of the documents explaining the project, why it's needed, what steps will be taken to prevent environmental harm, the public hearings and community meetings, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (one year process), Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (minimum one year process, often longer) and all the permitting, review, design revisions because of the changes required through the DEIR and EIR processes would cost tens of millions of dollars more. Worse, is that the key link between the East Bay and San Francisco would be closed for probably a decade, if it ever reopened, at all.

What impacts would that have on the environment? People wanting or needing to get to San Francisco would have to drive far around to get to where they need or want to be. Gasoline, air pollution, congestion, parking, everything the liberal left decries would be significantly impacted, in exactly the wrong way.

Let's take that bridge and move it anywhere in the country. How about New York? One of their bridges collapses, or the Lincoln Tunnel or... It's the same problem, no matter where you put it.

The man's thoughtless. He doesn't weigh and consider stuff like that - those are a few examples. There are others, but then this would go on forever, so I'll leave it there.

He also seems, a bit strangely, to have voted for Second Amendment legislation. He's not necessarily a card carrying member of the National Rifle Association, but he does appear to have a pretty solid record voting for gun rights.

When the Brady Bill came up in the Senate, he voted no.

When legislation came up that would allow the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting to sue the gun manufacturer, he voted no.

Now I don't pretend to know what was in his mind. Was he thinking broadly of the doors that would open, or was he genuinely protecting businesses that happen to manufacture firearms? I don't know, but thank God he voted no!

The insanity of that legislation, all emotion to the side, is staggering.

Let's say it had passed. The doors would have been opened and it would have probably bankrupted the companies that make firearms.

From there, it could well have allowed me to sue Toyota.

I was on the freeway a couple of years ago when I was slammed into by a Toyota pick-up truck. This was the result:

That used to be the trunk of my Ford Taurus sedan. After that, I was hauled off to the hospital in an ambulance, spent four hours in the ER so they could make sure I really wasn't injured, and then sent me home.

Had I been seriously injured by that Toyota, under the open-ended legislation proposed in response to Sandy Hook, I could have sued Toyota. Their car, in the hands of an idiot, caused me harm.

That's the logic the folks who proposed the Sandy Hook legislation followed.

In that mentality, if you or I play sports and someone does something stupid and you or I get injured, we don't sue the guy or gal that injured us. No! They get of Scot free to do the same again to someone else. We go after the company that makes the product that was used.

If it puts the company out of business, if dozens or hundreds or thousands of people directly or indirectly impacted by that business closing lose their jobs and health insurance, so?

It's a well-intended but remarkably stupid idea.

He also voted for a so-called "Minimum Wage Fairness Act" and a "Paycheck Fairness Act".

Something people do not seem to understand about minimum wage, is that it is the entry level wage. The wage people are paid when they first start working, before they have knowledge, experience and a background in their field. It is not fixed. It is not permanent. It is temporary. The equivalent of <0.1% of the employee's entire working life assuming they start when they're eighteen or twenty and work until they're sixty or so.

I'll explain what I mean if you follow me here, okay?

You own a business. It's not a huge, multi-national conglomerate. It's a small business making enough to support you and your family in some comfort. You're not driving a luxury car or living in a mansion. You simply get enough income to maintain a solid middle class lifestyle and send your kids to college, put something away for retirement.

In your business you have, let's say, nine employees. In your business you have a new position.

Some greenhorn, wet-behind-the-ears know-nothing reports for her/his first day of work. S/he has no knowledge of the business, of the job, or of anything. That is entry level. It is the one and only entry level position that person will ever hold. Even if they go to another company, even one in a completely different industry, they are no longer an 'entry level worker'. They have work experience, a track record they can put on a resume.

With even some college education - junior or community college qualifies - that person will almost certainly never earn a minimum wage, even assuming they never hold a job until they're nineteen or twenty years old. Employers pay for smart people, and smart people - proven with at least some success in meaningful college courses - don't start at rock-bottom minimum wage.

That is predominately the wage paid for teenage workers - those who are still living at home with the support of Mom and Dad, or Mom or Dad or whatever.

If you start a job in your twenties and you are only taking a minimum wage position, there is something seriously wrong with that picture. What did you do during all those learning years, the teenage years? Sit on your ass and play video games? Shit! In my opinion, if you wasted your time like that, you don't deserve a 'living' wage because you sure as shootin' haven't been 'living'.

So - there's this seventeen year old kid, living at home, anxious to earn some money so they can do whatever. To this point you, the employer, have already invested time, which equals money since the you had to advertise the position. Craig's list charges $75 per ad. The people you employ are screening the candidates and interviewing them, and checking their paperwork and references. Doing those things means they're not doing their usual work, unless you own a business large enough and stable enough to have an in-house HR department.

You've hired them, after spending hours of time in screenings and interviews. Now you're about to invest more time, which equals money, training them.

To offset the cost of training this brand new, wet-behind-the-ears greenhorn, you're paying them an entry level wage with the expectation, typically 90 days or six months, that there will be a performance review.

If s/he does well on the job during the training period, s/he will probably get a raise. Perhaps five percent. It's not huge, but it's more than minimum wage. Six months later, or maybe a year later, they'll get another review and, if they're still performing well, another raise.

If they're not cutting it, they might not get that increase, but that tells everybody this person needs to pay closer attention and work harder to meet the mark set by you, the boss.

If they don't want to try harder, or if the employee thinks they're doing everything right but the boss (you) is a jerk, the employee has a choice.

They can stay there, in that job, making at or near minimum wage, or they can start looking for something else, take their skills and knowledge they've acquired elsewhere. Because of the experience you, the employer, helped them acquire, they are now experienced to some greater or lesser degree. They are no longer green as grass and have some skills to take with them.

But you, the employer, does not want them to leave. You're probably still in the financial hole from the hiring and training process. You've made an investment in this and you want that person to stick around so you don't dig yourself deeper by doing the advertising / screening / interviewing / hiring / training cycle all over again.

So what's this 'financial hole'? It's not just the wage that's paid, folks. It's workman's compensation insurance premiums, payroll taxes: state disability, social security (yes, employers pay this too, for every single employee they have on the payroll), Medicare, state and federal unemployment taxes, along with the cost of managing the payroll system so that employee gets a paycheck.

Roughly 10% of every dollar paid out to the employee in wages is paid out of the employer's pocket to cover all of the various fees, assessments, taxes, levies, liens and all the rest of it. Never mind the overhead costs of lights and heat and cooling and water and rent and... Those are all extra.

Hiring and employing people is expensive. Hiring skilled people is slightly less so. The wages and assessments are higher, but the employer gets a bigger bang for their buck - meaning that the less skilled worker actually costs more to employ. Lower skilled workers require more intense training. Thus the lower wage paid that helps to offset the lack of experience, skill, knowledge.

Yet, if we take the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour, or $0.73 per hour in cost to the employer, and jump it to $15 as some jurisdictions have done, you add $1.50 per hour to that employee's wage, even though s/he has no knowledge, experience or skill in their job.

But they're hired, which means you're committed to training them. So you assign someone who makes, perhaps $18 per hour training someone making $15 per hour. That's $33 more per hour that you, as the employer, have to make up in goods sold or products produced. That $18 per hour employee is not being as efficient or productive as they normally are because their attention is divided. Plus you have to cover that rough 10% of taxes and fees for both employees, jumping that $33 per hour to $36.30 that needs to be made up.

Businesses are not charities. They cannot survive paying a "fair" wage or "Paycheck Fairness" nonsense.

Women take more time off than men. It's a fact. Why? Because we're the ones who get pregnant and need to see the doctor. We're the ones who get three weeks of leave, paid by the employer, and who need more time off for well-baby checks and kid sicknesses and all the rest of it.

The vast majority of fathers don't take the same amount of time off that mothers do. It's a simple fact.

It's not that women are less valuable in the workplace. It's just that, while we're raising our families, women are the ones who are primarily responsible for taking care of the kids. Which means we're not there taking care of our employer's business.

So that's where Bernie Sanders is an idiot. But at least he's sensible enough to know that allowing people to sue because someone uses a manufactured good to cause harm isn't smart.

Now, despite my politics and your thoughts and feelings on what I've said, I do hope you have a lovely day.

Best~
Philippa

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