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

No, kids. Donald Trump is NOT! a Misogynist

The biggest lie being thrown around the airwaves this election season is that Trump 'hates women'. That whopper is back in the news again because he openly despises one woman. Just one with whom he's picked a running feud. Again, because of that one, he is being painted as hating 'all' women. It's disgusting and it's wrong but the liberal left and the media keep spewing this nonsense like a torrent of wastewater from a sewage plant.

I know where it comes from. It comes from the fact that the man is outspoken and words that should stay 'inside' fall out and become quotes.

If he doesn't respect you - man or woman - he is not going to pretend he does. He's too fundamentally honest to hold back and not say what's on his mind. He is not capable of filtering his thoughts, guarding his opinions and speaking only what is palatable to the listener.

My observations are that if you're an idiot of either gender, he'll tell you. If you're not meeting expectations - no exception given for gender - he'll tell you.

In other words, he appears to treat men and women the same, without exception. Except for Megyn Kelly, but that's something else again.

Putting Kelly aside, the problem with this even-handed approach is that while women screech at the top of their lungs that they want to be treated equally, when someone (a man) doesn't hold back his opinion of them, they slap on the GENDER VICTIM label and start shrieking that this big bad man is mean.

It's disgusting and a case in point is the recent dust-up with the Breitbart female.

I saw that video. I saw it over-and-over-and-over again because the media wanted to make another mountain out of an anthill.

What I did not see in that clip is that she 'almost fell', as was claimed. She was moved to the side, but I did not see a stumble, an arm thrown out for balance or anyone leaping forward to catch her. She was moved to the side because she was standing in the way. End of story. Except for the bruises. But those could also be explained by a medical condition - hypothyroidism, for instance. People who have hypothyroidism tend to bruise very easily. Other conditions and some medications (Coumadin / Warfarin) predispose people to bruising. So give me a break, honey. I don't buy it. You're a woman who was *GASP!!!!* touched by a man without your explicit permission and you threw the GENDER VICTIM card.

Give me a break and grow up.

Either you want to be equal - and that means accepting whatever it is that's being dished because if the person doing the dishing is as rude and unpleasant to their gender peers as they are to the opposite sex, they are treating you equally - or you don't. You can take exception to what they say and how they say it, but don't go slapping on that worthless label and screaming at the top of your lungs the guy's a bastard for saying what he thinks.

Tackle him on his own terms, refute what he's said about you and make it stick, or walk away. Throwing yourself into the crowd and blubbering that you've just been victimized may get a bunch of people feeling sorry for you, but it demeans you not the bastard who called you a moron.

If you're not a big grown-up person capable of standing up to a bully, you don't deserve my respect. Sorry, but that's the standard. I have been bullied all my life - first by a brother and then by my husband. Through it all, having lived that, I eventually learned to step outside of myself and to look at myself as objectively as I was able through the eyes of colleagues and peers whom I respect. They said good things about me, about my person and my work and they helped me to learn my value. I learned to stop labeling myself VICTIM just because someone says something horrible to or about me. Now when someone says something cruel or demeaning I stop. I pause to look inside, to my core, and to evaluate what's been said against what I know to be true. Knowing my worth means the bully has no power over me. S/he can say what they want and it might sting, but in the end, it's my opinion about myself that matters most.

Because of that, because I am that strong, The Donald is a running joke when he says silly things about someone he doesn't respect.

I don't care that he despises Megyn Kelly. That's their problem, between them. That does not mean that he hates all women, and anyone who says it does just proves to me the point that a lot of people are morons.

It's like saying I'm a 'vegsogynist' because I will not eat eggplant or purple cabbage. I like other vegetables - almost all of them, but I am prejudiced against purple vegetables. Does that mean that I'm evil or wrong because I don't like eggplant or purple cabbage? No. I think we can agree that it's acceptable for me not to like purple vegetables.

So why should it be any different between people? Are we supposed to like everyone we cross paths with? Good lord! How boring would that be? Yeah - let's fall into that Utopian lock-step of '1984' where no one has individual thoughts or feelings.

A lot of people like Megyn Kelly. A number of people don't. I find her presentation annoying. She tends toward the melodramatic in some of her reporting - the cadence and tenor of her voice changes - and her voice gets screechy when she's worked up about something. That's irritating. Like fingernails on a blackboard irritating, and I don't find it appealing. Does this make me a misogynist? No. It means I don't like watching Megyn Kelly.

I don't like Carly Fiorna, either. She has this head-bob thing that she does when she talks and it bugs the hell out of me. I like what she had to say when she was campaigning. I think she's an extremely smart woman. But I don't like watching her because of that bobblehead move she does. Does that make me a woman-hater? No. It means I can't watch Carly Fiorna when she talks.

Why can't Donald Trump not like someone? Why does his openly not liking one person make him an entirety of something else? What other women has he slammed? Help me out.

I've already posted about the women he championed long before it became the norm to promote women through the glass ceiling. Here's the post from back in January:

Oh Just Grow A Pair Already

Which explains why I don't get it.

Apparently, he is not allowed to like or dislike particular people - a standard to which others aren't held.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that you like everyone you've ever known? That you have never once in your entire life met someone you didn't like, someone you came to despise through contact and who you think is an idiot? No one? Then I would say you need to get out more, or you need to pass whatever it is that you're smoking so we can all share.

I don't care what the media pinheads say about him. I am smart enough, strong enough for form my own opinions and I do not think that this lie holds water.

So, there you have it. Donald Trump is not a misogynist no matter what the print press, Fox News and other media pinheads want us to believe.

Have a wonderful day.

Best~
Philippa

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